I know that a lot of you have been eagerly awaiting details on these plans and I’m very excited to show you all what we have been working on and start receiving feedback from the wider community. This is going to be a very long dev blog, but we here at CCP believe that Sov is a big deal that deserves to be discussed thoroughly.
There are actually two connected dev blogs being released this afternoon, both of which are worth reading:
We know that when changing a system as complex and competitive as Nullsec Sovereignty, it is very important to provide adequate time to incorporate feedback and get the changes right. We have been discussing these designs in detail with the Council of Stellar Management for a little over a month now and we are releasing these dev blogs early so that we can get the crucial public feedback process started as soon as possible. Our current plan is to release Phase Two of the Nullsec and Sovereignty revamp in June 2015. We’ll be listening and working closely with the community from now until then to incorporate feedback and ensure that the changes we release represent the best possible update to Sovereignty gameplay.
Of course like everything in game development, these dates are open to change and we’ll be taking full advantage of our rapid release schedule to ensure that these changes are released as soon as they are ready.
I’m sure many of you are already skipping down to look at the new mechanics, but before we talk about implementation I think it’s important to review the clearly defined goals our game design team had for the new system.
This goal forms the core of what we want to accomplish with Phase Two. We have released many changes over the past few years that have focused on Nullsec income, industry and resources, and those changes have been very successful. However the gameplay surrounding conquering and defending space has not changed significantly since 2009 and this is the area where we see the most opportunity for improvement.
It’s absolutely key that Sovereignty warfare provide exciting gameplay and opportunities for significant contributions by all the players involved. Players from coalition leaders to line members and everyone in between should be able to look forward to the gameplay surrounding defending their home or invading their neighbors.
We hope to achieve this goal by rebuilding EVE’s Sov warfare mechanics to emphasize the best aspects such as strategic planning, empire building and dynamic PVP engagements, while minimizing the less exciting parts of the gameplay. We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponent’s boredom, so our new system must be built around a core of engaging competitive gameplay.
It is vital that the core mechanics involved in taking space be easily understood and flow logically. The best multiplayer game systems involve simple mechanics that combine with competing player interests to generate complex and unpredictable results. Sovereignty must be one of these systems.
We hope to achieve this goal by focusing on an easily understood core game system that encourages player interaction and conflict. Unlike the Dominion Sovereignty system with its intertwined structures and states, the different structures in our new Sovereignty system operate independently to keep each structure simple and to give players freedom to choose their own priorities.
One major flaw of the current Dominion Sovereignty system is that the use of structure hitpoint grinding forces players to use huge numbers of players or colossal capital ships to fight over space, even when they would otherwise prefer to work in smaller units. This also creates an artificial floor on the size of alliances or coalitions that can be successful in Sovereignty.
A new Sovereignty system should not attempt to artificially determine the size of groups that can operate within it, either by forcing larger fleets or by forcing smaller ones. Instead, players should be able to work with numbers of friends that they consider appropriate for the situation.
Rather than trying to enforce some arbitrary limit on how many friends or allies you have, this system is simply designed to give organizations and players more freedom to choose the size of coalition that they prefer.
Bringing more players will always have some value, as it will provide advantages in direct fleet combat with your opponents. But a system that allows small numbers of players to conquer space as quickly as larger numbers ensures that if your fleet has the capability to win the fight, you automatically have enough people to take the Sovereignty objectives.
Directly following from the goal above, it’s extremely important that we minimize the total player-hours required to take undefended and/or unoccupied space. The large time investment required to grind structure hitpoints under the current system allows alliances to effectively use fallow space as buffer zones and to wear down the will of an opponent through sheer boredom.
With our new system we intend to reach this goal by tying the defense of Sovereignty directly to the actions of players, through both combat fleets during attacks and active residency gameplay in peacetime. Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days. On the other hand, evicting an alliance that actively uses and defends their space should be a very difficult task indeed, which leads us to the next goal.
It’s very important that active and prepared alliances be provided with the tools they need to defend their homes. Providing benefits for robust in-space activity has been one of the key drivers of many of the economic changes to Nullsec over the past few years, and those changes have been quite successful in shifting the focus of Nullsec economic activity from static assets to bottom-up gameplay. It’s now time to begin linking this same bottom-up economic activity more strongly with the world of strategic Sovereignty warfare.
In the new Sovereignty, systems full of active occupants will be vastly easier to defend and control than abandoned ones, bustling empires with a variety of activities will be stronger than AFK ones, and disrupting your enemies everyday activities in their space will help you gain advantages both strategic and economic. More details on how we intend to begin achieving this goal will be discussed later in this blog.
By spreading objectives across multiple star systems we can provide unique tactical choices tied to the layout of individual constellations. This should help ensure variety and enable more dynamic engagements.
Huge clashes between empires have become one of the most iconic symbols of EVE’s uniqueness and a source of well-deserved renown both for the game itself and for the fleet commanders who lead these battles. However anyone who has experienced these events firsthand will tell you that user experience suffers under the technical realities of battles containing such massive numbers of players. For the last 12 years, CCP has combined top-shelf hardware with innovative software techniques to fit more players on one star system than anyone ever imagined would be possible, and more advancements in both Tranquility’s server hardware and EVE’s codebase are in the works to push the envelope even further. However we must face the reality that player numbers will always outstrip our ability to increase server capacity. When we made 500 player battles smooth, alliances started bringing 1000. When we made 1000 player battles smooth (on reinforced nodes), 4000 of you folks decided to show up at once. This means that we need to do everything we can through design to spread battles out into multiple smaller simultaneous engagements which should each perform more smoothly.
We are not under the illusion that some theoretical perfect Sovereignty system would ever be able to stand the test of time without changing. Sovereignty gameplay is the most ruthlessly optimized part of EVE and will always need to be adjusted and updated regularly to remain fresh.
It’s also important that our new Sovereignty system be flexible enough to incorporate new improvements to EVE as they are released, especially improvements to structure gameplay that are being developed as we speak. The possibilities for engaging gameplay provided by the combination of complete revamps to Sovereignty and structures are nearly endless.
To reach this goal, new Sovereignty is being designed to be as modular and flexible as possible. We have intentionally built many aspects of the new system that can be easily adjusted and tweaked. This will allow us to incorporate the feedback from the community before release, respond to problems or stagnation after release, and replace specific parts of the design with new types of gameplay as they are released in the future.
You’ll see a great many numbers, durations and percentages in the rest of the blog, and it’s important to remember that they’re all open for adjustment.
All right, let’s start discussing what we’ve been working on.
We’ll cover five key design features of the new system, then introduce some of the new work-in-progress UI elements and end with a walkthrough of a hypothetical battle over a star system to demonstrate how the elements all come together.
We’ll begin by introducing a new module that sits at the core of the new system, and that will become more and more important to many parts of EVE over the upcoming months and years.
Recently mysterious new ships have been spotted all across New Eden, sporting advanced technology unlike anything seen before. Exploring the recovered wreckage of these Drifter battleships, researchers are already starting to make startling breakthroughs in the field of mind-machine interfacing.
One of the first results of these breakthroughs is a new module that enables capsuleers to directly interface with the computer systems governing certain structures, bypassing the need for abstracted hacking interfaces.
The Entosis Link module represents the central interaction mechanic of the new Sovereignty system (among its other uses) and the interaction between competing groups of players wishing to use their Entosis Links will provide much of the gameplay and conflict.
The Entosis Link is a targeted highslot module that can be activated on certain structures. For the purpose of this Sovereignty redesign, the important targets are Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs, Stations and Station Services.
The Entosis Link is used for all kinds of manipulation of these structures. In general, activating an Entosis Link on a structure you own will activate and protect it, while activating an Entosis Link on a structure you do not own will disable, reinforce or capture it.
Crucially, the process of exerting control over a structure using an Entosis Link cannot be sped up by using more links or more players.
If two or more Entosis Links belonging to different “sides” are operational on the same structure at the same time, neither will have any effect and all capture will be paused. This remains true even if one side has more Links operational on the structure than the other side.
For the purposes of Sovereignty structures, there are two ways that the system can determine “sides”:
The basic flow of Entosis Link gameplay is shown in the following flow chart:
This power doesn’t come without risks however.
Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes.
Other key attributes of the Entosis Link module are:
The cycle time of Entosis links does not affect the speed at which structures are captured once the first cycle is complete. This means that using a T1 Link will cause a longer initial delay before capturing begins (during the first cycle) and will leave the player vulnerable and unable to warp for longer periods of time, but will still capture the structure in the same amount of time as a T2 link once it’s up and running.
Both the cycle time of the Entosis Link module and the actual capture process will be affected by time dilation.
When a target structure does not have a current owner, every alliance represents their own “side” and all characters are capable of making progress towards capturing it at the same rate. When a target Sovereignty structure has a current owner, the system recognizes two sides (the current owning alliance on one side and everyone else on the other) and the rate at which attacking characters make capture progress is reduced according to the occupancy defensive bonuses of the solar system. More details about how these bonuses work will be explained later in the blog.
The result of all these design features is that the best method to exert control over a structure with the Entosis Link is to establish effective military control over the grid around the target structure.
In this Sovereignty update, the Entosis Link will be used for the following tasks (details later in this blog):
This means that Entosis Linking will replace shooting of structures in every part of the Sovereignty system. After the June release, shooting of structures will not play any part in Sovereignty.
Before occupancy defensive bonuses are applied, exerting uncontested control over Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts will take 10 minutes (plus the duration of the first cycle) and enabling/disabling station services will take 5 minutes (plus the duration of the first cycle). Like everything in this plan, these numbers are subject to change based on playtesting and discussion.
The Entosis Link will be added to the game about a month before the launch of this Sovereignty system to allow players adequate time to manufacture stockpiles.
This basic Entosis Link gameplay is used repeatedly throughout the Sovereignty capture and defense gameplay, so it’s worth making sure you’ve fully read the previous section before moving forward.
Under the new Sovereignty system, each of the three key Sovereignty structures (Territorial Claim Unit, Infrastructure Hub, and Station) will all exist and operate independently from each other. They will have their own separate functions and there will no longer be any requirement for the same alliance to own all three (in practice however, they will often end up owned by the same alliance).
Under this new system, only one of each Sovereignty structure can exist in the same system at the same time.
The functions of the three Sovereignty structures will be:
This structure will be distilled down to its core function: a declaration to the whole of New Eden that you lay claim to a particular system and that you intend to defend that claim. The TCU will no longer have an upkeep cost (this cost will be split between the IHub and Station) and will not be required in order to operate the other Sovereignty structures. The benefits of this structure will be registration into the Sovereignty filters on the map, your alliance logo visible to every pilot in the system and the existing 25% bonus to starbase fuel use.
By removing the upkeep cost from TCUs and keeping their affordable cost, we will ensure an affordable entry level option for alliances interested in dipping their toes into Sovereignty.
Since we are no longer forcing alliances to use a TCU in order to anchor and protect IHubs and Stations, the value of TCUs will now be able to be set entirely by the goals and aspirations of each alliance. You will also no longer need a TCU in order to gain the benefits of Infrastructure Hub upgrades. How much value your alliance places on defending its TCUs can depend entirely on your own priorities.
The Infrastructure Hub will continue to enable system indices and provide a location for the installation of system upgrades so that alliances can improve their space. The Infrastructure Hub will now have a base upkeep cost and the Strategic Sovereignty Index will now be obtained by keeping an IHub alive in a system rather than being obtained from the TCU. Future iterations on this system will add more structures that alliances can use to obtain new kinds of bonuses and effects in their space.
Stations will continue to provide all the services you know and love, including docking, fitting, refining, industry and markets. Station services will now be enabled and disabled through the Entosis Link mechanic rather than shooting through hitpoints.
To disable a station service, anyone other than the alliance that owns the station must apply an Entosis link directly to the targetable station service. The capture mechanic for station services is exactly the same as for any other structure, except that station services activate and deactivate in half the time that Sov structures reinforce or capture.
To enable a station service again, any member of the alliance that owns the station must apply their own Entosis link directly to the targetable station service. Multiple station services may be disabled at the same time by multiple ships with their own active Entosis links. Neither DPS nor remote reps will be used for controlling station services in the new system.
Stations will now have part of the Sovereignty upkeep cost that was previously attached to the TCU.
Sovereignty Blockade Units are not needed as part of this new system and will be phased out, leaving us with three key structures instead of four. The existing stock of SBUs and their blueprints will be removed, with compensation to their owners.
In the new Sovereignty system, each alliance will designate a four hour window through a new option available in the Corporation Management window to certain members of the alliance executor corp. This period will represent the alliance’s declared prime time, and will be visible in the show info window for the alliance and in the show info window for each Sovereignty structure belonging to that alliance.
When an alliance changes their prime time window, their new choice will not take effect until after 96 hours have passed. At the end of this 96 hour waiting period all the structures belonging to that alliance will be vulnerable twice in the same 24 hour period (one in the old window and once in the new one). The new setting will then take effect and become the new daily vulnerability window.
This will determine the time period within which all Sovereignty structures belonging to that alliance are vulnerable to be reinforced, and the time period within which the exit time of all reinforcement periods for that alliance’s Sovereignty structures will be randomly selected. All Sovereignty structures belonging to the alliance will become vulnerable to be reinforced during that same four hour period every day, except for days when those structures are in the middle of a reinforcement period.
This allows alliances to ensure that they can defend their structures both from initial attacks and in subsequent Capture Events through active combat in their most important time zone. The fact that all structures belonging to the same alliance will be vulnerable during the same period of time allows more localized attackers to receive an advantage over a more widely spread defender since the defender will need to respond to attacks anywhere in their territory.
During the vulnerability period any character can activate an Entosis Link on the Sovereignty structures to begin the process of reinforcing it. Once the first cycle of the Entosis Link completes and the capture progress begins the Alliance who owns the structure will be notified of the attack and will need to respond in order to prevent the attackers from reinforcing the structure.
Reinforcing a Sovereignty structure with the Entosis Link will take anywhere between 10 minutes and 40 minutes of uncontested capture, depending on the level of occupancy defense bonuses in the system. If the attackers are successful in completing the capture progress, the structure will pick a random time within the same prime time window two days later, and enter reinforced mode until then.
If a structure is partially captured at the end of the vulnerability window, it will remain vulnerable until it is either captured and enters reinforced mode or is returned to full owner control by the owning alliance using their own Entosis links.
Although reinforcing of Sovereignty structures may only occur during the owning alliance’s prime time window, station services can be disabled at any time through use of the Entosis Link for between 5 and 20 minutes (depending on occupancy levels).
When Sovereignty structures exit their reinforcement period approximately 48 hours after the initial attack, they spark the beginning of a new capture event in which players fight over Command Node anomalies that spawn at random points throughout the constellation.
These Nodes have an equal chance to appear in any system in the constellation, regardless of who owns the Sovereignty in the other systems.
These Command Nodes will be visible through the anomaly scanner, sensor overlay and overview, and will be clearly named after the structure that they apply to. Capturing a Command Node follows exactly the same process as reinforcing a structure, with players competing to make progress towards capture by applying Entosis Links to the Command Node structure.
When an Alliance captures any individual Command Node, they will gain progress in the constellation-wide tug of war for that structure. Multiple capture events can occur simultaneously in the same constellation if more than one Sovereignty structure within that constellation exits their reinforcement periods in close succession. In that case each event operates independently of the others and the tug of war for one structure has no effect on the tug of war for any other structures.
If the Sovereignty structure exiting its reinforcement period has an owner, then occupancy defense bonuses apply to all of the Command Nodes for that structure’s event. The level of the occupancy defense bonuses are determined by the occupancy indices in the system containing the reinforced structure (at the time of initial reinforcement), not the system containing the individual Command Nodes. More details about the occupancy defense bonuses can be found later in the blog.
Immediately as the structure exits its reinforcement period, five Command Nodes will spawn at random points throughout the constellation. More than one Command Nodes can potentially spawn in the same system. As soon as each Command Node is captured, a new Command Node will spawn somewhere else in the constellation.
In addition, as time passes extra Command Nodes beyond the initial five have a chance to spawn and capturing those Nodes will also spawn new Nodes instantly. This ensures that if a capture event starts running long it becomes easier and easier for it to reach a resolution and for any stalemates to break.
If one side is allowed to capture the Command Nodes uncontested, then capturing 10 nodes will be enough to win the event. This means that it will be possible for a defender with no opposition and at least five active pilots to complete the event and secure their structure in less than 30 minutes of capturing. This minimum time would also be possible for a small group of aggressors who are attacking an undefended solar system with no occupancy indices.
If nobody shows up to defend or attack a capture event, or if the involved parties are perfectly matched, the event can go on indefinitely. The addition of new Command Nodes to the event over time makes stalemates extremely unstable over time however. If downtime occurs while a capture event is active, it will save its state and continue as normal after downtime.
The expected flow of a battle over a capture event will vary greatly depending on the landscape of the constellation, the size and strength of the involved parties and the skill of opposing fleet commanders and pilots. Both attackers and defenders will need to split their forces and stay mobile to be effective, which should encourage a fluid battle as well as providing more opportunities for newer fleet commanders and leaders to step up without needing to run a whole fleet.
Defenders with high levels of activity will be able to use their occupancy defense bonuses to great effect in these battles, as they will be capturing Command Nodes up to 4x as fast as their opponents. Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges, starbases, stations and other infrastructure spread throughout the constellation.
The nature of the Entosis Link gameplay combined with these events should create strong opportunities for enjoyable and fluid fleet combat, rather than the largely static nature of current set piece Sovereignty battles.
We see a huge potential for varied and enjoyable gameplay in this new capture event system, and it’s very exciting to once again have constellation geography matter in a significant way to combat in EVE. The variety of constellation layouts throughout Nullsec is something that is often overlooked since the current Sovereignty system largely ignores it. Each constellation has its own chokepoints, key systems and unique movement patterns. As a hint of what’s possible, take a look at the following images of different constellation geography as viewed from Dotlan. All of these constellations are from one Nullsec region (Providence) and each one of them would provide a completely different tactical environment.
In a capture event for a structure with an owner, the system considers every member of the owning alliance to be defenders and every other player to be attackers. This means that if you wish to support your allies in another alliance in defending their structures you may do so by engaging their enemies in combat but if you apply your own Entosis Link to the Command Nodes you will contribute to the attacker side instead of the defender. In this way, we ensure that although allies in other alliances can be a huge help when defending space, a successful defense does require at least some active presence from members of the structure owning alliance.
When one side wins the capture event, all remaining Command Nodes for that event will go inert and despawn.
If the defender wins a capture event for one of their owned structures, the structure becomes invulnerable until it becomes vulnerable during their alliance prime time the next day. It does not need to be repaired in any way.
If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures.
However if the attackers win a capture event for an owned Station, it will enter a new Freeport Mode for another 48 hours and when it exits from that timer it will be available for capture by any alliance through a free for all capture event.
Stations will enter a mandatory 48 hour Freeport Mode and second reinforcement period if their owners lose a capture event for them. While in this mode, the Station is not owned by any alliance and all players are able to dock and use the services of the station. No players will be able to change any settings for the Station during this time period, and no fees or taxes will be awarded to any corporations. No docking fees may be charged.
Freeport Mode stations will be clearly visible on the map and the timer for when they will exit the second reinforcement period will be visible in their show info window.
When a station exits this second reinforcement timer, another capture event begins with a twist. Since the station has no owning alliance, no occupancy defense bonuses will apply to anyone capturing the Command Nodes. As well, unlike the standard capture events where the two sides are the defender and attackers, the capture event for a Freeport Mode station pits each individual alliance against each other in a free for all multi-side tug of war. Only one alliance can capture each Command Node, and each of those successful captures gives that specific alliance points towards the larger tug of war.
The station remains in Freeport Mode for the duration of this second capture event, so any pilot may dock and make use of the station during the fighting.
Whichever alliance wins this tug of war for the second capture event (it could be the old Station owners, the alliance that attacked in the first place, or a third party) takes ownership of the Station at that point. The Station would then become invulnerable until the next occurrence of this winning alliance’s prime time period.
The term occupancy Sov has taken a peculiar place in the EVE community’s consciousness over the last year or so. It has become incredibly popular, partially because it makes an excellent box within which the speaker can place all their hopes and preferences for the future of Nullsec. We could easily find hundreds of players who would advocate for occupancy Sov, but when we dig deeper we discover that many of those players are imagining completely different mechanics.
It’s for this reason that I hesitate to assign the label of “occupancy Sov” to this plan, as there is no single plan that could reflect each player’s personal vision of “occupancy Sov”. However there are some important qualities at the center of the occupancy groundswell that are extremely valuable and belong in our next Sovereignty system.
For the first release of this new Sovereignty system, we will be working towards these goals by tying the existing system indices to a new occupancy defensive bonus that slows the structure capture rate of all attackers.
Just like in the current Sovereignty system, the Military Index is obtained by killing NPCs in the system and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system. The Strategic Index, which is currently tied to the lifetime of the TCU structure, will be tied to the lifetime of the IHub instead.
The bonus provided by the Military and Industrial indices are 150% stronger than those provided by equivalent levels of the Strategic Index. This is intentionally designed to provide a larger incentive for active occupancy than for simple duration of system control.
This defensive bonus will apply to all Sovereignty structures that have a current owner and are in a star system with any indices above 0, as well as Command Nodes for those structures (no matter what system the Command Nodes are physically located).
The basic mechanics of the Entosis Link remain the same (no benefit beyond the first module, two opposing modules pause all capture) but when anyone other than the owner of the base structure is making capture progress that progress will be slower.
The currently planned bonus levels are:
To determine the full bonus applied to each owned structure, find the appropriate value of your current level in each of the three indices and add them together, then add 1. The speed at which attackers reinforce or capture structures or command nodes is then divided by that result.
For a fully maxed out system, this occupancy bonus would divide enemy capture speed by 4 (causing them to require 4x as much time to capture or reinforce a structure or service).
Some other example values:
This system of occupancy defensive bonuses is intentionally built to be modular and adjustable. In future iterations of the Sovereignty system we plan to refine the process for measuring activity, including expanding what kinds of activities are counted towards the bonuses.
This new Sovereignty system will bring with it a new set of UI elements. We are currently working on a complete revamp of the Sovereignty dashboard to clearly show both individual systems and the status of all your Alliance’s Sovereignty structures.
The following images are early mockups and will likely change significantly before the final release based on continued iteration and community feedback.
This is an example of how the new system information panel on the top left hand side of the UI might look. It demonstrates a system in which each of the Sovereignty structures is owned by a different Alliance. The status and owner of each structure would be visible at all times here, and each element would be interactable to allow quick warping or aligning to each structure.
This is an example of the new Sovereignty dashboard window displaying information on a specific star system. This page would show the position of the system within its constellation, the system indices, the status and owners of each Sovereignty structure as well as their occupancy defensive bonuses.
This is an example of the new Sovereignty dashboard displaying information on an alliance level. This panel would only be available to members of the alliance, and could be potentially restricted by roles. Each Sovereignty structure belonging to the alliance would be visible here, with the ability to filter and sort by distance, type and status. With this panel, alliances will be able to keep track of the real-time status of their active Sovereignty capture events to direct their forces where they will be most needed.
Hypothetical Example Battle
To illustrate how all of these elements come together, let’s walk through a hypothetical battle over the Sovereignty structures in a single Nullsec system.
Let's use the example of a fight in the RHG-4O constellation in Feythabolis. Blackhawk Alliance owns all 5 stations, as well as TCUs and IHubs in every system.
A director in Blackhawk Alliance's executor corp has set an alliance-wide primetime period to the 4 hour period of 18:00 - 22:00 EVE Time. This means that all of Blackhawk Alliance's Sovereignty structures are only vulnerable to reinforcement between 18:00 and 22:00 each day. At other times attackers are free to disable station services but cannot reinforce the Sovereignty structures to capture or destroy them.
A small gang from the Flameburst Coalition comes by one day at 19:30 and wants to reinforce the Sovereignty structures in the RIT-A7 system. They have one of their members equip an Entosis Link module from a Mobile Depot, and activate it on the station. When the first cycle of the Entosis Link completes, this triggers an alert for everyone in the system (including docked players) and the fact that the station is under attack is visible in a new Sov Structure system info panel on the right hand side of the screen. Blackhawk Alliance members with the correct roles also receive a notification letting them know about the attack. If members of Blackhawk Alliance (or their allies) are nearby they can undock and drive off the Flameburst Coalition attackers. The Flameburst member who is using the Entosis Link is especially vulnerable since he cannot warp or be remote repped while the Link is active. If the attackers are kiting 200km away and the Blackhawk members don't want to chase them down, a Blackhawk Alliance member also would have the option of activating his own Entosis Link on the station to pause the progress of Flameburst's attack and force them in. However for this example Blackhawk Alliance mostly lives far away and nobody is close enough to properly respond until it's too late.
Since RIT has mediocre system indexes, it receives a 2x defensive multiplier from occupancy. It therefore takes 20 minutes for the Flameburst gang to reinforce the station. Since Entosis Linking doesn't scale with numbers, they wouldn't have reinforced it any faster even if they had activated 100 links on the station.
When the station enters reinforced, it picks a random time within the same 4 hour vulnerability window ~48 hours later (similar to the current station reinforcement mechanic) and displays that timer to everyone watching the station. In this case it picks 20:45. The Flameburst gang would then be free to keep roaming Blackhawk space and reinforce more structures (which would create their own separate random timers within the same 4 hour window). They decide to reinforce the TCU and IHub in RIT-A7, which create exit timers at 19:10 and 21:05 respectively.
The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement. This ensures that Blackhawk Alliance cannot grind themselves into better defense bonuses for the capture events. The occupancy bonus of 2x that existed when the Sovereignty structures began their reinforcement period will apply to the capture events as well.
When the Sovereignty structures each exit their reinforcement timer, the capture events begins. For the purpose of the event, Blackhawk Alliance (the guys who own the structures) are Team A and literally anyone else in EVE are Team B. This means that although Blackhawk can feel free to call their friends to help them kill their opposing fleets, the actual capturing of the control points using the Entosis Link module only benefits the defenders if Blackhawk Alliance members are doing it.
At 19:10 the capture event for the TCU begins, and five Command Node anomalies immediately spawn at random points in the constellation. For this example scenario we’ll say that the defenders from Blackhawk Alliance win that event quickly and easily, capturing 10 Command Nodes before a late Flameburst fleet arrives. This returns the TCU to an invulnerable state, but has no effect on the other two Sovereignty structures. Since each structure operates independently, each must be fought over independently.
At 20:45 the Station capture event begins, spawning its own set of five Command Nodes at random points in the constellation. For our example scenario, the attackers from Flameburst Coalition have arrived in force at this point and outnumber the Blackhawk Alliance defenders.
The Flameburst Coalition has a larger fleet, but Blackhawk Alliance does have the advantage of the 2x occupancy defense bonus. This means that the Blackhawk Alliance members capture Command Nodes in 10 minutes while Flamebust Coalition members (and anyone else showing up) require 20 minutes. The Blackhawk Alliance members can take advantage of this by staying mobile and hitting the weakest of the Flameburst Coalition squads.
Since the Station capture event is not finished by 21:05, when the IHub event begins it becomes the second active capture event in the same constellation. This is perfectly fine, as any number of capture events can operate at the same time in the same constellation. The Command Nodes are clearly marked on the overview and scanner window to show which structure in which system they influence, and both sides are free to choose which events they wish to prioritize.
The status of the tug of war for each Sovereignty structure is clearly visible on the actual Command Nodes, as well as in the system info panel in RIT. Members of Blackhawk Alliance may also use their Alliance Sovereignty overview page in the Sovereignty dashboard to keep up to date on the real-time status of the capture events for each of their structures. The only way to determine which systems contain Command Nodes is to use active scouting.
In our example case, let's say Flameburst Coalition manages to catch the majority of the Blackhawk fleet in some bubbles and decimates their force, allowing them to win the first capture event for the RIT station and the capture event for the RIT IHub. The IHub explodes, allowing anyone to place a new replacement hub.
On the other hand, the station goes into its 48 hour Freeport Mode.
Everyone can freely dock in the station during this period, allowing Flameburst to more easily stage in the area. Members of Blackhawk Alliance start evacuating their most important assets to secure stations nearby just in case they lose the second timer.
At the end of the Freeport Reinforcement Period the second sov capture event begins. This time every individual alliance is considered their own team for the tug of war, and any number of coalitions can compete for ownership of the station. Since the station has no owner, no occupancy defensive bonuses apply for this second event. Since everyone can also dock in the station before and during this event, it becomes much harder to control the area. If members of any two alliances at all have Entosis Links active on the same Command Node during this second event, the capture progress will be paused. Whenever any alliance captures a Command Node anomaly, they gain points while also removing points from every other alliance with a current score.
The second event ends when any one alliance (which could include Blackhawk Alliance taking back their station, Flameburst Coalition winning the system or Dragon Fleet swooping in to surprise them both) manages to win the multi-side tug of war. If an alliance wants to support an ally instead of capturing the station for themselves, they can do so by shooting enemy ships and leaving the actual Linking to the ally they are trying to support. If there are only two sides attempting the actual Linking, then this event will work just like the first capture event with a simple two sided tug of war. If more than two sides are all competing for the station, it would be expected that temp-alliances may form between losing groups against the group that is currently winning (they can easily work together for short times by simply agreeing to hit different Command Nodes until their targeted opponent has fallen behind).
In this example the surprise attack from Dragon Fleet is effective, as they are able to break the will of both the Blackhawk and Flameburst fleets and take the station.
We hope that this blog has made the designs behind the new Sovereignty system clear, and given you a good glimpse into how these updates would change life for all players living in Sovereignty Nullsec space.
Sovereignty is a huge priority for CCP in our plans for 2015 and we are not going to hold back when it comes to making bold changes to the Nullsec landscape.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the blog, we are now entering a significant period of public feedback on these designs and we absolutely encourage our whole community to share with us your feedback in as much detail as possible. The comments thread for this blog will be an excellent place to share your opinions with us, and we will be reading it carefully. We will also be discussing all of these changes with you at Fanfest, which will include presentations and roundtables on the ongoing plans to revamp Nullsec. This new Sovereignty system is currently scheduled for release in June of 2015, which we believe gives us enough time to refine these designs and incorporate the best community feedback. If we decide that another release date is preferable however we won’t hesitate to make use of our rapid release cadence to move these changes to the date that fits them best.
I’ll leave you now with a flow chart that summarizes the new system of Sovereignty structure reinforcement, capture and destruction. It’s the counterpart to the now-famous image released with the Dominion announcement blog more than five years ago and kicked off the Dominion Sov that’s being replaced this Summer.
Thanks for taking the time to read this massive blog, and good hunting!
-CCP Fozzie, on behalf of Team Five 0 and the whole EVE Game Design team.
New to EVE? Start your 30-day free trial today.
Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.
Hello calculating capsuleers! This is CCP Fozzie bringing you a dev blog looking back on the power projection and Sovereignty changes from the Phoebe release and Phase One of our ongoing project to revitalize the Nullsec sandbox.
There are actually two connected dev blogs being released this afternoon, both of which are worth reading:
On October 1st 2014, we released a dev blog covering our plans to begin a major set of changes to improve Nullsec space. In that blog we laid out a high-level medium term plan in three phases. Phase One was implemented with the Phoebe release on November 4th 2014. Phase One consisted largely of significant changes to the speed of long distance travel and power projection, as well as smaller changes to the hitpoints and resistances of Sovereignty structures and balance changes for Interdictors and Heavy Interdictors.
In the October dev blog, we listed four reasons for the changes, and made two (fairly high-level) predictions:
Why this?/Why now?
- Nullsec is stagnant and needs a change. This is the first of many steps in our plan.
- Big fights are cool, but they’re crowding out more accessible and more frequent smaller ones.
- These changes have positive implications for people not involved in sovereignty warfare, for example making use of capitals in lowsec less risky.
- We expect the impact of these changes to be emergent, and as a consequence are unpredictable and will take a while to develop on TQ. This plays into our longer-term plans, as you’ll see in a second!
What are the anticipated consequences?
In the short term, we would anticipate a reduction in the degree to which the average non-trivial capital fight escalates, and the number of parties involved. This seems likely to increase the frequency of capitals being deployed in small-scale engagements, in both lowsec and nullsec.
Over the medium term, we see the potential for more substantial changes in the nullsec status quo as the various competing parties work to adjust their internal objectives to the new situation; it seems plausible that the general reduction in travel capabilities will lead to more localism, but we don't want to make any firm predictions in this area. We're confident that these changes improve the overall system of lowsec and nullsec gameplay and take them in better directions, but any set of changes that would allow us to accurately predict their consequences would by their nature be too simple to be interesting for very long.
Today we are unveiling the plans for Phase Two, but as we look to the future of Nullsec it is also important to look back. This blog will show some of the metrics surrounding the Phase One changes and the current state of Nullsec space as we prepare to launch into Phase Two.
Our development team takes multiple approaches to evaluate the effects of any changes to EVE Online.
First, we actively play the game and evaluate how our own experiences change as the design changes. Yes, there are several members of our team playing actively in Sovereignty space. No, I won’t tell you what their character names are. :)
We also have access to many sources of direct player feedback. We read the forums, listen to your stories and requests at player gatherings, chat with members of the Council of Stellar Management (who you should go vote for if you haven’t already) and more.
Finally, we have access to metrics that display the bigger picture of trends in player activity. Using metrics and statistics to reach conclusions must always be done with care (correlation does NOT equal causation), but in a game as huge and diverse as EVE they can be a crucial tool. This last category is one that you as players often lack access to, as when sharing data we must always be wary of the danger that some players might use our information to gain an unfair advantage over others. This blog will focus largely on giving you a glimpse into some of the metrics that we watch to help us judge the effects of Phase One of our Nullsec efforts.
We will split the metrics shown in this blog into four categories, each representing one aspect of our goals for Phoebe and Phase One. These categories are:
Nullsec Population and General Activity
Nullsec PVP Activity
Capital Ship Activity
Generally the graphs displayed below are labelled with the date of the Jump Fatigue announcement blog (October 1st 2014) and the date of the Phoebe release (November 4th 2014). The lack of labels on the Y axis is intentional, as we want to minimize the ability of clever players to use this data to gain advantages over others. What I can tell you is that for the unlabelled graphs, the Y axis begin at 0 and increase linearly (no cheating). None of the data in the graphs below is normalized by any other factor.
The distinct time periods that are worth watching are:
Without further ado, let’s jump into the discussion!
We’ll start with this category as it’s the most generally applicable. It also happens to be the clearest cut in its results.
The following graph displays a two week rolling average of the number of characters on active (subscribed) accounts that are in Nullsec space (either in space or docked in a station within Nullsec) each day. For this metric, we’re generally happier with higher numbers. Increases represent a combination of players moving to Nullsec, existing Nullsec players bringing a higher percentage of their characters into Nullsec space, and older Nullsec players resubscribing.
For a metric as stable as this one, the changes seen at the Phoebe release are quite extraordinary. At the beginning of November we saw a rapid increase in the total Nullsec population, which has been followed by robust and steady growth over the following four months. Subscriber demographic data over the same period of time suggests that a major factor contributing to the immediate Phoebe increase was an influx of Russian speaking players taking advantage of the power vacuum in the South and East of Nullsec space created by Phoebe’s power projection changes. At the same time, other organizations such as the Phoebe Freeport Republic were also able to gain footholds in the newly available Nullsec space and contributed by bringing in players that would have struggled to carve out their own territory pre-Phoebe.
The release of the celebrated This is EVE trailer came after the initial period of rapid growth, but likely contributed to the subsequent steady rise in population.
As we prepare to launch into Phase Two, we would ideally like to see more growth in this metric. Our hope is that by designing mechanics that allow a wider variety of organizations to claim their own space without requiring the support of massive powerblocks, more and more of our players will see opportunities to have fun in Nullsec space.
The next graph is not particularly important for evaluating the success or failure of Phase One, as the Phoebe changes directly affected the baseline. Jumps per day is normally a valuable metric for determining overall player activity but since the Phase One changes directly encouraged more travel by gates and less use of teleportation we would expect a dramatic increase no matter what. If this graph hadn’t increased we would have been very worried. J
The real use of this metric will be later as we evaluate Phase Two. As the next set of changes do not involve direct changes to power projection we would hope that an increase in Nullsec jumps over the summer would reflect an overall increase in player engagement.
We also watch a wide variety of other metrics related to general life in Nullsec space. The results of these range from very positive (+23.6% increase in manufacturing jobs per day in Nullsec since Phoebe) to somewhat positive (+5% increase in NPC kills per day in Nullsec since Phoebe) to fairly neutral (+0.7% increase in mining volume per day in Nullsec since Phoebe).
This is one of the most important areas of evaluation, and will likely be one of the most controversial. PVP is a huge part of EVE, including Nullsec gameplay. Our hope with Phase One was that with a reasonable expectation that people from halfway across the galaxy won’t suddenly appear on top of you, players would be more willing to engage in PVP. We also hoped that the increased localism that would come with slower travel for the great powers, new conflicts would spark between groups that might not get a chance to fight otherwise.
The following graph displays a two week rolling average of total PVP kills in Nullsec space:
These numbers are going in the direction we like to see, but in order to get the real picture of what’s going on we need to dig a little deeper. Firstly, is this increase simply coming from more people dying in cheap frigates? The following graph displays the same two week rolling average of the ISK value of PVP kills in Nullsec space:
By this metric, the gains are more modest, but are still dramatic and clearly visible.
However this data may still seem at odds with the personal experiences of some players. The feedback we are hearing directly from players is very mixed on this issue, with many claiming that they are experiencing much more PVP activity since Phoebe and many others claiming that their PVP experience is stagnating over the same period. Both experiences are completely true and valid, but each only reflects one part of the overall picture.
What if we look at the change in total PVP activity since the Phase One dev blog for each Nullsec region individually?
This clearly demonstrates that certain areas are showing major increases in conflict since Phase One was announced. In general, these areas are in the space that was occupied by the N3 coalition before Phoebe. With the release of Phase One, that coalition moved to take new space in Delve and Querious, and reduced their presence in several of their previously held regions. This power vacuum was quickly filled by competing factions looking to stake their own claim in Nullsec, and became host to a great deal of PVP activity.
Another way to look at this regional distribution of conflict since the beginning of Phase One is to split Nullsec into six sections based on the type of NPC found in their regional asteroid belts. We can then look at each of those superregions and observe the changes in PVP activity over time.
The following graph displays the percentage change in PVP activity in each of these super-regions since the release of the Phase One Dev Blog on October 1st.
You can see that over these months significant increases in conflict occurred within the Drone Regions (which eventually settled down) and within Nullsec regions occupied by Angel Cartel and Sansha’s Nation NPCs.
This explains why we tend to hear such dramatically different feedback on the amount of PVP activity since the beginning of Phase One. If you live in the swath of Nullsec space between Stain and Perrigen Falls, you have probably experienced significantly increased PVP in your home regions. If you live in the rest of Nullsec, you have probably experienced similar rates of PVP activity to what came before.
So the truth of this metric is that overall Nullsec PVP activity has significantly increased during Phase One so far, but that activity is distributed unevenly across Nullsec space. Communicating larger trends that may not be reflected by individual experiences is always a challenge, but that doesn’t change the facts of the EVE-wide pattern. We hope that the changes we have coming in Phase Two will make some major progress towards bringing these PVP opportunities to ALL areas of Sovereignty space, including those areas that have not seen the benefits of Phase One yet.
Before we wrap this section up, I want to quickly address one of the other questions that we have seen raised surrounding this trend. Some people have suggested that the overall increase in PVP activity may be largely caused by the conflict between the HERO Coalition and Pandemic Legion. Now it is true that the HERO Coalition represents a huge chunk of all Nullsec PVP activity. Since forming a year ago their largest alliance, the Brave Collective, has placed second out of every alliance in EVE for total ISK-value destroyed in Nullsec PVP, and third place in ISK lost. Over the past two weeks, a total of 38.1% of all PVP kills in Nullsec have had a member of the HERO Coalition as either the final blow or the victim. It makes perfect sense to assume that any wars the HERO Coalition engages in will have a big impact on these metrics.
However the truth is that the HERO Coalition was already involved in 31.6% of all Nullsec PVP kills in the two weeks before the Phase One Dev Blog was released. The number of kills involving the HERO Coalition has increased at a faster rate than the rest of Nullsec, but even if you completely remove all killmails with a HERO member as the final blow or victim the rate of other PVP kills in Nullsec has still increased by 22.1% since the Dev Blog was released.
Since capital ship travel mechanics played such a big part in Phase One and Phoebe, this is an area with a lot of potential for change. As we mentioned in the original Phase One Dev Blog, we hoped that the reduced chance of being hotdropped would provide more opportunities for people to feel comfortable using small numbers of capital ships in PVP. The general reduction in capital power projection would also have the potential to reduce many other types of capital ship use, but our hope had been that capital ship usage in PVP would increase overall.
The feedback we have been hearing directly from players has been a mixed bag on this topic. In general we are hearing a lot of happiness from lowsec capital users, and a combination of some neutral and some negative feedback about the opportunities to use capital ships in Nullsec space.
The following graph displays a two week rolling average of PVP damage dealt by capital and supercapital ships (in all areas of space). It does not include delegated fighters, and does include structure shooting. The battles of HED-GP and B-R5RB from earlier in the year are clearly visible.
Overall the PVP damage dealt by capital ships has remained fairly steady. We would have ideally liked to see this number rise with Phase One, but stability is better than decreases. With Phase Two we would expect this number to fall quite significantly as the amount of structure shooting drops dramatically. We’ll be keeping an eye on it as we go forward.
The next graph shows a two week rolling average of the total number of capital ships killed per day. The big capital battles at the beginning of the year once again stand out very clearly.
In this metric we can clearly see a modest increase. This is considered a good sign as more explosions suggest that some pilots are feeling more comfortable putting their capital ships into harm’s way.
The rate of systems changing hands in Sovereignty provides a solid indicator of strategic conflict in Nullsec space. Increases in this metric tend to go along with major wars, and extended periods containing few system flips tends to indicate stagnation.
We were hoping for a significant increase in system flips per day during Phase One, with the theory that increased localism from the power projection changes would allow a number of smaller Sov conflicts as non-superpower organizations claim their own chunks of territory.
The results of Phase One on this metric have been noticeable and positive, however we would have been happier with a higher status quo over the past three months.
An initial spike is obvious as alliances made diplomatic deals to transfer space and moved around the map to prepare for the post-Phoebe Nullsec. Although this spike momentarily surpassed the peaks during the Fountain and Halloween Wars visible earlier on the graph, it is not by itself a real indicator of lasting Nullsec health. After the spike, the continued fighting (mainly focused in regions containing Angel NPCs) has generated Sov activity that is acceptable but not particularly exceptional. The new status quo appears to be about four times larger than the status quo in the months immediately preceding the Phase One Dev Blog, and approximately match the periods between wars in 2013.
If Phase Two is a success, we would ideally like to see a significantly higher status quo, less reliant on bursts of activity from major wars.
Thanks for joining me for this look back on the metrics surrounding Phase One of our Nullsec changes. Huge thanks to every player who has discussed their own Nullsec experience with us, and helped provide feedback for all our changes so far. I encourage all of you to check out our new Dev Blog covering the plans for Phase Two, and to provide us your feedback on those designs. We will be looking to talk with you all on the forums as well as in person at Fanfest later this month!
New to EVE? Start your 30-day free trial today.
Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions..
This is CCP Affinity on behalf of Team Space Glitter and we would like to show you some week one stats on The Drifters that we released with Tiamat.
One of our goals with The Drifters was to further iterate on the new NPC AI we released with the Circadian Seekers. It has been awesome to see how you all adapt to new challenges and we hope to continue reprogramming the NPCs of New Eden.
Since the release of Tiamat, 247 Drifters have died at the hands of capsuleers. It was very impressive to see how quickly you all adapted and on day one you managed to take down 43 drifters. Huge congratulations to Vo3blka who was the first capsuleer to defeat a Drifter with his Chimera!
(click to enlarge)
This is quite the difference when compared to the Circadian Seekers deaths.
(click to enlarge)
Of course, The Drifters do not react well to player interference and they have killed 1,093 capsuleers in total. The first capsuleer to hunt down a Drifter and face the mighty superweapon was Dontshoot Him, who lost a Stiletto in their efforts closely followed by uhnboy ghost in a Cerberus and PschoStarSkanner in a Buzzard. So far a rather impressive 129,593,602,454 ISK has been lost to The Drifters!
(click to enlarge)
If we compare the ISK destroyed by all NPCs in EVE, Capsuleers and Drifters, it looks a bit like this:
The most expensive ships lost so far to The Drifters are a Machariel at 3,792,142,502ISK and a Tengu at 3,618,369,204ISK (not including insurance).
Here is a breakdown of Drifter kills by Ship Class:
It also appears The Drifters are not a jubilant bunch! My favorite kill mail to date is one from capsuleer, Jelly Fat, who tried to welcome the new residents of New Eden with a firework celebration.
It seems The Drifters don’t care much for fireworks….
We are really enjoying watching all the creative ways you have come up with to interact with the new NPC AI and we look forward to seeing how you tackle the next phase!
Although us balance-oriented folks have been very busy working on things like the NPE and Sov (!?), we took some time aside to put together a high-impact pass for Scylla (March 24) and I want to tell you about it!
As always, we are reading your feedback, monitoring spaceship trends in New Eden and doing retrospectives on our past changes. Based on those channels, I want to go through some of issues that we feel warrant change and also discuss one that we feel doesn’t.
Let’s start with some changes:
The problem: Ishtars are too good. They are squashing out diversity in several environments because of their excellent damage projection and solid survivability
Our thoughts: - First, we wanted to establish whether the problem was more about the Ishtar or more about Sentry Drones. The data makes a pretty convincing case that it really is mostly the Ishtar. While several other ships (Dominix, Navy Vexor, Archon, etc.) are making use of sentries, none of them are anywhere near as sentry reliant as the Ishtar and none of them are coming close to the overall damage that Ishtars represent on TQ. After deciding to just make a change to Ishtars, we considered what approach would be the most elegant. Options included changes to the bonuses, changes to base attributes (moving a mid slot was one example here), or possibly screwing around with sentry drone bandwidth use and adjusting other ships as needed. Eventually we settled on the bonuses, even though it means having the only drone damage bonus below 10% per level in the game.
THOSE GOSH DARN TENGUS
The problem: We’ve been saying for a long time that T3 cruisers are in need of a rebalance. Subsystem variation isn’t nearly as high as we would want, certain configurations are too strong and overall the class doesn’t represent the kind of flexibility we want from Tech 3. We still don’t have time to do the full pass quite yet, but we don’t feel okay letting the strongest configurations continue to run rampant without change.
Approach: The extreme resilience provided by the defensive subsystems is where we want to focus our efforts for now. This group of subs is allowing effective hp numbers that far exceed that of competing classes (like more than double), even though Tech 3 cruisers offer plenty of extra utility and compare fine in areas like signature and damage. By lowering the % hp bonuses from 10% to 7.5% for the Proteus/Legion and from 10% to 5% for the Tengu we expose a little more tradeoff for that added flexibility. We still have a more complete balance pass scheduled for Tech 3 cruisers, but for now this will help bring the class in line.
Legion Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter
Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating
Legion Defensive - Nanobot Injector
Legion Defensive - Warfare Processor
Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter
Loki Defensive - Adaptive Shielding
Loki Defensive - Warfare Processor
Proteus Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter
Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating
Proteus Defensive - Nanobot Injector
Proteus Defensive - Warfare Processor
• Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding
Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening
Problem: Carriers and Super Carriers assisting fighters to small, fast ships from the virtually 100% safe edge of starbase shields is becoming more and more common. Victims and perpetrators alike are expressing frustration and it’s time to take action.
Approach: Rather than a data based decision, this one is really about design philosophy. In general, we want there to be risk associated with power. We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible. We're failing on both with Skynet by having very little risk associated with something rather powerful, and we're also not providing any gameplay to the carrier pilot.
However, this problem quickly leads us down a path of needing to redesign capitals in general (which would be nice but it isn’t happening just yet). We also have some hesitation about the lost tactical gameplay that comes from larger scale applications of fighter assist. That said, this problem needs to get addressed. We discussed choosing to expose Skynet carriers to more risk rather than taking away the ability to assist fighters, but in the end this solution felt more convoluted and in reality would probably end skynetting but would still leave a strange and unneeded mechanic in the game.
Therefore our proposal is to simply remove fighter assist.
Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp. We would lean towards not, as usually it is undesirable to have your fighters go chasing off grid when you want the damage to stay put. But, once again this chips away at fighter uniqueness. We would really appreicate feedback on this issue so please tell us what you think.
Problem: We over-buffed a bit here. The result is that fleet meta is heavily favoring rail doctrines in most cases that drones aren’t the main damage source.
Approach: - Quick looks at usage metrics show that even though we are in the best place for medium weapon balance in TQ history, rails show a pretty significant advantage in damage done over beams, arties and heavy missiles, as you can see below:
(click to enlarge)
Note: look at those “Drake era” heavy missiles, goodness gracious!
Proposed change: We want to reduce rate of fire for all medium rail guns by 7.5%. This brings their actual dps down by about 7%, which puts them in a more even place relative to other medium long range weapons, opening up some more flexibility in fleet comps for other cruisers.
Note: Shout-out here to CSM member mynnna for a great internal discussion on this topic. He raised the point that if you look at these weapon systems on their own, rather than comparing the ships using them, they look very balanced. It would follow then that the problem is more about Tengu, Eagle and Vulture than about rails. However, we can never look at weapon systems or ships without taking the other into consideration. The relationship between cap use of energy weapons and ships with cap use bonuses for energy weapons is another good example where trying to look at one without the other causes problems. We are therefore happy to consider balancing via the weapons or the ships depending on which fits the situation best. In this case, we are happy to use rails as the avenue because it is much simpler for us to design and you to adjust to.
BATTLECRUISER AND BATTLESHIP VIABILITY
Problem: Strong community sentiment that battleships and battlecruisers are not viable currently and that the biggest reason is warp speed changes.
We took a fresh look at this issue to make sure we were on the same page as a game design department and this is how we approached it: we started by going over usage metrics and once again saw that clearly that both classes are getting heavy use and are being effective by any measure we have available. Have a look at this awesome graph of PVP damage by class:
(click to enlarge)
It is also clear that with the HAC rebalance, along with bomber popularity, combat BCs are not getting as much action as they did when they were the end-all class in EVE a couple years ago. As the meta shifted away from combat BCs down to more frigs and cruisers, battleships aren't the right answer as often as they used to be. One good result here is that we see much higher damage per attacker the larger the classes get, generally, i.e. fewer battleships in space, but, when they are used they are potent. Finally, we talked about warp speed changes and once again considered whether the tactical depth added is worth the inconvenience of roaming in battleships and agreed that it is. An interesting point of comparison is agility and align time. We would all want our ship to align as fast as a Stiletto, or at least a Stabber, but if everything at the same align time we would lose a lot of strategic depth.
Proposed change: None. We are pretty happy with the state of class variation right now and see no reason to make changes.
THE END PART
That’s what I have for you for now. Even though there is so much more to do (hello bombers, supers, ECM and missiles!), we believe ship and module balance in EVE is in one of the best positions we’ve seen in a long time. We hope to keep improving based on these great guiding principles that my colleague and dance partner, CCP Fozzie, outlined some time ago:
Thanks for reading, see you in space o/
EVE developers have been quite busy in the past few weeks working on gameplay features, which is good because that‘s what they are supposed to do! But concurrently, various members of these teams have also been working on a cross-disciplinary project called EVE UI Modernization.
Our latest efforts in this project is to deliver on a promise we identified as one of the principles of the EVE UI: a holistic icon strategy where we make all things in EVE that have a uniquely defined role, function or purpose have their own distinctive icon. This plan needs to be taken in steps because it covers pretty much everything in our client, from item icons to UI icons and will take time to fulfill. The long term goal is that in the foreseeable future we will no longer see the same item icon for two different modules or other things. For now however, we are starting with UI icons only and the first thing we want to tackle is icons displayed in the Overview and in-space environment.
What are the goals?
We want to ensure that all items which exists in the game and have a uniquely defined role, function or purpose should have their own distinctive icon.
Where should we start?
When we released the Ship Identification System we created new Ship Groups to identify different ship classes and sizes with unique icons. The plan was to introduce them to other areas of the game once they had proven themselves within the Ship Identification System. It was a low risk to introduce it there first since it didn’t have direct impact on high-stakes gameplay. When we first designed them we wanted them to be distinguishable from each other at a glance. At the time of validating that, we would always have all the icons visible together so it was easy to distinguish them by having them all visible to compare against each other. We needed to cater to the use case of them popping up one by one without the luxury of seeing the other ones to compare. We therefore did some slight iteration to them to ensure they would be recognizable on their own as well. However, we did not want to drastically change them because the underlying style had proven itself and players have learned to identify them individually.
Ship Group Icons – Design Sheet:
(click to enlarge)
The new Ship Group Icons are almost identical to the old ones but with slight important iterations to help identify them more easily on their own.
So we decided to take on the icons in the Overview and make sure to never have the situation where an icon was used for multiple things that had different role, function or purpose.
What are we changing?
We decided to look at all things that can be displayed in the Overview and put them into 4 primary categories:
Once we had iterated on the Ship Groups we wanted to also tackle NPC ships and make them consistent so that all ship groups would have the same base look. We re-authored all icons tied to NPCs, making them visually consistent with player ships with an added ‘+’ icon in the upper-right corner to identify NPC ships specifically. This was to address the fact that some NPCs can be neutral and are therefore displayed in the same white color as player ships but also to ensure that we are not using color as the primary method of identification but rather as a secondary emphasis. This is part of our ongoing mission to use shapes as the primary way of identifying UI objects, which should cater specifically well to those with color blindness, but is also simply a proven preferred way for all humans to store information.
In-game sizes for Ship Group Icons:
Since we had our drawing pens in hand anyway and we had created a new authoring system for defining ship groups. We decided to go ahead and create new group icons for drones as well. Using the same reasoning as used for the initial design of Ship Groups we came up with a way to categorize drones in a way that would make sense and be of use in combat situations and other engagements with drones (not all interactions with drones are bad).
We created base shapes in a similar way we did for ships and different bulkiness feel to each size within a class to identify the sizes of the drones. Using the base shapes we then added attribute icons in the upper-right corner to identify the primary role, function or purpose of each drone. This will give a huge advantage for players that need to take strategic decisions regarding drone targeting as well as knowing at a glance what drones you, your allies or your foes have on grid.
Drone Group Icons – Design Sheet:
In-game sizes for Drone Group Icons:
We are currently doing extensive discovery (research) work on Structures in EVE so it made sense to make a longterm strategy for how we would display icons for them in the client. The rollout of this will of course rely on the progress of the much larger plan for structures so no promises for when this will go out, but we still wanted to show it to you to give you all the details of our complete icon strategy.
Structure Group Icons – Design Sheet:
In-game sizes for Structure Group Icons:
The final names and even amount of structure groups are very much work in progress and might very well change in the coming weeks. But the underlying strategy for how they are visually represented is very much in alignment with our approach for the Ship Groups and Drone Groups. We use a base shape to identify that this is a structure (the downward facing bracket at the top). Then we use a specific shape to identify the purpose and finally show that base shape in different sizes to represent the different structure size. In this current design example, the Small, Medium and Large represent structures for Personal, Corporate and Alliance use. But again, such details on the functions and mechanics of structures might change.
The Celestials group had the most interesting cases. We couldn’t simply just say that all things that were different should have different icons. We need to make sure we are not introducing too many things for players to learn so we had to also be selective to what things were worth having a distinction between. We definitely felt ships, drones and structures with different roles, function and purpose fully deserved unique icons, but what about different celestials. Even if they are different in some ways, do they deserve a unique icon? Is there actual gameplay difference that supports that decision? The things we looked at where things like suns, planets, belts and sites.
We decided not to make different icons for different types of suns because at least currently we don’t have specific gameplay around suns. If we would however then we would be sure to revisit the icons so this icon strategy is a living breathing effort that will react to any interesting changes to gameplay.
Another thing we consciously did not want to differentiate was different wormhole classes. The classes are not supposed to be easily spotted at a glance but rather something you investigate and explore so we did not want to tinker with the interesting mysterious gameplay that provides.
With so many new icons introduced into the Overview we had to make sure the old ones still made sense on their own. We therefore looked at all the existing icons to see if there was a way to improve them based on the strategy we used when creating the new group icons for ships, drones and structures.
Many of the icons have existed in the game since the initial launch and if we had the chance to rethink them visually we probably would have done things slightly different knowing what we know now. So we did an iteration pass on all the existing icons, making changes based on our strategy and goals where it made sense by having all things with unique purpose have unique icons. We still wanted to make sure we weren’t just change things for the sake of changing them, because we completely understand that many of these icons have become stored both in our player’s long term memory and in their muscle memory, but as things have evolved throughout the years some icons have become too out of style with the overall visual strategy. We hope to have a good discussion with the community regarding these proposed changes to reach a consensus that brings added value to the community in the long run.
(click to enlarge)
How will this look in client?
We could try to explain it to you and say that we think it looks great and that we believe it will make interactions, encounters and engagements much more interesting once they are on TQ. But instead of all that, let us just show you. We are deploying this to SiSi now so that you can try it out for yourself so go and check it out and give us your thoughts and feedback on it. We want this to have a positive and meaningful impact on gameplay and ask that you try it out with an open mind. All drastic changes to iconography takes time to get used to, but we hope with time you will be able to recognize at a glance a much broader range of things in your surrounds than before.
If you can’t for some reason check it out on SiSi right away, here is a screenshot from our development client that shows how the client looks with the new icons.
(click to enlarge)
If you feel like you need more details, check out the video recording of the o7 show from February 26th 2015. There we presented in more details how it will look in client.
Once we have polished these icons and validated that they are bringing you the value we intended for them, we want to find ways to include them wherever it makes sense to have them. We also want to make sure 3rd party developers can get their hands on these new icons once they have been finalized and validated. We will send out a news announcement when that time comes and we have updated the IEC zip files.
That’s it for now folks. From the various feature team developers working tirelessly on both features and the UI Modernization project we hope you like these changes and are willing to try them out and give us your feedback. Give us your thoughts in the blog comments and if you happen to be coming to Fanfest this year there will be plenty of panels and roundtables to discuss in great details all things related to the UI Modernization project.
Fly safer and more informed with more descriptive icons.
Welcome to another Fanfest 2015 blog, exploring more of the fun that’s coming up in roughly a month here in Reykjavik, Iceland. Tickets are selling fast, Devs are beginning to form allegiances for pub crawl groups (with inter-office smacktalk), and Fanfest is in general shaping up to be another epic celebration of all things New Eden.
We’ve already had dev blogs relating to EVE TV, the Silent Auction, Player Speakers and the Quafe Ship Lineup for Fanfest, and we’ll have more details soon regarding the final schedule and further events from CCP Legion.
Today, I’d like to talk about cosplay at Fanfest!
We’ve noticed over the years that more than a few of our players like to take a shot at putting together outfits to celebrate EVE, or show their allegiance to a particular faction when they come to Fanfest. This is always great to see, and the creativity is often pretty cool, so we’d like to start promoting this further with a little competition this year.
If it proves popular, we’ll then look at expanding on the idea at future Fanfest events.
So, firstly, lets talk about format and a few rules to get things started!
Rules, you say?
Winners will be contacted via email and announced over the Fanfest PA system each day at 16:00 and are expected to return to the community area when notified for details of how to claim their prizes.
A demonstration of how not to cosplay at Fanfest, by GM Spider
There have however been examples of cool cosplay and makeup at Fanfest:
...and even some CCPers have gotten involved in the past:
CCP Guard also likes to cosplay… as… uhh… himself:
As previously explained, each day there will be three winners and a total of three prize packages. These will be awarded as first, second and third prize, and each day’s prizes are themed (although your cosplay does not need to fit the theme of the prizes for that day.)
Prize breakdown is below, with each outfit modelled by CCP Affinity and CCP Falcon, who will also be your cosplay contest judges!
Day One – Guristas Theme
(click to enlarge)
Day Two – Sansha’s Nation Theme
(click to enlarge)
Day Three – Blood Raider Theme
(click to enlarge)
Grand Prize (Awarded on Day 3):
*Given that some people who may want to enter the contest may be leaving on the Sunday or Monday after Fanfest, we will also offer the option for the office tour and lunch to be postponed until Fanfest 2016, alongside the all access pass. These prizes are also transferrable at the discretion of the winner, so they can give them to a friend, should they not be able to make it to Fanfest 2016.
(click to enlarge)
So, how to enter?
You can submit your entry to the cosplay contest each day from 10:00 – 12:00 UTC in the Capsuleer Lounge, where myself and CCP Affinity will be waiting to take your photograph and your details for your entry.
Each day’s winners will be read out over the Fanfest PA system at 16:00 UTC, and attendees will need to come down to the lounge to pick up their prizes and receive information on how to claim their ingame items.
So, start preparing those outfits, and make sure to stop by the community lounge to submit your entry when you arrive at Fanfest!
Also, if you’re in cosplay at the Party on Top of the World, catch up with myself and CCP Affinity, and maybe we’ll have a surprise for you!
If you haven’t already picked up your Fanfest 2015 tickets, there’s still time, and you can do so on the official Fanfest 2015 website!
Looking forward to seeing you all in Iceland soon!
@CCP_Falcon & @CCP_Affinity
The Download-on-Demand (DoD) client is now coming to the Singularity test-server. What does this mean? If you have not read the Dev blog about Download on Demand Client for EVE Online by CCP Snorlax, I strongly recommend you have a look!
This changes how we deploy the EVE Online client. No longer will you have to download an install package that is 7GB in size. The installer size will now be around 350-400MB and will install the game code, but all resources (textures, models, etc.) will be downloaded on-demand by the EVE Client.
The default location for the resource-files on Windows is “C:\ProgramData\CCP\EVE\SharedCache”, but you will be able to choose your custom location. On Mac, the path is /Library/Application Support/EVE Online/p_drive/Local Settings/Application Data/CCP/EVE/SharedCache. This location is not configurable. The main driver for this change is to get players into the game quicker, both players that are coming to EVE Online for the first time and battle-hardened vets players patching after updates. The EVE Client will then download the resources as it needs them and cache them to disk, so any given resource is only downloaded once.
Since everyone playing EVE Online already has an EVE folder, you might ask if you need to download the full client in this manner again. You will not. We have included a way to unpack your stuff file (resources) to the cache location of your choice.
When you first log onto SISI after DoD deployment you will be asked if you want to convert your existing resources to the new shared folder. I recommend doing so. When you have done so, you will have a shared resources location that all of your EVE Clients will eventually use.. Tranquility (TQ), yes! SISI, yes! Multiple clients, yes! The upshot here is that apart from helping us testing this client, when we deploy the DoD client to TQ, you will already have the majority of resources and therefore the patching will be minimal.
This brings us to a very important thing:
You should have a separate Singularity- install for the initial DoD deployment. This is already stated in the instruction-link on How to setup a Singularity Test-server, and I'd imagine that anyone that's ever tried to run both Tranquility and Singularity off the same install will tell you it is not the best idea. This is even more important now, as failing to do so will force you to re-install your Tranquility client. I repeat – do not simply point your Tranquility launcher to Singularity.
We are very much interested in hearing how the unpacking process goes, as this is something we do expect most, (if not all) players currently on Tranquility to go through. If you do go through this unpacking step, you should not experience any difference in your gameplay. We will most likely ask the good citizens of SISI at some point to participate in a mass-test where we will ask you to not use the shared resources. This would mean moving the resource folder to a different location while we run the mass-test. The purpose would be to see how the DoD-client performs in heavy scenes when every player is downloading assets on demand. We will message this when the time comes.
Apart from this one-time step of converting the existing resource files into new files in a shared location, you should really not notice any difference in playing EVE Online with this version of the client.
On behalf of Team RnB,
Like every year since the dawn of human history (or the part if it that matters at least), EVE TV will bring Fanfest to homes around the globe through a high quality live stream!
Minutes before going live at Fanfest 2014
On the hour we stream keynotes, panels and presentations and in between sessions we bring interesting people on set to discuss interesting things and give those of you at home a glimpse behind the scenes at Fanfest.
This year we want to try something new. We want to see if there are players coming to Fanfest who would like to host some of these segments and run interviews. We’re not looking to dump a job on you that will take up a lot of your time during Fanfest, but rather giving a select few the chance to host a short segment or two for space friends far and wide.
To apply you must be:
Big bonus points for:
Please submit your application to firstname.lastname@example.org before midnight on Sunday March 1st with the subject line “EVE TV Host” and we will get back to you with a yay or a nay.
Please include the following information:
Our floor correspondent CCP Phantom ready to brave the masses. Do you have what it takes?
Coming to Fanfest but not interested in playing host but have something important or fun to talk about or showcase? Contact us anyway with the subject line “Fanfest interview idea” and we might slot you in for an interview on New Eden’s number one TV station!
Are you watching Fanfest from home? Please jump on the comment thread and tell us what you would like to see us do and talk about on the stream. We want to make the viewing experience as great as we can for you.
We look forward to hearing from you all!
- The EVE TV Crew]]>
CCP Rise here for EVE’s Team Pirate Unicorns to give you a heads up about some changes to the new player experience (NPE for short) that are about to sneak their way onto Tranquility.
As many of you remember, the first few days in New Eden can be some of the most difficult, and it’s been a mission at CCP for a very long time to try and improve the experience for new bros. The tutorial has undergone several major reworks over the years and we also constantly strive to make EVE’s core systems more intuitive and usable without sacrificing sophistication. Despite all that, we still feel there’s room for improvement, especially when it comes to the tutorial itself.
Over a year ago, our team took on the mission to overhaul the NPE and since then you’ve seen us establish some systems we felt were needed to make our vision for new players possible. First, we added and tweaked a lot of tooltips covering the major interface elements and features and then we installed a new notification system to improve feedback and give us a better way to deliver information to new players. Most recently we began work overhauling the star map. With all these pieces in place (or at least getting close to where we want them to end up) we’ve finally been able to really dig in to a system that we hope will eventually completely replace the current tutorial: Opportunities.
It would take a lot of time for me to describe the evolution of this project in detail, but you can find two different talks covering our progress on YouTube: one from Fanfest 2014 and one from EVE Vegas 2014.
The short version is that we began with a vision of the NPE that would encourage and inspire new players to set their own goals and objectives by gently hinting at the opportunities available to them in the world, as goal setting is perhaps the most important part of each pilot’s EVE journey.
We then put together some very rough prototypes and started doing ‘friends and family’ testing. Based on those tests, we are now arriving at a version of the NPE that we feel is fit for trying on Tranquility with actual EVE players.
That brings us up to now and this blog. We feel it’s really important to get you in the loop since you are so essential to supporting our new players.
The core system we are using to drive the NPE is called ‘Opportunities’. Aura (we decided to keep her around) will introduce new players to opportunities in New Eden that they can investigate and complete. Each Opportunity consists of a set of tasks which must be completed to finish the Opportunity. Each task will have some explanation of how it can be completed. Simple.
There’s a couple very important principles in this system that we are working hard to preserve that I want to go over quickly:
NO MORE LINEAR TRACKS
Firstly, you can complete opportunities in any order you like and can always see all opportunities available from this tree view (work in progress):
This means no more getting stuck on a step that you can’t figure out until you’re so mad that you give up on EVE forever. It also means you can do the things you’re interested in right away without having to slog through a bunch of steps that you don’t need.
OPEN-ENDED COMPLETION REQUIREMENTS
It’s very important to us that you can complete opportunity tasks however you like. For instance, if there is a task in an opportunity to dock at a station, you can dock at any station. This small distinction from the old tutorial means that we no longer have to trust people will find a particular item, location or agent to move forward. Not only does it mean that players have a lot more freedom in how they move through the NPE, but it also means we can provide opportunities to do things like join a fleet, kill another player or go to 0.0 space. In turn, this allows us to introduce a huge range of concepts that are essential to playing EVE but could never be explained in missions without simply having an agent describe them in a giant wall of text (much like this blog is turning out to be).
One of the most fundamental principles for the new NPE is that we want to do less hand-holding. We think players will be more likely to learn, and more likely to have fun if they get to experiment, discover, and even fail as they explore New Eden. As a result, there is deliberately less explanation in the opportunities system than there was in the tutorials. Again, we need to use testing to find out exactly how little explanation we can get away with but our internal testing suggests that we don’t need a lot.
The final point I want to mention is that, for now at least, we have no rewards associated with completing Opportunities. One of our original goals was to separate tutorial content and rewards so that players don’t feel compelled to do something they aren’t interested in just for money. That said, we can also acknowledge that starting without tutorial rewards may be very harsh so we are still open to changes related to starting assets and income. This is something we hope to learn more about after release.
One of the biggest limitations we face for the first release is a rather small amount of content. We are adding more daily, but at first, we will be releasing with only some very essential opportunities covering concepts such as:
We hope to be expanding rapidly on this list and eventually provide enough Opportunities that a new player could easily fill their entire trial period. For the time being though, we are still very focused on validating the general flow of the system and tuning our presentation.
During early user testing we established some peripheral changes that we felt were necessary to provide a good experience in the absence of missions.
The biggest example is that we will once again be starting new players in space rather than in a station. The EVE universe is truly awe inspiring and we want people to see that as soon as possible. Players in the new NPE will therefore begin the game in a rookie ship, in the starter systems, in a new site which will have three rats and some veldspar.
Once they leave, this site will quickly despawn and they will have to look elsewhere for their mining and shooting needs, which leads me to…
NEW PLAYER LANDMARK SITES
We have also introduced a new landmark site in each starter system. This site is available to all players and has some asteroids as well as a few NPCs which will respawn quickly. These NPCs (along with the ones in the starter site) drop some civilian modules and civilian module blueprints, allowing new players to easily check out ship fitting and industry.
We hope to follow up with more changes to starter systems and starting characters to make sure new players have access to a wide range of experiences and tools from the very start.
A/B TESTING AND ROLL OUT
Team Pirate Unicorns has been very happy with the results of our previous soft releases (opt-in notifications, beta star map, etc.) which gave us great opportunity (!) to hone and study the impact of each new feature, and so this NPE release will be no different.
Starting some time shortly after the official release of Tiamat, we will begin adding sets of new players to test groups where we can measure their experience without having to expose the entire player base at once. This will give us a chance to spot problems and gather feedback before going live to everyone.
We know some of you will want to give this system a try and so we are planning to make it available to all players on our Singularity test server this Friday, the 20th of February. Feel free to log on, make a new character and give it a try. The main purpose of this test will be to catch bugs and make sure that there is plenty of information available to current EVE players in case they come across new players in help chat or local looking for assistance with the new system. Of course, any feedback you have would also be appreciated so let us know what you think in the comments thread for this blog.
THE FUTURE OF THE NEW PLAYER EXPERIENCE
We have a long ways to go. We already have a lot of new content planned and would be very happy to see the Opportunity system expand to become a medium-term goal setting tool that can answer the most common noobie question: “what do I do now”. At the moment though, we’re just excited to get this into the hands of new players and see what kind of impact it has.
Rather than saying thanks for reading, or thanks for feedback on this feature, let me say thanks for the amazing job you all do of supporting our new players. You rock.
See you in space o/
Welcome to another exciting blog regarding the upcoming Council of Stellar Management elections!
Today we will be looking at the voting process and schedule.
So you’re asking yourself “Why should I care?”...
The CSM is a key part of the interaction between players of EVE Online and the EVE development team.
The delegates that YOU choose in this election will be attending two multiple day summits here at CCP headquarters in Reykjavík, Iceland, and will have open and direct access to the developers and work to improve and expand EVE Online throughout the year alongside the EVE Development team.
This means that your votes count and can be the deciding factor in which feature proposals, concerns, ideas and feedback items are brought to the development team for action.
Voting in the CSM elections allows you to select the candidate that best suits your playstyle and helps ensure that you get the best representation possible during communications with CCP.
Like any good political election, the candidates are varied and represent the wide spectrum of interests that EVE players have, so you should be able to find several that mirror your own EVE experiences.
We’ve prepared a couple of gifts to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the CSM elections!
Firstly, meet the Council Diplomatic Shuttle, a decommissioned, disarmed Pacifier-class CONCORD frigate this is now used as armored diplomatic transport. Every active account in EVE will be able to claim this, providing that it is active on the day that voting starts, which is February 25th.
Those who claim this gift will receive 10 run BPC (blue print copy) for this ship in their Redeeming system, so that they can build 10 of the hulls in celebration of the election of the 10th CSM.
For those who are interested, here are the shuttle’s statistics:
And what devblog would be complete without some shiny pictures?
Every account that votes in CSM X election will also receive 10 collectible trinkets – one for each council – which will contain a list of all council members who served during that term. Just a little keepsake for your fond memories of every single CSM member who has served on the council over the years. These will be delivered at a later release.
Lastly, I would like to wish good luck to all CSM X candidates, and would like to thank every council member who has served over the last 9 terms for their hard work and dedication.
EVE Fanfest 2015, the eleventh installment of the best player gathering in the world, will take place from March 19th to 21st in the world’s northernmost and most beautiful capital, Reykjavík.
At this hallowed event New Eden will teeter on a knife's edge, ready to plunge into the abyss should its champions fall in combat. The honor (or lack there of) of all capsuleers is under fire and their way of life must be defended. They will battle for so much more than simple tears and brag-worthy killmails.
The greatest pilots of Serenity and Tranquility will meet in combat for the first time in a conflict of staggering proportions where the stakes are enormous, and the bragging rights will last for eternity. A mirror match in the truest sense of the phrase. In the cold depths of space and in this world’s frozen north – Worlds Will Collide
Could that intro be a bit of a accurate foretelling of dramatic events made by a hyper-enthusiatic Tournament Team?
ONLY TIME WILL TELL!
On Friday evening (20 March) there will be a live, best-of-five series held in the main concert hall of Harpa (the Fanfest venue). Worlds Collide will be a full production value show that’s streamed live to Twitch.tv/ccp with commentary, analysis, and interviews. The combatants will be champions of their respective worlds (the Serenity and Tranquiliy EVE server clusters). Let's introduce them.
Championing Tranquility we have five members of the Alliance Tournament XII champions Camel Empire, ready to defend the honor of good old Tranquility.
For the Serenity server we have five players from the City of Angels alliance that vanquished all others in a cluster-wide tournament and earned their place as the best of their world.
Neither side is to be underestimated and the ancient prophecies fortold of a fun filled evening of live EVE Online destruction!
REWARDS? FOR ME?!
Of course there will be rewards! The champions that emerge victorious secure bragging rights and crown their server the "Best of the bestest, meanest of the meanests; the true super-power in EVE PvP" (-short poem by CCP Gargant). I hope you can imagine how much internet cred comes along with that and how many delicious tears will be shed by the losing server! As was said in the olden days in Iceland: Victory is its own reward!
But it’s not the only reward.
The real reason you should cheer for your champions is that every player active on the winning server at the time of the match will receive a special ship: the Victorieux Luxury Yacht. It is an opulent vessel in which the contraband-mongering Intaki Syndicate bosses traverse the universe with in utmost comfort and style--perfect for the mighty capsuleers and fitting as the prize for such a marquee event
This ship will be given once - and only once. The losing server will never receive it. Ever.
Stakes are high and the pressure is on!
The event will start at 17:00 UTC on Friday the 20th of March. With the full production level of an Alliance Tournament final we will have an analysis desk, commentators and interviews that will accompany the nail biting top tier EVE Online matches. With a best-of-5 format we estimate the event to less than 2 hours which will give attendees plenty of time to prepare for the pub crawl later that night.
This is a single invitation best-of-5 series between two teams. Each team consists of five players.
As a player, you may only compete for a single team, regardless of how many player-accounts you own.
Please note that both the format and match rules are subject to change.
Teams must field exactly five pilots on the battlefield.
Fights are limited to 10 minutes. If a fight reaches time, it will be stopped and whichever team has the higher total points value will be declared winner. See "Victory Conditions", below.
Intentional pod killing is NOT allowed and may result in the offender being punished. All podkills will be reimbursed.
The match simulation is taken as is. Teams are advised to spend the pre warp-in time to verify that their ships are completely operational.
A player found breaking any rules can be penalized to various degrees, depending on the severity of the offence. All penalties are incurred at the tournament referee's discretion. Decisions are final. Penalties may be levied against a player or team and may include, but are not limited to:
The format of the tournament will be a single best-of-five series.
Place & Tactics
This tournament will take place on a test server, running a version of EVE Online updated to the Proteus release.
Each team will be provided with characters that have all skills maximized, and all of the ships required for their previously submitted team setups will be provided pre-fit. (See Team Setup Submission and Banning, below)
Teams will be brought by a GM to a solar system in uncharted space and designated as Team 1 and Team 2. If you are not ready within this time allocation you will be disqualified from this match and the opposing team will be given an automatic win.
There are eight beacons in the system which serve as start off points. Four beacons are marked for Team 1 and four marked for Team 2. Teams will be moved to the beacon of their captain's choosing. Once the teams are in system, all instructions will be given by the referee in local chat. You must keep an eye on that channel at all times once in system.
Once word is given, teams warp in to the arena beacon specified, at a range of their choosing, up to a maximum of 50 km. Team members are allowed to warp in at different ranges.
The arena will measure 125 km radius around the central beacon.
The host will begin a countdown. When the countdown ends, the host will break target locks of all ships in the arena.
If a player warps out/leaves the arena, his/her ship will be destroyed. This includes disconnection emergency warps. This rule is in effect before and during the match.
Warping within the arena is NOT allowed.
Boarding a ship during the match is NOT allowed.
Dropping cargo containers, anchorable items or mobile structures is NOT allowed. Dropping regular jettison containers is allowed.
The following restrictions are in place after teams warp to the arena beacon, until the match begins:
Team Setup Submission and Banning
The creation and fitting of ship setups for this tournament will take place before the event itself begins, to ensure a smooth live viewing experience and enable extremely short pauses between matches.
Each team must submit seven complete team setups to CCP by midnight GMT on the evening of March 6th. These team setups must consist of the following:
No individual ship type may be used in more than one team setup submitted by a team. Each of the seven setups must use a completely different set of ship types as the other team setups.
The setups may not be changed during the tournament event, and must be flown as-is. Extra modules, swapping modules or charges between ships, and any other modification of the setups by competitors during the tournament is prohibited. For this reason teams are advised to design their setups in such a way as to maximize their options without requiring any changes to the ship fittings or charges.
On March 7th, CCP will publically publish the list of ship types used by each of the team setups submitted by the two teams using our news channels and forums. Only ship types will be published and other aspects of the setups including module fittings, charges and implants will remain confidential.
Before midnight GMT on the evening of March 13th, each team must choose two of their opponent’s seven team setups to ban and communicate their ban choices to CCP. The two banned setups for each team will not be eligible to be flown by that team in the tournament. This will leave each team with a set of five team setups that will be prepared for them for use in the tournament.
Before each match of the tournament, each team must select and board one of their eligible setups without modifying the setup in any way. The setup chosen by each team will not be revealed until both teams are on the field of battle.
Once a team has won a match with a particular team setup; that setup will no longer be eligible for use later in the series.
Ships & Points
Each team has 45 points with which to select their ships.
Each team must begin with exactly 5 ships on the battlefield.
Teams may field no more than 2 of a given ship. This applies to specifically named ships only and not ship hulls. For example, 2 Merlins, 2 Hawks, and 1 Harpy would be legal.
“Skinned” variants of ships count as their base ships and cannot be used to bypass hull limits or to use the same ship in multiple setups.
Teams may field no more than 1 logistics ship, or 1 tech one support cruiser, or 2 support frigates in each match.
Marauders are NOT allowed.
The Nestor is NOT allowed.
The only limited edition ship that may be used is the Gnosis.
Previous Alliance Tournament prize ships are NOT allowed.
Ship point values are as follows. Ship types not listed in the table are not allowed.
All T1 and T2 modules are allowed, with the following exceptions:
Faction, COSMOS, deadspace and officer modules are NOT allowed.
T1 Rigs are allowed. T2 Rigs are NOT allowed.
All T1 and T2 ammunition, missiles and charges are allowed. Faction ammunition, missiles and capacitor boosters are allowed.
Only standard T1 (tech one) drones are allowed. This means that T2, faction, augmented and integrated drones are NOT allowed. The Gecko is NOT allowed.
All standard tech one drones are allowed, including tech one logistics and electronic warfare drones.
The only implants that are allowed are Leadership Mindlinks (including Navy mindlinks), EG-* powergrid implants and EE-* CPU implants.
Boosters (drugs) are NOT allowed.
Cloaking is NOT allowed.
Cap Boosters are allowed.
Micro-jump drives are allowed.
During a match, a team scores points for each enemy ship it kills, equal to the tournament points value of that ship. The team that has scored the most points at the conclusion of the match, or that destroys the entire opposing team, is the winner.
If a team chooses to field less than 45 points, non-fielded points count towards the opponent's score.
If a fight is tied after 10 minutes, time dilation will be used to progressively speed up the tournament solar system and encourage a prompt end to the match.
In the very unlikely case that a fight is tied after 15 minutes, the victory will be awarded to the team that had more collective potential team DPS at the beginning of the match, as measured by the tournament automated “attack bar”.
Join us and watch Worlds Collide live this coming Fanfest.
On behalf of the Tournament Team,
- CCP Gargant]]>
We know the effort and time that CEOs and directors spend on managing their corporations is very valuable, and we want to make things easier for them. That’s why we went to the forums and asked for your "corp little things". A lot of good ideas surfaced and we tried to prioritize targeting them and hope you’ll like the things we’re bringing you this time.
We also have further changes that are in-development aimed at improving the corporation UI. These are planned for later release, so keep an eye out for more information on those in the future and read through to the end for a sneak hint of a work-in-progress!
Setting friendly fire as legal or illegal
We are going to give player corporations the ability to configure whether “friendly fire” within the corporation is considered legal, or if it will carry criminal penalties (specifically CONCORD punishment in high-sec , security status hits, Suspect/Criminal flagging etc).
Duels, kill-rights, outlaw flagging and similar situational events will always provide a way to legally attack corp-mates, and will override the friendly fire setting. The safety system will respect the current crimewatch rules and allow/prevent module activation as expected in any given situation. In null-sec and wormhole space, everyone is always a valid target, so nothing will change here.
Before we get in to the mechanics of this change, there are a few design motivations that are worth discussing:
With hangar access permissions, you can make choices about how much you wish to expose your corp to the risk of theft. As your confidence and trust in your members grows, so you can give them more access to assets. Conversely, as a would-be corp-thief, you have the challenge of manipulating your way in to a position where you can clear out the vaults.
However with aggression rules, there is no such spectrum of decisions. The only ‘choice’ is the binary option of either joining a corp where other players can shoot you, or simply not joining a corp with others at all. For many players, their optimal choice is therefore to avoid signing up to a corp altogether, and so they inevitably miss out on many of the meaningful social interactions that make EVE unique.
Similarly, as a player interested in running a corp for others, you have no ability to choose the level of aggression-related risk that you want for your members. Again the optimal ‘choice’ for some becomes running a corp containing only alts, or just staying in an NPC corp.
We want to add an intermediate choice to these options. One that allows a player to find a corporation where being a member doesn’t require automatically enabling others to legally attack him, but where he can still enjoy the social dynamics that come from being part of a group. It also allows corporations to recruit newer ‘riskier’ characters in to the group whilst still having some degree of control over what they can and cannot legally do to other members.
Initially we were planning to simply remove the exception allowing friendly fire in player corps and make them observe the same rule as NPC corps, without any optional setting (as discussed in the CSM 9 summer summit [page 77]). After concerns were raised from the summit about the impact of this proposal (such as eliminating the free-for-all events within groups like RvB), we postponed implementing it to allow further consideration. This resulted in a revised design giving the individual corps the choice to enable the setting as they see fit.
So how is this going to work?
The friendly fire setting can be configured by the CEO or a director from the corporation management window in the same way you configure tax levels and such. The change will require 24 hours to become active, after which it will apply to all corp members. All members will be sent notifications at the start and completion of this timer, which will explain the change and include the name of the responsible character.
When friendly fire is set to legal, aggression between two corp-mates will behave exactly as it does now in a player corp. When set to Illegal, aggressive acts will follow the same rules as they currently do in NPC corporations: attacks will invoke CONCORD (in high sec), trigger a security status penalty and also a Criminal/Suspect flag. You are still able to take advantage of limited engagements, kill-rights, outlaw flags and so on to aggress corp-mates if the situation arises – these override the friendly fire rules.
The friendly fire status of a corporation is always publicly visible to all players. It will be displayed in the various places such as the corp’s “Show-Info” window as well as in adverts shown in the Corporation Finder. If you’re searching for your next corp, you’ll be able to set a filter to only show corps where friendly fire is disabled. When creating a new corporation, you will choose how you want to set the initial friendly fire state (but of course you’ll be free to change it again later, subject to the 24 hour delay).
Existing player corporations will default to friendly fire being Legal – so they will behave exactly the same as they currently do with no action required. It will be up to the CEO/directors to transition to making it Illegal if they wish to do so.
(click to enlarge)
As well as the friendly fire change, we've got several more improvements coming along in Tiamat:
Upping limit on mailing lists
Your communities keep getting bigger and more popular, with groups such as Spectre Fleet and RvB Ganked getting close to the maximum mailing list size. To enable them to keep growing, we’ve upped the limit on mailing list membership from 3000 people to 5000.
Adding a filter to the member list
When you have a corporation with a few thousand members we get that it’s near impossible to find a specific member. That’s why we’ve added a filter to the member list.
Corp details improvements
You can now resize the corp details window and make a better description of you corp with customizable font and links and what not.
Unrenting offices made more obvious
The option to unrent an office is currently in a rather too-well hidden spot. When viewing your list of offices, a button will be displayed for each office giving an easy way to unrent it. Don’t worry about accidently clicking it though, it does check for confirmation first!
Inviting a character from the applications tab
Wouldn’t it make sense to be able to find a character and send him an invitation to join your corp directly from the corp window? Yes we thought so too, that’s why we added a button in the applications tab to search for a character and then send them an invitation.
Custom message with rejection mails
Finding a character after you’ve rejected his application to send him an EVE mail with the reason why is not the greatest usability experience for our beloved players. That’s why we added an option to send a custom message with the corp rejection mail, and of course we know that you will only be sending those people love letters and kind words.
Because we know that you’re going to ask us about roles, and why we’re not fixing them, we want to let you know we’re working on it! Unfortunately you won’t see any of that work in Tiamat, but we will tell you more about that when we get closer to releasing it.
(click to enlarge)
Fly safe! o7
- Team Five 0]]>
CCP Falcon here, and I’d like to show you all something that our Operations team have been working on in the run up to Fanfest:
Okay, now that the glorious image part is out of the way, I’d like to tell you what this devblog is all about, and how you can become the proud owner of a piece of EVE Online history, while helping raise funds for an amazing and incredibly worthwhile cause at Fanfest 2015!
Our Operations team are currently planning some significant upgrades to the hardware that supports the Tranquility cluster in order to improve overall game performance and to make your experience with spaceships even more pleasureable. With this in mind, they have found themselves with a surplus of old server hardware from Tranquility and have decided to look at creative ways to honor years of demanding service rather than it being placed in some poorly-lit storage warehouse on a volcanic rock in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean.
The blades that have been removed were once as important to the Operations team as their own internal organs, so instead of selling them as scrap metal for beer money (they have explained that their New Year detox prevents this), they’ve kindly let us know that they would like to share them with the people who have made EVE as successful as it is today, and who have supported us for so many years as part of the EVE Community.
We’ve seen at least one gaming company in the past (our friends over at Blizzard Entertainment) who have auctioned off old server hardware to benefit children’s charities in the United States. This had a fantastic effect on fundraising for a very worthwhile cause. We’d like to do the same, and ensure that the legacy of this hardware continues to serve a good cause even when it’s not actively in use.
This year, Fanfest will be supporting Barnaspítali Hringsins with fundraising, which is the Icelandic Children’s Hospital specializing in providing long term care for children who require treatment for a variety of health issues including cancer and diabetes as well as cardiovascular and neurlogical issues.
As part of the Charity Auction during Fanfest 2015, the Community Team will be assisting our Operations Team in raising money for charity by including a number of these blades in the Silent Auction.
These machines are all hardware that served as the number crunching workhorses of New Eden between 2006 and 2009, during the following expansions:
These blades served through turbulent times for New Eden, including the invasion of Caldari Prime by Provist forces, the Elder Fleet attack on CONCORD headquarters, the ascention of Jamyl I to the throne of the Amarr Empire, the spectacular collapse of Band of Brothers due to corporate espionage, and the intruduction of hundreds of new wormhole systems with Apocrypha in late 2009 . Each one of them was part of a period in time that was pivotal in the history of New Eden.
These servers may have performed various roles over the course of their service life, including hosting multiple solar systems, parts of the market, and even character data. They may also have functioned as proxies or hosted other anciliary services used to support New Eden.
Given the fact that Tranquility’s load balacing is pretty dynamic and each blade is assigned a task at startup after each downtime, it’s not possible to pinpoint exactly what role each blade within Tranquility performed, as its assignment could have changed on a day by day basis with every restart.
As part of their preparation for auction, our friends at Logoflex.is will be assisting us in stripping each of the blades of their steel cover and fitting them with a decorative polycarbonate shield that exposes their inner workings, along with a commemorative plaque that covers their heatsink.
Right now, the text to be engraved on the plaque is still being finalized, but will include the service years of the blade, the expansions through which it was in service with Tranquility, and the signatures of our Operations team.
If you’d like to be in with a chance of bidding on one of these and many other items including signed EVE Books, rare limited edition T-Shirts, replicas of weapons from DUST 514, and many more EVE Online trinkets, be sure to pick up your tickets for Fanfest 2015 soon.
We’re looking forward to seeing you all at Fanfest!
CCP Community Manager
On behalf of the CCP Operations Team]]>
CCP Leeloo here with more information regarding the upcoming CSM X elections.
For those of you new capsuleers who might not know what the CSM (Council of Stellar Management) is, head over to this page.
First of all, on behalf of CCP I would like to express our gratitude to all members of CSM9 for their incredible performance over the course of the last year!
By the way, we just finished the winter summit, if you missed it, feel free to catch up with the minutes:
Now to the fun part!
As of 11:30 GMT on 30th of January, 2015 you can start submitting your CSM X candidacy applications. To submit your application, follow this link.
The CSM X Candidacy period closes at 11:30 UTC on 15th of February, 2015.
Voting starts at 11:30 GMT on 25th of February.
What should you know before you apply
Please read the following before you decide to apply.
The Council of Stellar Management is a democratically elected institution of fourteen EVE players that is chosen annually. Members of the CSM are in close and constant contact with EVE Development. Twice a year we host CSM summits. Summit can last up to 5 days and up to 10 members of the CSM will fly to CCP headquarters in Reykjavik, Iceland to participate in person. The rest of the CSM will join the summit remotely.
Before considering running for election as part of the CSM, players need to be aware that becoming a CSM delegate requires a lot of effort and that Council duties take a lot of time, strength and patience. If you are elected to the council you will be representing thousands of people who gave their vote for you. This is a colossal responsibility that you should be prepared for.
We value the council as part of the development process. As such they maintain knowledge and information relating to every aspect of the development of EVE Online with their opinions and suggestions touching every aspect of gameplay. In addition to this, the CSM’s voice is heard in areas of the company outside the development team, including with the marketing and sales departments, our cinematic team, and our public relations team.
The CSM have an impact not only on how we develop EVE, but how we communicate with our player base and prospective new customers. Every member has a chance to influence the future of EVE by actively contributing to the process.
Members of the council have access to the internal communication tools CCP uses and information about upcoming, unannounced changes to EVE Online. You should be willing to use this trust responsibly. We expect council delegates to be ready and able to join online meetings with CCP and to be a part of internal discussions.
Any behavior or actions considered being a material breach of the EULA, TOS or NDA by a CSM delegate is grounds for immediate dismissal and permanent exclusion from all pending and future participation in the council. There are no exceptions or “first strikes” regardless of the infraction. Delegates are not only expected to uphold the social contract that all society members are held accountable to, but should also set a behavior standard for everyone else to follow.
Requirements and application process
If you have any additiona questions regarding the CSM X application process, please send us an email to email@example.com or via support ticket to the community category.
I'm looking forward to reading your candidacy applications!
New NPCs with new abilities
Smarter and more cunning adversaries will begin to appear after the release of Tiamat. You should make sure that you keep an eye on what they're up to, and make sure that you stay locked and loaded whenever you come into contact with them. Things are moving in New Eden, be sure to follow in-game news and uncover these features in-game.
Minmatar Tactical Destroyer - The Svipul
The stance-switching tactical destroyer provides defensive, propulsion and sniper modes with different bonuses that can be switched between on the fly. Read all about this new ship in CCP Fozzie's latest dev blog: The Republic Strikes Back: The Svipul Tactical Destroyer and Projectile Changes in Tiamat.
Projectile Weapons Rebalance
Tiamat brings balance changes to Autocannons, Barrage ammunition, and Small Artillery modules. Read about the new module stats and provide feedback in the comments thread for CCP Fozzie's latest dev blog: The Republic Strikes Back: The Svipul Tactical Destroyer and Projectile Changes in Tiamat.
Option to have CONCORD intervene in internal corporation conflicts
With Tiamat, corporations can choose to have CONCORD intervene in acts of aggression between corporation members. The setting can be changed with a 24 hour notice and it will be visible to people joining a corporation if CONCORD intervention is active or not. Read more about this feature in an upcoming dev blog.
Corporation Management Quality of Life Updates
The corporation member list can be filtered, mailing lists can contain 5,000 pilots, the corp description can now be edited with links and other formatting options, closing office rentals is made easier, and a custom message can be added to rejected corporation applications, along with other smaller changes. Read an upcoming dev blog for a presentation of the changes and eventually the patch notes for the full list.
New Physically-Based Rendering Additions
New UI Icon Additions and More Themed UI Elements
Following up from the revamped user interface released in Rhea, Tiamat brings a few new user interface icons and more interface elements are themed by the selected color theme. Read the patch notes for the full list of changes.
Visual Updates to Structures in Missions and other Locations
Shaders and effects for structures and objects found in sites are updated in Tiamat, along with rending performance improvements.
Quality Settings for Sun Flares
Tiamat brings quality settings to sun flares, improving performance by providing a less resource-intensive version of the effect on lower quality settings.
Atmosphere Sounds for Pirate Faction Structures
New sound atmosphere is added to Pirate Faction structures in sites and mission locations.
Firing Aftershock Sound for Turret Weapons
Turret weapon firing sound effects become richer in Tiamat through the addition of aftershock sound for individual shots.
Audio Engine Performance Improvements
An upgrade of the audio engine brings performance improvements to the EVE client as a whole in Tiamat.
Tiamat Theme Music
With Tiamat comes another soundtrack from our audio and music team. It will be up on our SoundCloud Page as soon as it’s done!
In the weeks leading up to EVE Fanfest you’ll see more communication from the EVE team about features coming to EVE in 2015, such as upcoming steps on improving sovereignty mechanics. The EVE Keynote at Fanfest will give the next big update on the big picture roadmap for EVE. It’s best viewed in person so grab your tickets and I’ll see you there!
Enjoy the Tiamat changes, you can check out many of the features on Singularity already.
Executive Producer, EVE Online
This is CCP Fozzie bringing you the long-awaited details of the second Tactical Destroyer coming your way this February in the Tiamat release.
For anyone who isn’t familiar with the Tactical Destroyers, they are new advanced ships created by the four great Empires of New Eden with the help of capsuleers like you! Last October we ran an event that encouraged players to participate in new research on the mysterious Sleepers of Anoikis. Players could choose whether they wanted to support one or more of the empires (or if they’d prefer to work towards their own ends) and the relative amount of support each empire received determined how quickly they would be able to release their new ships.
The supporters of the Amarr Empire were the most dedicated and thanks to their hard work the Empire’s shipyards were able to release the Confessor-class Tactical Destroyer to capsuleers in December with the Rhea release.
We have been very happy with how the Confessor and the new Tactical Destroyer mechanics have been received by players. Industrialists and wormhole resource harvesters have been able to make huge profits off the new technology and there are numerous great examples of skilled pilots demonstrating their mastery with this flexible ship. PVP live streamers like Fintarue and video makers like Chessur have demonstrated particularly impressive performances.
The Minmatar Republic came second in the Research Race, and their engineers are getting close to having a production-ready Tactical Destroyer of their own. The Minmatar Tactical Destroyer is known as the Svipul (properly pronounciated by CCP Scarpia), and it represents many of the best aspects of Minmatar engineering.
Wielding six turret slots bonused for projectile weaponry, the Svipul is deadly with artillery and autocannons alike. It also makes excellent use of the trademark Minmatar versatility, gaining bonuses to both armor and shield resistances while Defensive Mode is active. Although its lower mass makes it a bit less suited to oversized afterburners compared to its Amarr contemporary, the Svipul is the fastest of all the Tactical Destroyers and can use that speed to pick apart unwary enemy fleets.
However I think we all know the real question on every reader’s lips is “How vertical is it?” and that is a question best answered with a picture (the following is a work in progress image of an untextured model):
Like the Confessor before it, the Svipul has three modes with distinct physical configurations and bonuses. Unlike the Confessor, the Svipul actually pivots on an internal axis to present a horizontal profile in Propulsion Mode and a vertical profile in the default Defense Mode as well as Sharpshooter Mode.
Although the mode archetypes (Defense, Sharpshooter, Propulsion) are the same on all the Tactical Destroyers, the specific bonuses given by those modes are adapted by each Empire to fit their own needs. The stats and bonuses of the Svipul are:
Minmatar Tactical Destroyer Bonuses Per Level:
10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret optimal range
5% reduction in heat damage generated by modules
95% reduction in Scan Probe Launcher CPU requirements
Additional bonuses are available when one of three Tactical Destroyer Modes are active. Modes may be changed no more than once every 10 seconds.
33.3% bonus to all shield and armor resistances while Defense Mode is active
66.6% reduction in Microwarpdrive signature radius penalty while Defense Mode is active
66.6% bonus to maximum velocity while Propulsion Mode is active
33.3% bonus to ship inertia modifier while Propulsion Mode is active
33.3% bonus to Small Projectile Turret tracking while Sharpshooter Mode is active
100% bonus to sensor strength, scan resolution and targeting range while Sharpshooter Mode is active
Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 4 L, 6 turrets , 1 launcher
3 Rig Slots, 400 Calibration
Fittings: 78 PWG, 215 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 / 700 / 550
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 40 / 40 / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 80 / 51.25 / 25 / 10
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 600 / 225s / 2.667
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed / align time): 290 / 2.65 / 1,900,000 / 4.5 / 6.98s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 40km / 375 / 7
Sensor strength: 11 Ladar
Signature radius: 50
Cargo capacity: 430
We will of course be looking for feedback on these stats and bonuses in the comments thread, as well as on our Singularity test server once the ship is available for player testing there.
But that’s not all!
We are also making some adjustments to projectile weapons in the Tiamat release, to help tweak their balance and ensure that players have the best possible variety of viable tactics to choose from.
These changes will be familiar to those of you who remember our energy weapon tweaks from the Rhea release, as they are once again focused on two goals: improving the quality of small artillery weapons slightly and reducing the reliance of all autocannon weapons on their ‘Barrage’ Tech Two ammo.
In Tiamat we are making some adjustments to small artillery weapons to help keep them in line with other similar weapon systems. We will be increasing damage multipliers slightly while reducing tracking speed.
All small artillery will be receiving:
+10% damage multiplier
-3% tracking speed
Autocannons and Barrage:
For autocannons of all sizes, we wanted to improve the weapon class slightly while reducing the reliance on the excellent Barrage T2 ammo type. To that end, we are increasing the base falloff of all subcapital autocannons and decreasing the falloff bonus provided by Barrage ammo to match.
All autocannons will receive +7.5% falloff
Barrage ammo will provide a +40% falloff bonus instead of +50%
The end result is that falloff with Barrage loaded will remain almost identical, but there will be more situations where using another ammo type is a correct choice.
Thanks for joining me for this dev blog, and thanks in advance to all of you who will be posting constructive feedback in this blog’s comments thread. As always we plan to work with our community to ensure that these changes find their best possible version before release.
The Svipul and these projectile changes will be hitting Singularity for your testing pleasure as soon as possible, and we look forward to releasing them in our Tiamat release coming your way on February 17th.]]>
All of us in EVE development really love the idea behind the ship painting program that is in EVE right now and we want to see it grow to be better. We love the idea of everyone flying around with cool looking ships and want to make that as easy and practical as possible. So we decided to take a look and see what we could do.
The current ship painting system from was started as (and remains) a pilot program--an experiment of sorts to validate some assumptions we had, to test the customization of ships, and to see generally how popular this kind of feature might be. Since the launch of the ship painting program back in March of 2014 we have grown from selling 8 different paint styles to a much greater variety (with 28 currently available in the store), adding new ship types, trying different pricing options, monitoring their consumption, and trying to understand what parts of system are really important to you capsuleers.
We decided a while ago that it was time to revisit the ship painting pilot program from top to bottom. This meant looking at what the paint jobs were, how players applied them, their cost, and every other aspect we could think of.
Now that we’ve finished our evaluation and started on some designs for a new system, we would like to introduce to you Super Kerr-Induced Nanocoatings, aka SKINs.
SKINs are quite different from the paint jobs we have now in terms of how you use them and at a higher level of how to think about them. With the painting system you would combine a paint style with a ship and they would become a new ship, taking that paint with the ship everywhere. If you had torpedoes delivered directly to it that caused an unfortunate explosion and loss of the ship, the paint style would be lost with it.
With the new SKIN system you will buy a license to use a specific design or pattern for a ship. You then apply that license to your character and then your character will be licensed to use that design whenever you wish. For now the licenses are permanent and cannot be removed from your character once applied. Even if your character loses their pod and dies or jump clones around they still have the license to use all their SKINs. The licenses themselves can still be traded on the market, contracts, and all other ways before being applied to your character.
Here is a work-in-progress mockup of how we imagine this looking in the ship fitting window:
There are many reasons why SKINs are happening now, and we would like to lay out some of these reasons to give you a better understanding of why we are doing this and what you can expect going forward.
You may have noticed we didn't include a release date in this dev blog or on the o7 show. The point of this announcement is to begin gathering your feedback on the feature while we work on it. We are not yet ready to announce a release date for feature. When we get closer to release we will have another dev blog that goes over the feature in its more complete state along with information about how we will handle the transition from the current paint system over to the new Super Kerr-Induced Nanocoating system. I hope you people are all as excited as we are for this.
Thank you for taking the time to read and fly safe.
CCP FoxFour on behalf of Team Size Matters
p.s. Hyasyoda Automatic Transformation System was the runner up for what to call the new system. ;)
p.p.s Kerr effect is a real term, no we didn't make it up. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_effect]]>
I am here to invite you to come along for a time travel adventure as we take a look at the past year through the eyes of members of Ninth Council of Stellar Management, especially timely since players have already started to toss their hat into the ring of the Tenth Council elections.
Here is a run down of key dates in the run up to the election of the Tenth Council:
For those readers who are new to EVE, or who are unfamiliar with what exactly the CSM is, let me explain in a little more detail. The Council of Stellar Management is a democractically elected body of fourteen EVE Online players who are chosen annually by the EVE Community and represent various demographics within New Eden.
Council members are in constant contact with the EVE Online dev team in order to have a front line, up to date view on features and improvements that are currently being developed for EVE. They are also responsible for bringing the opinions, concerns, suggestions and ideas of their constituents to CCP for consideration. They sign a non-disclosure agreement so we can bring even more ideas to them, many of which we may not take beyond the initial design phases.
This time around as their term comes to an end, we decided that CSM members should speak directly to you about how 2014 has progressed in the form of a guest blog. With almost no edits made, we are releasing it into your hands to provide the most clear and comprehensive look at the CSM’s year from some of those who were on the council.
The CSM is an institution that is in constant development and it would be unfair to say that it is perfect. There have been ups and downs during the course of this year and we have had to find our weak spots to ensure that we are developing an efficient working process to fit our new, faster release model.
There are even more changes coming with the Tenth Council, a lot of which will be revealed with my next blog regarding the upcoming opening of candidacy for CSM X.
We are incredibly thankful for the contributions that the delegates of CSM 9 have brought to what has been a year of great change for CCP, and would like to express our gratitude for their dedication and candid communication when dealing with the challenges we’ve faced this year while adapting the CSM to fit with the new release model.
My name is corebloodbrothers and for those of you who don’t keep track of EVE politics, I was elected as a member of the ninth Council of Stellar Management (CSM), in order to represent you, the players of EVE Online. I am also one of the leaders of The Volition Cult Alliance, a Providence sovereignty holder and member of the Providence Bloc, which I function as one of their main Fleet Commanders. Little did I know of what was ahead…
I am 42 years of age, Dutch (horrible English spelling), father of 4 daughters, and I freaking love EVE. This is not my first CSM elections, as I ran last year as well, but sadly fell short of the mark. I didn’t get a seat, so I decided to try a different approach this time. Thus, I focused on just my own list, my friends, Providence and other entities I have come to know over the years, such as RNK for example, who voted for me. I stayed away from all the backroom dealing that went on with the previous CSM elections. So I had no crossvoting on my list, nor did I appear on other lists. And we didn’t need those either, I got voted in bigtime.
My own explanation for getting elected is simple: Being honest and loyal to the people I fly with against. Independent voters do exist, in fact, and I have had a lot of chats and EVE mails with various people since I ran for CSM, many of which I have never met before. Also running fleets daily with friends on fixed hours and shared coms helped, while giving respect to the new players and the casual PvPers, for 3 years now in the Providence Bloc. Being a part of building the current Providence, a region which sees medium sized skirmishes on a daily basis, with thousands of allies having fun living together, ranting and complaining and establishing their homes here helps to get votes. Upholding NRDS, and turning The Volition Cult from a four hundred pilot alliance into its current huge one thousand and seven hundred pilot affair is no lesser help!
Have no mistake, here in Providence, we see ourselves as the last bastion of the “Not Red Don’t Shoot” (NRDS) policy in Null Security space, as well as a truly neutral zone in a universe divided by big power blocks (Which we can’t match, but that is a discussion for a different time). So for me, and my voters, this election is merely the cherry on top. Thank you all for the trust invested, and I am truly honored to be elected. As the year progressed, so did we, under attack by HERO we dominated the news even, which was scary for the state of null actually. And we saw CCP change, and EVE with it. I like too think that if the whole null sec was divided into 20 provi like groups, with 10 border wars, Null sec would be revived J
So, just elected, and I didn’t even have time to let it sink in as the work just piles up: Twitter account, Google DocsDrive, Skype, hundreds (Literally!) of Emails, not to mention the Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA)…It is a bit overwhelming, even if I am on cloud nine, as my wife even kind of congratulated me (Since this will have an impact on my real life obviously) and my kids think I am the greatest, even telling everyone at school!. A CSM team where most are red to me ingame is funny to begin with. Some more experienced and new members reached out, others did their own thing. I was hoping for a csm team, though its often occasional clusters.
Communication is key, obviously, so I set up a twitter account: @corebloodbro. Which I use frequently , I am active on forums and other means of communication. Within my region through open sessions on mumble, Eve email explodes sometimes, internal CSM forums, all highly addictive for a eve junky with a RL and a job hehe.
In my evesterdam speech I announced a lot of things that kept me busy in the CSM, and events like blink, freighter changes, null sec, leaving of several CSM members, that impacted our term and your future. I quickly came too the realization that the meetings with CCP where often during my work. At the start I sneaked hem in at work, but that didn’t feel right. Often there where recordings available. And CCP Leeloo always announced when they where crucial and asked for us all. Sometimes that makes you feel a bit guilty, but in the end I balance that with forums, and other stuff, like a speech, interviews, twitter, and of course my vast experience in null sec as provi member (wink).
I was very happy with PI acces too null for everyone, which is a big thing in a open region. The nerf on power projection and the upcoming occupancy get from me a standing ovation. We felt with isboxer we where talking too a wall, but CCP came around big time. I hate isboxer bomberwings. With Blink we saw a CCP struggling , investing time and make clear who is in control of EVE. The whole 3 days they stayed very much in touch with us, the CSM. So much to list, sometimes you stand aside, sometimes you don’t agree, but I am extremely proud of the course EVE and CCP is moving with the CSM. The release cycle based on sprints is giving us more content and features then you have ever had in EVE. Crest, occupancy, wormhole, so much more too come, and every month the box of Pandora opens. I cant wait for what CCP throws next at us.
Some people ask me if I feel a CCP pet, a token public figure rather then a council. Being in for the bigger part of the term the answer is no. If you really like to hear more about that, listen too the evesterdam thingie, though I warn you , its 1 hour….
CSM10.. when I started CSM was something I always wanted to do, much like owning a titan, building a station, owning sov, kill supers. It turned into much more, a way to express love for EVE, respect for the people that build it, and a way to make a voice heard that wants to help EVE into the next decade. I never thought I would like to run again, but I will if providence region keeps appreciating me as their representive also for next year. Of course it’s not just your alliance and friends. I have gotten so many votes from friends, reds, people who believe null sec is more than 2 blocks nailing each other too the wall. Small scale PVP, localized conflicts, occupancy based sov, and income, build local, sell local. Close communities and the this is eve feeling expressed in the awesome new video. Winter summit and fanfest are still too come, and have offered the opportunity to attend them both, which is epic.
I met more people this year than in a entire eve life,of all sorts and sizes and met unexpected friends and enemies. So make sure you vote for CSM 10, last year my election was a surprise too many, this year lets show this wasn’t a one time event. I will be running again for a null sec outside the major blocks, for a daily skirmish based game play where you don’t just login when you get a jabberping. Where 1 big war is replaced by 10-15 localised ones. Where fatigue matters and adds a tactical layer.
Eve is a niche game, cut throat, insanely caring, and one hell of a rush, call me an EVE addict!
See you at Fanfest 2015, EVEsterdam 2015, provi Copenhagen and in game.
Here’s a list of stuff that I’ve taken part during this term.
Firstly, PvE testing, TWICE!!
On starting the CSM I wanted to look at the income in lower class wormholes.
The problem was it just wasn’t accurate enough and while it did give some very useful numbers like, how much the income was from salvage, and now much of the site was from melted nanoribbons. It wasn’t accurate enough for me. Second results can be found here.
This gave a much better break down on the income which I was much happier about. I also did a simplified version for general release to W-space, found here.
The total time spent for these two tasks was over three hundred hours. This includes getting modules, fitting ships, finding wormholes, and all of the little details needed to set up and run sites.
Wormhole little things were next. This started as a general little things thread on the forum found here. I gathered most of the good ideas in this google doc. Asayanami Dei has since tied this up a lot. A fair few of these little things have already been done. Sigs staying over down time and splitting of probe scanner and D scan have been HUGE quality of life things for W-space.
Next came PvE little things. This came from the sounding board (more on this later), where CCP Affinity suggested setting up a thread for wormhole PvE little things.The thread can be found in this thread.
Hearts and Minds
During the summer sumit I realized that there was conflict between how the developers felt about w-space and how the residents of w-space reacted to potential developmental changes. The negative push back from the player base did affect the potential of changes to some degree. What had to be made clear was that the player reaction was their passion for wormhole space and their desire to not lose anything that they loved about it.
I was blunt. If people wanted interactions with developers they needed to control their emotions and be productive with their criticism. I decided to set up a Skype “wormhole round table” channel with assorted members of wormhole space and several developers who were doing work inside of wormholes. At the present it has 4 CCP people in (big thanks to CCP Affinity, CCP Fozzie, CCP Leeloo and CCP Manifest) and 21 W-space people mainly diplos/leadership from C1 to C6 and 3 CSM (Me, Asay and Sugar). both me and Asay have been slowly adding people to this channel. So far I’ve had no complaints from CCP members in here and hope its helped out. So far I’m pretty pleased with how its going.
The next project was the POS research I sorted a questionnaire and had CCP Nullabor check it out made a couple alterations on his suggestion. I then sent this out to around 100 people in W-space who said they would help.
This included a spread sheet and a word doc with the information I had gathered. I was also lucky enough to interview a few people, some of which had documents prepared for me in the way of either, blog posts or word docs.
For the eve trailer I made sure people in W-space knew about this and to send in videos. I also linked various wormhole groups videos to CCP Prawn along with a link to the W-space video thread. I also sorted out getting them some footage of wormhole PvE.
Recently when CCP Mimic was after groups of people who were helping new player, I managed to put her in contact with various people who were organising and sorting things for new players.
This is potentially one thing I do think CCP could make more use of us, The CSM in general know alot of people so can often help CCP get in contact with people for various things, be that video makers, groups helping others, people for interviews, etc.
Communication with the playerbase
I’ve organised 4 Wormhole townhalls and 9 sounding board meetings. This has focused mainly on PvE and has been a huge success. CCP Affinity has been to the last few and asked if this could branch out and also do a general PvE one as well, which I take as a very good sign.
This has also helped with the players getting to interact with CCP as well. This has also lead to the PvE little things thread. I've also sorted one on clothing and pos's (with the help of sugar) With us being asked if we'd do another pos (structures) one in the future.
I’ve also been along to all of Sugar Kyles CSM Q&A sessions (12 so far).
At present I have 379 eve players on skype (mainly wormhole people) making it very easy for people to get hold of me.
I’ve managed to make all the CCP meetings except one and have written up a good amount of minutes for them.
Some CCP teams/groups make great use of the CSM, but I feel some groups don’t, be it they don’t think we would be interested, They maybe don’t see how we could of helped. I’m not suggesting we can help in every team/department, but if we don’t know about stuff we sure as hell can’t help.
What I've been up to!
One project that I am quite proud of has been my “From the Players to CCP” document. I created a document of questions and ideas collected from the player base over the months leading to the September Summit. I organized them into the session topics and printed it out. It was my go-to checklist during the Summer Summit and I attempted to get every question answered. I’m currently composing one for the Winter Summit.
I started a proactive PvE fixing project. There were so many little irritations that I had heard the same complaints about since I started the game. I decided that now that I had more access to the development staff that I would see if I could get some of the daily annoyances cleared up. The project led to a balance pass on escalations released in Phoebe. During that, several DED complexes that had microwarpdrive restrictions were corrected. This has involved numerous small fixes to missions and complexes, improper accesses, and such things. The ability to warp your fleetmates to your escalation was added.
I have been running Open Question and Answer sessions. I try to run these monthly and have other members of the CSM in attendance. The goal of these sessions has been to collect problems, concerns, and thoughts as well as sharing what the CSM is up to on a one-to-one open floor format. I run these at different time zones during the weekend to cover as many playtimes as possible. I have also joined Corbexx with his soundboards having done one for PvE and another for structures with more planned. I have attended the CSM 9 Town Halls that have been presented. I have attended some of Corbexx’s wormhole town halls as well. I’ve also been available at local player gatherings and events such as Eve Vegas where I had many good conversations and even let myself be roped into a session on the live stream.
I transcribed nine of the sessions for the Summer Summit minutes. I write a weekly roundup of my CSM activities. This is a mixture of awareness with direct links to developers blogs and posts and personal opinion, thoughts, and input into the process. Occasionally, I write direct opinion pieces and appear on podcasts or take interviews when asked.
The bulk of my game time is spent interacting with the players. I believe it is my duty to be accessible. I have an in game chatroom where people can easily come and find me for a chat. I’ve encouraged crowd sourcing of topics and opinions. I’ve sat down with people over major changes and brought their concerns to the table. From these discussions I keep a list of ideas and problems that people bring to me to take to CCP. I’m also available on Skype and Twitter as well as engaging in many e-mail discussions.
When it comes to interacting with CCP a lot of time is spent advocating player concerns and worries. Even if it does not want to be heard or it is an old topic it comes back up. There is not always resolution. Not all of these make it into a large review. Some are not yet finalized and some are more quiet events. Yet advocating does simple things like create more clarity to players who do not understand what things like SSO are. It will, hopefully, do other things such as a better way to search through channels so that players with unsupported languages can more easily find each other. It is not easy and it is not always successful, but the effort is made.
This review comes at an interesting point in the term. By this time, particularly given that I’m running again, I should have a string of accomplishments that I could hang my name off of, but I don’t. I should have the dedicated enthusiasm required to stay active for the entire term, but I don’t. I should have platitudes to offer and abounding praises. I certainly don’t have those. Instead, I find that I’m deeply frustrated and increasingly having to defend an institution in which I struggle to believe.
There will no doubt be council members who sing CCP’s praise and proclaim the efficacy of the CSM. Broadly speaking, I don’t know how any of them could get to that conclusion via any evidenced based rationale. The new release pace frequently means that the CSM is cut out of the development feedback process, sometimes nearly entirely. There’s a growing list of items, some major, that we saw at the same time the rest of the player base did.
When the CSM attempted to get looped into the new development model better, we sometimes started seeing items one day, perhaps two, before they were released. Even something as major as the 0.0 revamp has been a dead topic since the last summit. This is all the more frustrating because after the scuffle erupted from the CSM's name being used to promote changes we didn't endorse, we had a meeting where we were assured that we would be kept in the loop.
Actions speak louder than words. The shared Skype channel is frequently home to all manner of defensive, passive aggressive, or antagonistic exchanges.
All of this makes it very difficult to work as the institution should. Some EVE pundits will say that the CSM is a toothless institution that CCP uses when convenient or as a marketing tool, and nothing more. There's some truth to that. The CSM was designed around a titled system with a Chair and two releases per year. The institution hasn't adapted, and its relevance, such as it was, has suffered because of it.
Part of this is the CSM's fault. It wasn't until we hit a couple days before a recent release and collectively realized that we didn't have any idea what it was going to contain that we looked around and took stock of where we were. Though there are some bright spots, the overall outlook isn't positive. The CSM should have realized this sooner, and we should have been more insistent on being given the access we require to fill the role we were elected to fill. The situation is also not helped by members of the CSM who are afk to the point of uselessness.
Part of this is CCP's fault. While I recognize that they are busy meeting the demands of the new release schedule, to be a perpetual afterthought does somewhat sap the enthusiasm of even the most ardent public servant, and it is difficult to engage when there is nothing with which to engage. In some cases, the CSM has been specifically sidelined. In other cases, the CSM has been treated as an enemy, something to deal with if necessary but otherwise best ignored.
The reason this is so is because, broadly speaking, CCP does not handle criticism well. There have been instances where CSM members have offered appallingly uncalled-for and highly unprofessional input and critiques. But well reasoned counter-arguments and constructive criticism that doesn't match devthink is frequently taken as a personal affront as well.
This is fine as long as everyone agrees, but over the course of even this term, everyone agreeing on everything is an impossibility. With short one-year terms and no compelling reason to engage with the CSM, this means that ignoring the CSM or members of the CSM is entirely viable.
CCP Falcon and CCP Leeloo have been tremendous. They have waged many battles on the CSM's behalf, and it is in them that the hope of institution is vested. If it weren't for them, their hard work, dedication, and patience, I would have given up long ago and certainly wouldn't be standing for re-election. The CSM itself and various individual members have accomplished goals and played an important role in a few key situations. There is thus still cause to try and push for change.
So instead of giving up, I've been attempting to reform the organization. I don't like organizational inefficiencies, and if CCP isn't going to talk to me about my other specialty areas, I figure reform attempts are the best way to remain engaged. The CSM would, if used correctly, be an incredible asset. The problem is that there are certain institutional and attitudinal blocks that prevent the CSM from reaching its potential. Some CSM side, some CCP side. To date, I've had very little success in this regard, in no small part due to only recently realizing the magnitude of the issue. It also likely hasn't helped that I call things like I see them.
So that's what I've been doing. I spent the first half of my term trying to illuminate player psychology from my unique position, and I spent the rest of it trying to figure out how to get the CSM and CCP in a place where such input from myself and others on various topics wouldn't be summarily dismissed out of hand.
I don't think pretty little lies or carefully constructed facades do the CSM or CCP any service. If the institution is to properly evolve, we're going to have to take a hard look at some uncomfortable truths and try to figure out how to address them.
At the end of the day, the CSM and CCP aspire to the same goals. These are a robust game and a vibrant community. If we can ever work well together, the whole will assuredly be greater than the sum of the parts. It may not be possible, but the potential gains make it worth attempting.
What have we done or more specifically what have I done. Well, the biggest specific thing I pushed for (and got) was the Bowhead project. The more vague goal early in the term was work with the PvE team on incursions as well as representing highsec and the casual play style.
The most effort I made was in keeping the lines of communication with players going via the eve Forums and through podcasts. I have been a regular on Podside and Eve Radio DJ Wiggles show as well as 'hotdropping' several others. I tried to be open to input from whatever source and, like Sugar, keep a book in which I take notes of things to talk to the devs about.
As a group the CSM has spent a lot of time adapting to the new faster (MUCH faster) pace of the release schedule. Things change so quickly that some does not get seen by us much sooner than it is is seen on the test server. Other broader strokes we try to get input as early as is possible. Do we know everything and see everything? No, and I am not sure that that is even possible. A summit often covers projects coming up but then that project is done and two more run before another summit happens. This goes back to CSM 8's attempt to build more bridges to other teams and get more lines of communication open to the devs.
Progress and change have been made. The decision to eliminate officers showed that we could function without them. Personal projects and one on one contact with devs started to replace the idea that we need to talk to entire teams taking them all away from the job at hand. Helping bridge the gap between players and the dev teams have lead to a more open and direct exchange of ideas with CSM acting as enablers, not the conduit itself. Hell, if we do this well enough we might manage to organize ourselves right out of a job. Or, better yet, change the job as this one will be done and we can take on a different aspect.
In the end I think that is the biggest truth about CSM, it is what we allow it to be and it changes to match the environment it is in. I have enjoyed the past two terms watching the changes happen and hope for another to continue helping it grow, change, become something more, even if I do not know what the more will be.
It was well known that I was a staunch supporter of the CSM process before being elected myself onto CSM 9. I was of the firm belief that while the process wasn’t perfect, the CSM offered a very real way of allowing players to actively engage CCP in improving Eve Online. I am happy to say that for the most part, my suspicions have been confirmed.
I had set goals I wanted to achieve this term and there were two key points in particular. The first was to see some concrete progress on fixing the well-documented issues on 0.0. While I can take no credit for this coming to the table during CSM’s term – CCP had already decided that this was to be a high priority during our tenure – I feel we have worked hard where we could to guide CCP in what the players are thinking towards fixes with 0.0. An example would be how the jump drive changes were originally slated to affect Jump Freighters. It was clear to us that 0.0 industry was not yet in a place where such a nerf would be appropriate and we were sure to let CCP know this as did the community at large.
The second goal I had was to be a clear communication conduit from CCP to the player base and vice versa. Through the weekly CSM 9 Reports I have been doing throughout the entirety of my term as well as engaging players through my podcast, my website and through forums such as Zulu and #tweetfleet I feel people find me approachable when it comes to their concerns with the game as well as providing regular updates on what we are actually up to. This is something that can always be improved upon of course and I hope to up the ante if elected to CSM X.
A couple of things that came slightly out of the blue which I wanted resolved have come to me from the player base since I was elected. The first was the issue of input automation which I very quickly engaged CCP on with initially, limited success. I requested a session to discuss this at length at the Summer Summit and you can read how that particular conversation went in the Summit Minutes. It was clear that this urgently needed addressing so it was fantastic to see CCP clarify what was a previously grey area and to feel I personally played a significant part in that.
I also wanted to address how CCP devs actively play the game in a very real way after the issue was brought up by a player. After all, how can a dev balance the demands of a large 0.0 bloc FC if they can’t experience said gameplay themselves? This is something I pointed at CCP Rise and Fozzie when they came on Crossing Zebras a few weeks back and I believe CCP will act on this in the not too distant future.
So much of what CSM does can be difficult to define to the player base because it is suggestions and tweaks here and there. I’m pleased that during my tenure, I’ve been able to get concrete things achieved in working with CCP and it is proof to me that the system works.
This term's been great. While there's been some misunderstandings (generally oversights, like the jump changes, or just too short a time to react), in general, communication's been pretty good.
I was elected on a platform of representing both industrialists, and third party developers. While a lot of the industrial changes were locked in before I was elected (big changes need a good chunk of work) A bunch of fine tuning happened. I'm pretty happy with how all of that's worked out. Still room for improvement, when teams get reintroduced for example, but it's generally small tweaks, rather than anything big.
When it comes to third party development, great things have been happening. SSO has been deployed, and is in use by many sites. Not only that, but CREST is finally up and running, serving market data to a number of sites, where it's then federated out. Your support has proven to CCP how important third party development is to the player base, which has given mandate to developers like CCP Foxfour to work on getting yet more tools into our hands. I can't wait to see what happens next.
A great example of how the CSM can interact with CCP, is the recent addition of the small ore anomaly in the rookie systems. With the recent influx of newbies, CCP Manifest gave members of the CSM access to the Rookie help channel (we may have badgered him a little) A number of us have been spending time there, helping out, and making notes about the questions we've seen on a regular basis.
One of them was 'Where do I mine?' closely followed by 'where do I find asteroids?' I put up a thread on the CSM forums, asking for something to be done. A few suggestions were thrown in, and we pointed the thread out to CCP Rise (as he's doing NPE stuff) A short while later, he pitched the anomaly as a solution.
The job the the CSM is talking. Talking to players, to gather their concerns and goals, and talking to CCP, about what we think the game needs, and what our opinions are on the route they're taking. This needs, of course, for CCP to listen to us. Sometimes this breaks down, sometimes a dev just doesn't think to talk to us, but it's getting better. Yelling is (generally) not the route forwards. It's a conversation, which means you can't force it. If you think "I'll get elected to the CSM, and yell at CCP to make something happen", you're not going to get very far. Always think out your arguments, and don't get heated about it. No-one likes a yelling match, or to have their hand forced.
Some people have said that being on the CSM takes a lot of time. It's true, if a touch misleading. It's not something you do for an hour a week, taking breaks whenever you want (unless you want to be useless.) You keep the conversation going, talking to CCP daily, responding to player concerns when they come in. It's time consuming in that you'll be doing something most days. And there are sometimes meetings which you should attend (and the summit takes a good chunk of time). But it's not like you're going to be doing nothing but that.
All in all, this has been a good and productive term. I'm looking forwards to hopefully serving on CSM 10.
CSM 9’s term has been incredibly productive, but challenging at times. This was especially true when it came to adapting the seven year old concept of the CSM to a faster, more productive release model that takes into account ten releases per year, rather than two expansions.
While we’ve made good progress in this respect, there is still some way to go before the CSM’s transition to the new release model is complete and we can look at further expanding their role and interactions with CCP. This transition has to occur in a comfortable time frame, however it needs to be free from rash decisions and based on what we have learned during the course of CSM 9’s term.
During the course of their term, the council’s delegates have proven the CSM to be invaluable when CCP has been required to make difficult and sometimes controversial decisions when making changes to fundamental gameplay elements. Examples of this are during the wormhole mass changes, and of course the force projection changes, particularly those related to jump freighters.
The CSM has also proved to be incredibly helpful in crisis management situations, with the mettle of both CCP and the council being tested during the issues surrounding SOMERblink during the summer months of 2014. The openness and candid responses that the CSM gave during this time were in a large part responsible for the timely resolution of the situation, and many members of the council took extra time out from their daily lives and commitments to atten extremely short notice meetings so that we could bring the situation to a resolution as swiftly as possible.
The same was very much true during the issues we experienced right after Fanfest relating to malicious damage made to the newly erected EVE sculpture in Reykjavik, with members of the council assisting behind the scenes to bring the issue to a timely and direct resolution.
As a player, before coming to CCP, I was never fully sold on the value or the validity of the CSM as an institution, and was often openly critical of it. After seeing the terms of CSM 8 and CSM 9 from “behind the scenes” during my time at CCP so far, that opinion has changed drastically and I’m looking forward to working with the tenth council in 2015 in order to further expand their role and their interactions with CCP.
2014 has been a year full of some really big changes to how we develop EVE Online. Almost every process for EVE development is touched by the change in how we release updates to EVE Online, and the structure and working processes for the CSM are no exception.
The 9th Council of Stellar Management have made great contributions to EVE Online during this year, giving us feedback on both designs for EVE and tricky community issues such as input multiplexing.
My goal for 2015 and how we work with the next CSM is twofold: To make it easy for EVE development teams to work with the CSM, and to find ways to give CSM more empowerment and direct access to information about development and plans so that they can keep bringing the player perspective into the heart of development of EVE Online.
I want to say a great thank you to CSM9 for all their work and contributions to EVE Online in the past year, and I look forward to working with the next council. I hope that all players take the opportunity to vote for people who can represent your perspective in EVE.
Despite some challenges in transitioning to the new release model in the latter half of the term, the performance and dedication of the delegates of CSM 9 has been exemplary, and we are looking forward to working with the next council in 2015, with the hope that many of the CSM 9 delegates will be successfully re-elected to continue their work.
Keep an eye on our official forums and this Devblog feed for more information regarding the CSM, and details of the upcoming candidacy and election periods for CSM X.
CCP Leeloo and the Ninth Council of Stellar Management]]>
Creative space friends,
We here at CCP have long sought out player created material to use in our streaming efforts and in social media because, in so many ways, it’s the best material. I ask you, who sleeps without hearing the roars of Metal Camel from the Alliance tournament broadcast?! We’ve had an open mailbox (firstname.lastname@example.org) for anything your fertile minds cook up or come across – things that we have shared on our social media channels through the years.
These submissions and tips have been invaluable to us since we only have so many sets of eyes (CCP Manifest is the only one with more than two) to scour the EVE universe and its fringes. These submissions have allowed us to act as a bullhorn, as a magnifying glass, and as a giant highlighter for all the wonderful things that you do. They have connected you with each other, given the creators the recognition they deserve, and inspired future content producers.
Now that we have even more means of communicating your genius, like the almost-monthly EVE Online show ‘o7’, we want to refresh this open invitation and ask for more of your submissions – big and small. What we are looking for is something that you think is worth highlighting. Anything from a cool screenshot, news of an important event, links to amazing battle reports, a shout-out to someone you think has done something admirable, a poem about CCP Guard’s classic-yet-youthful hairstyle, pvp video, artwork, “EVE is Real” photo, tips about a great player-run project or anything else that in your mind deserves praise and attention.
Please send what you have to email@example.com using a descriptive title, and note that some submissions may be end up being used for our social channels while some may get a mention on the global internet spaceship television or elsewhere, the important thing is to make sure our D-Scans pick up everything (except recons of course heh). But then we also want to ask for more…
From those willing to put in the extra work, we want to get new advertisements to premiere LIVE on the internet’s favorite spaceship themed talk show, and we want to loosen up the premise a little bit. You can advertise your corporation or alliance for pure bragging rights or for recruitment purposes, a project you are running, your CSM candidacy or you can advertise an event that is about to take place. We don’t want to limit you and tell you what is worth highlighting or how to do it, as long as you follow these simple rules:
Advertisement submissions should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org with the subject “o7 advertisement”. If you have questions you need to ask before diving into production, you can also EVE mail me (CCP Guard) directly.
In the submission e-mail please tell us a little bit about what you’ve created. If the advertisement is regarding something time sensitive, be sure to tell us about that too so we can more likely schedule it properly.
We look forward to seeing what you come up with!
This is CCP Terminus bringing you another devblog, this time covering our continuing Module Tiericide project. For reference to what the Module Tiericide project is all about and what that will mean to your modules please refer to CCP Fozzies previous devblog here: Rebalancing EVE, One Module at a Time. The Proteus release on January 13th will see the second round of this work, with changes to 10 different module types of various categories.
We’ve looked at the feedback from the renaming we did in the first module pass, and we agree we may have gone too far in stripping out the lore and history from modules. However, we still value the information given by the new module names, and as such we will be creating a hybrid naming structure incorporating the two.
Each name will now consist of three parts: [flavour name] [specialization name] [type name]
For example, the Type-D Altered SS Overdrive Injector and other meta 1-4 Overdrive Injectors will be combined and renamed the Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injector. This keeps some of the flavor name, while adding in the specialization name informing you of its focus.
In addition, All flavor names will be consistent if paired with a specialization name meaning all Type-D modules will be Restrained. This adds further consistency to the naming system and prevents knowledge of one naming section from conflicting with another.
These changes will be retroactively applied to modules which have gone through the tiericide process in the past to keep everything consistent.
There will be 10 modules types affected this round, which fall in to 4 basic types: Harvest Equipment, Hull Upgrades, Propulsion Upgrades, and Engineering Equipment.
Mining Lasers have had the number of modules reduced significantly. In addition, some ease-of-use balancing has been done, for instance on the mining laser range, to make them easier and more intuitive to use for newer players.
|Name||Meta||Powergrid Usage||CPU Usage||Activation Cost (GJ)||Optimal Range (km)||Duration (s)||Mining Amount (m3)|
|EP-S Gaussian Scoped Mining Laser||1||3||65||20||16||60||50|
|Particle Bore Compact Mining Laser||1||2||55||20||11||60||50|
|Single Diode Basic Mining Laser||6||2||45||10||11||60||25|
|Gallente Mining Laser||8||3||60||10||10||60||45|
Mining Laser Upgrades
Mining Laser Upgrades (MLU) for both ore and ice have received the same treatment. Lower tier MLUs have been consolidated into one type. The two higher tier modules have been given storyline status to illustrate their rarity and strength, and given a 1% boost to their mining bonus. Drop rates and locations for the storyline modules have not changed.
MLUs - Ore
|Name||Meta||Powergrid Usage||CPU Usage||CPU Penalty (%)||Mining Amount Bonus (%)|
|Mining Laser Upgrade I||0||1||30||10||5|
|Elara Restrained Mining Laser Upgrade||1||1||35||8||8|
|Mining Laser Upgrade II||5||1||40||12.5||9|
|'Carpo' Mining Laser Upgrade||6||1||35||6||9|
|'Aoede' Mining Laser Upgrade||6||1||40||8||10|
MLUs - Ice
|Name||Meta||Powergrid Usage||CPU Usage||CPU Penalty (%)||Cycle Time Bonus (%)|
|Ice Harvester Upgrade I||0||1||30||10||-5|
|Frigoris Restrained Ice Harvester Upgrade||1||1||35||8||-8|
|Ice Harvester Upgrade II||5||1||40||12.5||-9|
|'Anguis' Ice Harvester Upgrade||6||1||35||6||-9|
|'Ingenii' Ice Harvester Upgrade||6||1||40||8||-10|
All Meta 0 Expanded Cargoholds (Alpha Hull Mod, Marked Modified SS, Partial Hull Conversion, Type-E Altered SS) will be consolidated into the 'Basic' Expanded Cargohold. Given the 'Basic' Expanded Cargohold has a lower Cargo Capacity bonus than all other Meta 0 Cargoholds (with the exception of the Marked Modified SS) of 17.5%, it is advised that you do not have a full cargohold with these modules fitted while in space on Proteus’ release.
In addition to the module tiericide, a new faction module has been added to the Expanded Cargohold lineup. This module will be available from the ORE LP store and/or as a drop.
|Name||Meta||Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%)||Cargo Capacity Bonus (%)||Velocity Modifier (%)|
|Civilian Expanded Cargohold||0||-30||10||-20|
|Expanded Cargohold I||0||-25||17.50||-15|
|Type-D Restrained Expanded Cargo||1||-15||22.50||-13|
|Expanded Cargohold II||5||-20||27.50||-10|
|'Basic' Expanded Cargohold||6||-10||17.50||-20|
|Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I||6||-15||27.50||-10|
|ORE Expanded Cargohold||8||-20||29.00||-10|
Nanofiber Internal Structures
In addition to the module tiericide, 'Basic' Nanofiber Internal Structures will be losing the Hull Upgrades I requirement. This keeps them in line with other 'Basic' modules by having low overall power, with low fitting and skill requirements.
|Name||Meta||Skill Requirements||Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%)||Velocity Modifier (%)||Inertia Modifier (%)|
|Nanofiber Internal Structure I||0||
Hull Upgrades I
|Type-D Restrained Nanofiber Structure||1||
Hull Upgrades I
|Nanofiber Internal Structure II||5||
Hull Upgrades II
|'Basic' Nanofiber Internal Structure||6||Mechanics I||-5||5.25||-10.25|
|Synthetic Hull Conversion Nanofiber Structure||8||
Hull Upgrades I
|Domination Nanofiber Structure||8||
Hull Upgrades I
|Republic Fleet Nanofiber Structure||8||
Hull Upgrades I
The most significant changes to Reinforced Bulkhead balance will be the slight increase in the Inertial Modifier. This penalty will be increasing slightly in order to add more significance to the stat and allow for greater variance. All modules still fall between the 1% and 5% Inertial Modifier increase. Reinforced Bulkheads II gain the largest penalty from this, keeping with the theme of Tech II modules having the most power outside of faction and storyline modules, but with the largest drawbacks. In addition to the rebalancing, two new faction modules have been added to the Reinforced Bulkhead lineup. These module will be available from their appropriate LP Store and/or as drops.
|Name||Meta||Powergrid Usage||CPU Usage||Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%)||Cargo Capacity Bonus (%)||Inertia Modifier (%)|
|Reinforced Bulkheads I||0||1||35||15||-10||3|
|Mark I Compact Reinforced Bulkheads||1||1||25||18||-7||3|
|Type-D Restrained Reinforced Bulkheads||1||1||35||18||-5||1|
|Reinforced Bulkheads II||5||1||40||25||-11||5|
|'Basic' Reinforced Bulkheads||6||1||15||10||-5||1|
|Synthetic Hull Conversion Reinforced Bulkheads||6||1||20||20||-5||3|
|ORE Reinforced Bulkheads||8||1||35||27||-6||4|
|Syndicate Reinforced Bulkheads||8||1||35||27||-10||2|
In addition to the module tiericide, two new faction modules have been added to the Inertial Stabilizers lineup. These module will be available from their appropriate LP Store and/or as drops.
|Name||Meta||Signature Radius Bonus (%)||Inertia Modifier (%)|
|Inertia Stabilizers I||0||10||-16.75|
|Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizers||1||9||-18.50|
|Inertia Stabilizers II||5||11||-20.00|
|'Basic' Inertia Stabilizers||6||5||-14.00|
|Synthetic Hull Conversion Inertia Stabilizers||6||6||-20.00|
|Domination Inertial Stabilizers||8||7||-20.50|
|Shadow Serpentis Inertial Stabilizers||8||10||-21.50|
|Name||Meta||Cargo Capacity Bonus (%)||Velocity Modifier (%)|
|Overdrive Injector System I||0||-15||10.50|
|Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injector||1||-10||11.75|
|Overdrive Injector System II||5||-20||12.50|
|'Basic' Overdrive Injector System||6||-1||6.00|
|Synthetic Hull Conversion Overdrive Injector||6||-3||12.00|
|Domination Overdrive Injector||8||-5||12.50|
|Republic Fleet Overdrive Injector||8||-5||12.50|
Power Diagnostic Systems
|Name||Meta Level||CPU||Shield Recharge Rate Bonus (%)||Shield Hitpoint Bonus (%)||Capacitor Recharge Rate Bonus (%)||Powergrid Bonus (%)||Capacitor Capacity Bonus (%)|
|Power Diagnostic System I||0||20||7.5||4||7.5||5||4|
|Mark I Compact Power Diagnostic System||1||17||8||4.5||8||5.5||4.5|
|Power Diagnostic System II||5||22||8.5||5||8.5||6||5|
|'Basic' Power Diagnostic System||6||8||5||2||5||2.5||2|
|'Cartel' Power Diagnostic System I||6||10||8.5||5||8.5||5.5||5|
|Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System||8||16||8.8||6||8.5||7.5||5|
|Thukker Power Diagnostic System||8||16||8.8||6||8.5||7.5||5|
|Shadow Serpentis Power Diagnostic System||8||16||8.5||5||8.8||7.5||6|
|Ammatar Navy Power Diagnostic System||8||16||8.5||5||8.8||7.5||6|
|Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System||8||16||8.5||5||8.8||7.5||6|
|True Sansha Power Diagnostic System||8||16||8.5||5||8.8||7.5||6|
|Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System||11||18||10.7875||6.25||10.7875||7.875||6.25|
|Brynn's Modified Power Diagnostic System||11||18||10.7875||6.25||10.7875||7.875||6.25|
|Tairei's Modified Power Diagnostic System||11||18||10.7875||6.25||10.7875||7.875||6.25|
|Raysere's Modified Power Diagnostic System||12||20||13.075||6.5||13.075||8.25||6.5|
|Selynne's Modified Power Diagnostic System||12||20||13.075||6.5||13.075||8.25||6.5|
|Tuvan's Modified Power Diagnostic System||12||20||13.075||6.5||13.075||8.25||6.5|
|Ahremen's Modified Power Diagnostic System||13||22||15.3625||6.75||15.3625||8.625||6.75|
|Setele's Modified Power Diagnostic System||13||22||15.3625||6.75||15.3625||8.625||6.75|
|Vizan's Modified Power Diagnostic System||13||22||15.3625||6.75||15.3625||8.625||6.75|
|Chelm's Modified Power Diagnostic System||14||24||17.65||7||17.65||9||7|
|Cormack's Modified Power Diagnostic System||14||24||17.65||7||17.65||9||7|
|Draclira's Modified Power Diagnostic System||14||24||17.65||7||17.65||9||7|
Capacitor Power Relays
|Name||Meta Level||CPU||Shield Boost Bonus (%)||Capacitor Recharge Rate Bonus (%)|
|Capacitor Power Relay I||0||4||-10||20|
|Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay||1||4||-10||22|
|Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay||1||2||-8||22|
|Capacitor Power Relay II||5||8||-11||24|
|'Basic' Capacitor Power Relay||6||1||-5||10|
|'Motte' Capacitor Power Relay I||6||2||-7||25|
|Ammatar Navy Capacitor Power Relay||8||4||-8||25|
|Dark Blood Capacitor Power Relay||8||4||-8||25|
|Imperial Navy Capacitor Power Relay||8||4||-8||25|
|Khanid Navy Capacitor Power Relay||8||4||-8||25|
|True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay||8||4||-8||25|
|Brokara's Modified Capacitor Power Relay||11||8||-10.5||26.875|
|Tairei's Modified Capacitor Power Relay||11||8||-10.5||26.875|
|Raysere's Modified Capacitor Power Relay||12||12||-11||28.75|
|Selynne#39;s Modified Capacitor Power Relay||12||12||-11||28.75|
|Ahremen's Modified Capacitor Power Relay||13||16||-11.5||30.625|
|Makur's Modified Capacitor Power Relay||11||16||-10.5||30.625|
|Vizan's Modified Capacitor Power Relay||13||16||-11.5||30.625|
|Chelm's Modified Capacitor Power Relay||14||20||-12||32.5|
|Draclira's Modified Capacitor Power Relay||14||20||-12||32.5|
|Name||Meta Level||CPU||Capacitor Recharge Rate Bonus (%)|
|Cap Recharger I||0||10||15|
|Eutectic Compact Cap Recharger||1||8||17.5|
|Cap Recharger II||5||15||20|
|'Basic' Capacitor Recharger||0||4||12|
|'Palisade' Cap Recharger I||6||8||20|
|Ammatar Navy Cap Recharger||8||10||21|
|Dark Blood Cap Recharger||8||10||21|
|Imperial Navy Cap Recharger||8||10||21|
|Khanid Navy Cap Recharger||8||10||21|
|True Sansha Cap Recharger||8||10||21|
|Brokara's Modified Cap Recharger||11||15||24|
|Tairei's Modified Cap Recharger||11||15||24|
|Raysere's Modified Cap Recharger||12||18||28|
|Selynne's Modified Cap Recharger||12||18||28|
|Ahremen's Modified Cap Recharger||13||20||32|
|Vizan's Modified Cap Recharger||13||20||32|
|Chelm's Modified Cap Recharger||14||23||36|
|Draclira's Modified Cap Recharger||14||23||36|
We will be taking feedback into account for all modules and there may be some further changes between now and the release of Proteus based on this feedback. As always, we hope you’ve enjoyed running through these changes with us, and we look forward to hearing what you have to say in the comments.
- CCP Terminus and the whole CCP Module Taskforce
Based on feedback and further tweaking, we've made the following changes to some modules. These changes are listed below, and take precedence over the statistics above.
Capacitor Power Relays
|Name||CPU||Shield Boost Bonus (%)||Capacitor Recharge Rate Bonus (%)|
|Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay||4||-8||22|
|Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay||2||-10||22|
Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay – Shield Boost penalty decreased from -10% to -8%
Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay – Shield Boost penalty decreased from -8% to -10%
The Shield Boost Bonus error has been fixed. Type-D and Mark I modules had the value reversed.
|Name||Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%)||Cargo Capacity Bonus (%)||Velocity Modifier (%)|
|Civilian Expanded Cargohold||-30||10||-20|
|Expanded Cargohold I||-20||17.50||-15|
|Type-D Restrained Expanded Cargo||-15||22.50||-13|
|Expanded Cargohold II||-23||27.50||-18|
|'Basic' Expanded Cargohold||-5||17.50||-20|
Expanded Cargohold I – Structure Hitpoint penalty reduced from -25% to -20%
Expanded Cargohold II – Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%, Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%
These three changes should bring the T1 and T2 Expanded Cargoholds better in line with other module types, with the T2 version of a module giving the best performance but with higher drawbacks than T1.
'Basic' Expanded Cargohold – Structure Hitpoint penalty reduced from -10% to -5%. This should allow players who care more about keeping as much structure hitpoint as possible an attractive option, at the cost of cargo capacity.
Inertial Stabilizers are now consistently named Inertial Stabilizers instead of some being Inertia Stabilizers and some Inertial Stabilizers.
|Name||Signature Radius Bonus (%)||Inertia Modifier (%)|
|Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizers||8||-18.50|
Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizers – Signature Radius penalty decreased from 9% to 8%]]>