Thread: Developers Blog

I am proud to announce that this winter, we are going to release some long-anticipated ship balancing. Specifically, capital ship balancing.

For a long time, there has been an outcry in the community that fleet fights are stagnating and are just not as fun as they should be. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of forum threads dedicated to this subject both on the official EVE Online forums, other EVE forums, as well as in blogs and articles. There is no shortage of opinions on this subject from players, devs and CSM members; the main concern that has been stated over and over again is that the proliferation of supercapitals is mostly to blame. Supercapitals can effectively deal with any size of target, and killing them takes a tremendous amount of damage. What this means is that with very few exceptions, the fleet with the most supercarriers wins. Huge, expensive ships should obviously be powerful, but there needs to be a way to fight back.

While not everyone agrees that supercarriers are to blame for everything, there were some issues that kept popping up:

• Supercapitals are too hard to kill.
• Supercarriers are far too versatile.
• The Titan superweapon is too powerful.
• Dreadnoughts are not good enough.
• Remote ECM Bursts should not work on ships immune to ewar.
• Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights.

Supercapitals are too hard to kill

We wanted to make them a little bit weaker, but not gut them completely. We're doing a simple 20% reduction in Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on both supercarriers and titans.

Supercarriers are far too versatile

The reason that supercarriers can deal with any size of ship is the versatility provided by its massive drone bay. Having access to almost unlimited combat drones of all sizes and being able to launch 20 of them at a time means that they have an answer to almost any situation. In fact, we found that drones on capital ships in general to be detrimental to the way fleet fights should work. If you want to deal with sub-capitals, you should bring your own sub-capitals or a carrier. Supercarriers will now have a smaller drone bay and will only be able to put fighters and fighter bombers in it. We are increasing the signature resolution on fighters so that they deal less damage to smaller targets. We are also completely removing the drone bays of titans and dreadnoughts. Seeing as we didn't want to take damage away from dreadnoughts, we're boosting the damage bonus of Siege Module I to compensate for the loss of drones. The Moros had its drone bonus changed to a capital hybrid turret rate of fire bonus.

The Titan superweapon is too powerful

Once we decided to reduce the capabilities of the supercarriers, we had to make sure that the "supercapital blob" wouldn't simply be replaced by the "titan blob." This meant that we had to do something about the superweapons. The big problem with the superweapons is that they can take out the crucial logistics and command ships of the opposing fleet in the first few minutes of a fleet fight, which severely reduces the capabilities of any remaining sub-capital ships. To fix this, we are changing the superweapon so that it cannot fire upon sub-capital ships (capital ships being Freighters, Jump Freighters, Carriers, Dreadnoughts, Capital Industrial Ships, Supercarriers and Titans).

Dreadnoughts are not good enough

One of the biggest problems with dreadnoughts is the fact that you have to commit them for 10 minutes at a time with siege mode. We are shortening the duration of Siege Module I from 10 minutes to 5 minutes and cutting the Strontium Clathrate cost in half. Dreadnoughts in siege mode will also no longer be affected by Remote ECM Burst. There was some discussion about boosting the dreadnoughts further, but we want to see how they play out with the other capital changes first.

Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights

The changes we're making should have a big impact here. Capital ships will have fewer drones to attack sub-capitals. Fighters will deal less damage to sub-capitals. Superweapons won't be able to shoot sub-capitals. Supercarriers will have fewer reserve fighters and fighterbombers, so having your sub-caps take down fighters and fighter bombers will have more of an impact on the fight.

Logging off should not be a viable tactic

Then there are the logoff mechanics. When you log off your character in space, the ship you are piloting disappears after 15 minutes. This, coupled with the millions of hitponts that supercapitals have, means that very few supercapitals are actually being destroyed. When a fleet is losing a large supercapital fight, they can simply log everyone off and be confident that they enemy fleet will only have enough time to kill a handful of their supercapitals. This kind of meta-gaming is not only un-fun but it just doesn't make much sense. When you commit your ship to a battle that should actually be a commitment. Only by winning or by making a tactical, well planned retreat should your ship be able to survive. It has been said that spaceships are serious business and they damn well should be. We are changing the logoff mechanics in such a way that as long as your enemies are actively engaged in fighting you, logging off is not going to save your ship.

The end. Except it's not the end at all.

As a part of our efforts to refocus towards FiS, these balancing changes are going to be the first of many, making sure that we continually balance and shake up EVE for years to come.

In conclusion, here is a full list of the changes we're making.

Supercarriers

• Drone bay can only hold fighters and fighter bombers.
• Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on all Supercarriers by 20%.
• Reduce drone capacity.
  
  • Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
  • Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
  
  
• Remote ECM Burst: Does not affect ships that are immune to electronic warfare (Supercarriers, Titans, Triaged Carriers and Sieged Dreads)

Fighters

• Increase signature resolution to 400

Dreadnoughts

• Remove drone bay from all dreadnoughts.
• Siege Module I: Boost damage bonus from 625% to 700% to compensate for loss of drones.
• Siege Module I: Duration time reduced to 5 minutes. Fuel cost -50%.
• Moros: Remove drone bonus.
• Moros: New bonus: 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level.

Titans

• Remove drone bay from all titans.
• Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints by 20%.
• Superweapon: Cannot shoot sub-capital ships.

Logoff timer

• After a player logs out, there is a check for player aggression every 15 minutes. If you have been aggressed, the timer extends for 15 minutes; if you have not been aggressed, you disappear as before. Note: this is only for player aggression and will not change what happens when you log off during fights against NPCs.

More...

I am proud to announce that this winter, we are going to release some long-anticipated ship balancing. Specifically, capital ship balancing.

For a long time, there has been an outcry in the community that fleet fights are stagnating and are just not as fun as they should be. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of forum threads dedicated to this subject both on the official EVE Online forums, other EVE forums, as well as in blogs and articles. There is no shortage of opinions on this subject from players, devs and CSM members; the main concern that has been stated over and over again is that the proliferation of supercapitals is mostly to blame. Supercapitals can effectively deal with any size of target, and killing them takes a tremendous amount of damage. What this means is that with very few exceptions, the fleet with the most supercarriers wins. Huge, expensive ships should obviously be powerful, but there needs to be a way to fight back.

While not everyone agrees that supercarriers are to blame for everything, there were some issues that kept popping up:

• Supercapitals are too hard to kill.
• Supercarriers are far too versatile.
• The Titan superweapon is too powerful.
• Dreadnoughts are not good enough.
• Remote ECM Bursts should not work on ships immune to ewar.
• Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights.

Supercapitals are too hard to kill

We wanted to make them a little bit weaker, but not gut them completely. We're doing a simple 20% reduction in Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on both supercarriers and titans.

Supercarriers are far too versatile

The reason that supercarriers can deal with any size of ship is the versatility provided by its massive drone bay. Having access to almost unlimited combat drones of all sizes and being able to launch 20 of them at a time means that they have an answer to almost any situation. In fact, we found that drones on capital ships in general to be detrimental to the way fleet fights should work. If you want to deal with sub-capitals, you should bring your own sub-capitals or a carrier. Supercarriers will now have a smaller drone bay and will only be able to put fighters and fighter bombers in it. We are increasing the signature resolution on fighters so that they deal less damage to smaller targets. We are also completely removing the drone bays of titans and dreadnoughts. Seeing as we didn't want to take damage away from dreadnoughts, we're boosting the damage bonus of Siege Module I to compensate for the loss of drones. The Moros had its drone bonus changed to a capital hybrid turret rate of fire bonus.

The Titan superweapon is too powerful

Once we decided to reduce the capabilities of the supercarriers, we had to make sure that the "supercapital blob" wouldn't simply be replaced by the "titan blob." This meant that we had to do something about the superweapons. The big problem with the superweapons is that they can take out the crucial logistics and command ships of the opposing fleet in the first few minutes of a fleet fight, which severely reduces the capabilities of any remaining sub-capital ships. To fix this, we are changing the superweapon so that it cannot fire upon sub-capital ships (capital ships being Freighters, Jump Freighters, Carriers, Dreadnoughts, Capital Industrial Ships, Supercarriers and Titans).

Dreadnoughts are not good enough

One of the biggest problems with dreadnoughts is the fact that you have to commit them for 10 minutes at a time with siege mode. We are shortening the duration of Siege Module I from 10 minutes to 5 minutes and cutting the Strontium Clathrate cost in half. Dreadnoughts in siege mode will also no longer be affected by Remote ECM Burst. There was some discussion about boosting the dreadnoughts further, but we want to see how they play out with the other capital changes first.

Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights

The changes we're making should have a big impact here. Capital ships will have fewer drones to attack sub-capitals. Fighters will deal less damage to sub-capitals. Superweapons won't be able to shoot sub-capitals. Supercarriers will have fewer reserve fighters and fighterbombers, so having your sub-caps take down fighters and fighter bombers will have more of an impact on the fight.

Logging off should not be a viable tactic

Then there are the logoff mechanics. When you log off your character in space, the ship you are piloting disappears after 15 minutes. This, coupled with the millions of hitponts that supercapitals have, means that very few supercapitals are actually being destroyed. When a fleet is losing a large supercapital fight, they can simply log everyone off and be confident that they enemy fleet will only have enough time to kill a handful of their supercapitals. This kind of meta-gaming is not only un-fun but it just doesn't make much sense. When you commit your ship to a battle that should actually be a commitment. Only by winning or by making a tactical, well planned retreat should your ship be able to survive. It has been said that spaceships are serious business and they damn well should be. We are changing the logoff mechanics in such a way that as long as your enemies are actively engaged in fighting you, logging off is not going to save your ship.

The end. Except it's not the end at all.

As a part of our efforts to refocus towards FiS, these balancing changes are going to be the first of many, making sure that we continually balance and shake up EVE for years to come.

In conclusion, here is a full list of the changes we're making.

Supercarriers

• Drone bay can only hold fighters and fighter bombers.
• Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on all Supercarriers by 20%.
• Reduce drone capacity.
  
  • Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
  • Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
  
  
• Remote ECM Burst: Does not affect ships that are immune to electronic warfare (Supercarriers, Titans, Triaged Carriers and Sieged Dreads)

Fighters

• Increase signature resolution to 400

Dreadnoughts

• Remove drone bay from all dreadnoughts.
• Siege Module I: Boost damage bonus from 625% to 700% to compensate for loss of drones.
• Siege Module I: Duration time reduced to 5 minutes. Fuel cost -50%.
• Moros: Remove drone bonus.
• Moros: New bonus: 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level.

Titans

• Remove drone bay from all titans.
• Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints by 20%.
• Superweapon: Cannot shoot sub-capital ships.

Logoff timer

• After a player logs out, there is a check for player aggression every 15 minutes. If you have been aggressed, the timer extends for 15 minutes; if you have not been aggressed, you disappear as before. Note: this is only for player aggression and will not change what happens when you log off during fights against NPCs.

New to EVE? Start your 14-day free trial today.
Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.


More...

Dear Followers of EVE Online,
The past few months have been very humbling for me. I’ve done much soul searching, and what follows is my sincere effort to clear the air with all of you. Please bear with me as I find my way through.
The estrangement from CCP that many of you have been feeling of late is my fault, and for that I am truly sorry. There are many contributing factors, but in the end it is I who must shoulder the responsibility for much of what has happened. In short, my zeal for pushing EVE to her true potential made me lose sight of doing the simple things right. I was impatient when I should have been cautious, defiant when I should have been conciliatory and arrogant when I should have been humble.
This soul searching took me back to when EVE was just an idea. Bringing her to life in 2003 was, in many people’s minds, impossible. But we found a way because EVE is something unique in the world. Getting her to 100,000 subscribers was an even more fantastical feat. Before long, we were launching in China, making DUST 514, merging with White Wolf to build World of Darkness, building Carbon, growing the company to 600 people, increasing our subscriber count beyond that of the population of Iceland and on and on, one resounding success after the next despite earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and even a world economic collapse.
Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated.
You have spoken, loudly and clearly, with your words and with your actions. And there were definitely moments in recent history when I wish I would have listened more and taken a different path.
I was wrong and I admit it.
Captain’s Quarters
Without establishments and meaningful activities to engage in, forcing players into a mandatory single-player Captain’s Quarters experience was a mistake. I mentioned earlier the perils of not getting the simple things right. Removing ship spinning was a negligent oversight and a clear sign that we had fallen out of touch with our community. The interiors for Incarna were so scoped down by our launch window that CQ was essentially a prototype feature that we foolishly promoted as a full-blown expansion. We underestimated our development time, set impractical or misleading expectations, and added insult to injury by removing something in which players were emotionally invested.
I fully empathize with your disappointment in CCP. We would have been much better off positioning Incarna as an optional technology preview that interested players could have experienced and helped us to refine. The tragedy here is that the team really did build solid technology and great art to support what you can see and did it in way that sets a strong foundation for building out the rest. The fact is, in spite of our missteps, they delivered some of the most amazing interior rendering and character technology in the industry, and their efforts deserve praise. The fact we didn’t leverage their achievement more effectively is my fault.
Virtual Goods
Next we arrive at our rather underwhelming virtual goods rollout. There was hardly anything to purchase initially, let alone to put the cost of the infamous monocle in perspective. The last thing we wanted to do was create the perception that all items in the store would be in that price range. Quite frankly, it was rather pointless to begin with because we did not have a multiuser environment in which players could show off their purchases. It was another feature that we rushed out the door before it was ready.
We also didn’t do enough to assure you that this wasn’t the beginning of a “pay to win” scenario in EVE. Let me be blunt: Unless the MMO business changes radically, our virtual goods strategy for EVE Online will remain limited in scope and focus on vanity items, or as we said after the CSM visit this summer: The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time.
Though the introduction was clearly flawed, our plans for virtual goods are intended to make your playing experience better, not to disrupt it. From a strategic perspective, we had to take these first steps because monthly subscriptions are increasingly becoming a thing of the past. The culture of online gaming is changing, just as the notion of digital ownership did with music. If we don’t evolve our technology, our game design and our revenue model, then we risk obsolescence, and we just can’t allow that to happen to EVE or to our community.
Incarna
For the same reasons, Incarna—the real one with actual meaningful gameplay in it— will be a big step towards the future. For an experience that relies so much on emergence and human interaction, it’s remarkable that it’s taken us this long to actually put a face on it. Once Incarna hits its stride, EVE will be more personal, and thus more accessible to general audiences. Visual self-expression in a virtual setting is a core psychological component of gaming; most people need to see their avatars, or something vaguely humanoid, or else they don’t connect with the game. We were behind the curve and it needs to be addressed for the sake of EVE’s longevity. We have the technology. Now we need time to add the content that will bring more meaning to the gameplay—again, without disrupting the space combat simulator that many of you are, or at least were, very much in love with—and without delaying crucial improvements that this core experience desperately needs.
A Humbler, Stronger CCP
I’m sharing these revelations with you now because it’s taken this long to transform them into action. From all this self-reflection, a genesis of renewal has taken root, a personal and professional commitment to restore the partnership of trust upon which our success depends, and a plan that sets the foundation for us to sensibly guide EVE to her fullest potential. In the coming days and weeks, the details of this plan and what it means for you will be unveiled. Part of what led us down this path is the fact we have not communicated well. This blog, and those that will follow, will hopefully demonstrate our conviction to transparency.
Good things are coming. They always do when you learn from your mistakes. In 2007, we faced a similar crisis of confidence, and it resulted in the creation of the CSM. We’re a better company because of it. In the last months, we’ve taken a hard look at everything, including my leadership. What I can say for now is that we’ve taken action to ensure these mistakes are never repeated. We have reexamined our processes, hired experienced industry professionals for key leadership positions, reassessed our priorities, moved personnel around and, above all else, recognized our limitations.
For me, the most frustrating aspect of this is that after all this time, as far as EVE has come and in spite of everything that’s happened, I fervently believe with all my heart that we’ve not even scratched the surface of EVE’s potential. My personal failing is not reconciling that passion with pragmatism. We’ve been trying to expand the EVE universe in several directions at once, and I need to do a better job of pursuing that vision without diluting or marginalizing the things that are great—or could be great—about the game right now. Nullsec space needs to be fixed. Factional warfare needs to be fixed. The game needs new ships. We need to do a better job of nurturing our new players and making EVE the intriguing, boundless universe it has the potential to be.
We really do have something that no one else has. EVE is still unique in the real and virtual world. This is our vision for her, and we want so badly to take you there. But getting there is not an entitlement. It will take hard work, open communication and, above all else, collaboration with you. The greatest lesson for me is the realization that EVE belongs to you, and we at CCP are just the hosts of your experience. When we channel our passion for EVE constructively, we can make this vision a reality together.
But enough talk from me. We all know that much quoted phrase, “It’s not what you say, it’s what you do,” that will make the difference here. From now on, CCP will focus on doing what we say and saying what we do. That is the path to restoring trust and moving forward.
Regards,
Hilmar Veigar Pétursson, CEO
CCP Hellmar
P.S. Please comment on our forums or on Twitter @HilmarVeigar






New to EVE? Start your 14-day free trial today.
Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.


More...

The four price indices of New Eden have been calculated for August 2011. Allow me to apologize for how late this is published. I will try to deliver future index blogs in a more timely manner. For more detail on the indices, please refer to the Market Indices page on Evelopedia.
Datacore prices rose by almost 7% in August. This is a rebound from the drop caused by the changes to the agent system in June. The changes improved agent quality and reduced their standing requirements, possibly spurring sellers to sell existing stock quickly.
The price of ice products fell by 7% while the PI made POS fuel rose by 8%. Interestingly, these product groups, which are both used to fuel starbases, among other uses, seem to have a negatively correlated price series, as shown in the following graph. When the price of either group rises, the other one falls. Do rising prices of one group significantly reduce the number of starbases in operation, which subsequently reduces the demand for the other group or is there some other cause?

Click image to enlarge.

The index values for August are:

	August 2011	1 Month Change	12 Month Change
Mineral Price Index	73.1	1.4%	15.4%
Primary Producer Price Index	77.6	1.5%	28.9%
Secondary Producer Price Index	111.9	1.0%	9.8%
Consumer Price Index	65.2	0.3%	7.8%

The following graph shows the development of the indices since October 2003.

Click image to enlarge.

Full series of the four main price indices in Excel format
Full series of the four main price indices in CSV format



New to EVE? Start your 14-day free trial today.
Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.


More...

I am proud to announce that this winter, we are going to release some long-anticipated ship balancing. Specifically, capital ship balancing.

For a long time, there has been an outcry in the community that fleet fights are stagnating and are just not as fun as they should be. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of forum threads dedicated to this subject both on the official EVE Online forums, other EVE forums, as well as in blogs and articles. There is no shortage of opinions on this subject from players, devs and CSM members; the main concern that has been stated over and over again is that the proliferation of supercapitals is mostly to blame. Supercapitals can effectively deal with any size of target, and killing them takes a tremendous amount of damage. What this means is that with very few exceptions, the fleet with the most supercarriers wins. Huge, expensive ships should obviously be powerful, but there needs to be a way to fight back.

While not everyone agrees that supercarriers are to blame for everything, there were some issues that kept popping up:

• Supercapitals are too hard to kill.
• Supercarriers are far too versatile.
• The Titan superweapon is too powerful.
• Dreadnoughts are not good enough.
• Remote ECM Bursts should not work on ships immune to ewar.
• Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights.

Supercapitals are too hard to kill

We wanted to make them a little bit weaker, but not gut them completely. We're doing a simple 20% reduction in Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on both supercarriers and titans.

Supercarriers are far too versatile

The reason that supercarriers can deal with any size of ship is the versatility provided by its massive drone bay. Having access to almost unlimited combat drones of all sizes and being able to launch 20 of them at a time means that they have an answer to almost any situation. In fact, we found that drones on capital ships in general to be detrimental to the way fleet fights should work. If you want to deal with sub-capitals, you should bring your own sub-capitals or a carrier. Supercarriers will now have a smaller drone bay and will only be able to put fighters and fighter bombers in it. We are increasing the signature resolution on fighters so that they deal less damage to smaller targets. We are also completely removing the drone bays of titans and dreadnoughts. Seeing as we didn't want to take damage away from dreadnoughts, we're boosting the damage bonus of Siege Module I to compensate for the loss of drones. The Moros had its drone bonus changed to a capital hybrid turret rate of fire bonus.

The Titan superweapon is too powerful

Once we decided to reduce the capabilities of the supercarriers, we had to make sure that the "supercapital blob" wouldn't simply be replaced by the "titan blob." This meant that we had to do something about the superweapons. The big problem with the superweapons is that they can take out the crucial logistics and command ships of the opposing fleet in the first few minutes of a fleet fight, which severely reduces the capabilities of any remaining sub-capital ships. To fix this, we are changing the superweapon so that it cannot fire upon sub-capital ships (capital ships being Freighters, Jump Freighters, Carriers, Dreadnoughts, Capital Industrial Ships, Supercarriers and Titans).

Dreadnoughts are not good enough

One of the biggest problems with dreadnoughts is the fact that you have to commit them for 10 minutes at a time with siege mode. We are shortening the duration of Siege Module I from 10 minutes to 5 minutes and cutting the Strontium Clathrate cost in half. Dreadnoughts in siege mode will also no longer be affected by Remote ECM Burst. There was some discussion about boosting the dreadnoughts further, but we want to see how they play out with the other capital changes first.

Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights

The changes we're making should have a big impact here. Capital ships will have fewer drones to attack sub-capitals. Fighters will deal less damage to sub-capitals. Superweapons won't be able to shoot sub-capitals. Supercarriers will have fewer reserve fighters and fighterbombers, so having your sub-caps take down fighters and fighter bombers will have more of an impact on the fight.

Logging off should not be a viable tactic

Then there are the logoff mechanics. When you log off your character in space, the ship you are piloting disappears after 15 minutes. This, coupled with the millions of hitponts that supercapitals have, means that very few supercapitals are actually being destroyed. When a fleet is losing a large supercapital fight, they can simply log everyone off and be confident that they enemy fleet will only have enough time to kill a handful of their supercapitals. This kind of meta-gaming is not only un-fun but it just doesn't make much sense. When you commit your ship to a battle that should actually be a commitment. Only by winning or by making a tactical, well planned retreat should your ship be able to survive. It has been said that spaceships are serious business and they damn well should be. We are changing the logoff mechanics in such a way that as long as your enemies are actively engaged in fighting you, logging off is not going to save your ship.

The end. Except it's not the end at all.

As a part of our efforts to refocus towards FiS, these balancing changes are going to be the first of many, making sure that we continually balance and shake up EVE for years to come.

In conclusion, here is a full list of the changes we're making.

Supercarriers

• Drone bay can only hold fighters and fighter bombers.
• Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on all Supercarriers by 20%.
• Reduce drone capacity.
  
  • Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
  • Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
• Remote ECM Burst: Does not affect ships that are immune to electronic warfare (Supercarriers, Titans, Triaged Carriers and Sieged Dreads)

Fighters

• Increase signature resolution to 400

Dreadnoughts

• Remove drone bay from all dreadnoughts.
• Siege Module I: Boost damage bonus from 625% to 700% to compensate for loss of drones.
• Siege Module I: Duration time reduced to 5 minutes. Fuel cost -50%.
• Moros: Remove drone bonus.
• Moros: New bonus: 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level.

Titans

• Remove drone bay from all titans.
• Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints by 20%.
• Superweapon: Cannot shoot sub-capital ships.

Logoff timer

• After a player logs out, there is a check for player aggression every 15 minutes. If you have been aggressed, the timer extends for 15 minutes; if you have not been aggressed, you disappear as before. Note: this is only for player aggression and will not change what happens when you log off during fights against NPCs.

New to EVE? Start your 14-day free trial today.
Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.





More...

Hello!
I am CCP Cascade, Associate Technical Producer working in the Core Technology Group. I have been given the role of Internet Herald to tell you about some of the projects the Core Infrastructure team, CCP Atropos, CCP Mandrake, CCP Sputnik, and CCP TopKnot have recently worked on. The team works on a lot of in-house tech that you don’t often get to see, but they also work on some pretty important stuff that you see every day, such as the installer, patcher and repair tool. You might know them from the forums or dev blogs like "Fixing Lag: And I, for one, welcome our new automation overlords," "When patching fails, repair" and "The EVE Repair Tool and You."
Most recently, they have worked on two projects: the Generic Patcher and the Multi Payload Installer.
To sum it all up:
Installer:

• The installer can resume downloading at a later time if the user cancels or disconnects before a download completes.
• The installer has been broken up into three parts: the Executable, Payload1 and Payload2. This should only concern you when downloading the fallback installer.

Generic Patcher:

• People returning to EVE after a long break will have an easier time patching the client and getting back into the game.
• People who don't know what build they are on will no longer need to know as the generic patcher automatically patches any client installed.
• The Generic Patcher is available here by clicking the link “Generic Patcher” link on the Operating System page.

Multi Payload Installer
The Windows full installer was previously available in two flavors:

• One, referred to simply as the “Installer” consisted of a small executable which connected to our Content Delivery Network (CDN) and would proceed to download the game whilst you sat and watched the progress bar from the installer application.
• The other, often referred to as the “Fallback Installer” was an “offline version” of the installer, consisting of a single, large self-extracting archive, within which the game was compressed. You would download this using your browser, from our CDN, by simply clicking on the links from our webpage.

Since the Incarna expansion and patches, the total size for the installer has exceeded 4 GB.
So why is 4 GB so special?
There is a hard limit on how large a single executable can be on Windows; that limit is 4 GB on 32-bit systems. Furthermore, operating systems that run on the FAT-32 file system have a 4 GB file size limit, so no file stored on a FAT-32 system can be larger than 4 GB. Most users do not run on FAT-32 anymore; NTFS is more widely used today. We decided on a solution that caters to everyone, whether they use FAT-32 or NTFS. We split the so-called payload (the compressed file containing the game) into multiple files.
So what does this mean to me?
Since you already (hopefully) have the game installed, probably not much. But if you were to reinstall the game or carry the client around on a USB stick, then there have been some changes that you should be aware of.
When you download the fallback installer, you are presented with a list of files you need to download:

• The Executable
• Payload 1
• Payload 2

By downloading them and placing them into the same folder you can install the game just the same way you would have done before. The size, currently, isn’t that far over the 4GB limit; the current total is 4.5 GB.
If you are using the regular installer, the changes we have made are all in the background; as a user you will not notice it.
And as a bonus to resolving the 4 GB issue, we have added functionality for resuming downloads. If you happen to get disconnected, experience a power outage or just accidentally click cancel during the download, the next time the installer starts up it will simply pick up where you left it.
Generic Patcher
With EVE going through patches and expansions, the size and quantity of patches we create with every expansion/patch has increased and the older the client you’re using is, the bigger the patch gets. This is not only bad for you (more data to download) but makes our build and test times that much longer. This slows us down when there are fixes to roll out to Tranquility, so any reduction in the time required building and testing is a massive benefit to us. To cut down on this, we are currently limiting ourselves to building around 20 patches, which means that if you have a client which is older than 20 patches (generally a client that is roughly 8 months older or more) you would have to reinstall the game to be able to play.
Enter the generic patcher! With the generic patcher, you will be able to patch any released client, no matter how old it is, to the latest client version. The generic patches determine what your client is missing and then proceeds to download the missing files. This means no matter how corrupt or out-of-date your EVE Online client is, it should be fixed up in one go. What’s even cooler: the generic patches only get what is different in each file. So if the only difference in a 100 MB file from your hard drive and the latest version is a few megabytes, only those megabytes will be downloaded. Instead of having to download the full installer if there is no patch for you available, you will now have the generic patches to get you up and running.

Future stuff
All of these changes mentioned here in this blog are improvements to make the installing and patching experience better and more convenient for you. We have already started working on the next steps which we are really excited about bringing to you, but more about those in a later dev blog. We also very much welcome your ideas for future stuff you would like to see in the feedback thread!



More...

I am proud to announce that this winter, we are going to release some long-anticipated ship balancing. Specifically, capital ship balancing.

For a long time, there has been an outcry in the community that fleet fights are stagnating and are just not as fun as they should be. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of forum threads dedicated to this subject both on the official EVE Online forums, other EVE forums, as well as in blogs and articles. There is no shortage of opinions on this subject from players, devs and CSM members; the main concern that has been stated over and over again is that the proliferation of supercapitals is mostly to blame. Supercapitals can effectively deal with any size of target, and killing them takes a tremendous amount of damage. What this means is that with very few exceptions, the fleet with the most supercarriers wins. Huge, expensive ships should obviously be powerful, but there needs to be a way to fight back.

While not everyone agrees that supercarriers are to blame for everything, there were some issues that kept popping up:

• Supercapitals are too hard to kill.
• Supercarriers are far too versatile.
• The Titan superweapon is too powerful.
• Dreadnoughts are not good enough.
• Remote ECM Bursts should not work on ships immune to ewar.
• Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights.

Supercapitals are too hard to kill

We wanted to make them a little bit weaker, but not gut them completely. We're doing a simple 20% reduction in Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on both supercarriers and titans.

Supercarriers are far too versatile

The reason that supercarriers can deal with any size of ship is the versatility provided by its massive drone bay. Having access to almost unlimited combat drones of all sizes and being able to launch 20 of them at a time means that they have an answer to almost any situation. In fact, we found that drones on capital ships in general to be detrimental to the way fleet fights should work. If you want to deal with sub-capitals, you should bring your own sub-capitals or a carrier. Supercarriers will now have a smaller drone bay and will only be able to put fighters and fighter bombers in it. We are increasing the signature resolution on fighters so that they deal less damage to smaller targets. We are also completely removing the drone bays of titans and dreadnoughts. Seeing as we didn't want to take damage away from dreadnoughts, we're boosting the damage bonus of Siege Module I to compensate for the loss of drones. The Moros had its drone bonus changed to a capital hybrid turret rate of fire bonus.

The Titan superweapon is too powerful

Once we decided to reduce the capabilities of the supercarriers, we had to make sure that the "supercapital blob" wouldn't simply be replaced by the "titan blob." This meant that we had to do something about the superweapons. The big problem with the superweapons is that they can take out the crucial logistics and command ships of the opposing fleet in the first few minutes of a fleet fight, which severely reduces the capabilities of any remaining sub-capital ships. To fix this, we are changing the superweapon so that it cannot fire upon sub-capital ships (capital ships being Freighters, Jump Freighters, Carriers, Dreadnoughts, Capital Industrial Ships, Supercarriers and Titans).

Dreadnoughts are not good enough

One of the biggest problems with dreadnoughts is the fact that you have to commit them for 10 minutes at a time with siege mode. We are shortening the duration of Siege Module I from 10 minutes to 5 minutes and cutting the Strontium Clathrate cost in half. Dreadnoughts in siege mode will also no longer be affected by Remote ECM Burst. There was some discussion about boosting the dreadnoughts further, but we want to see how they play out with the other capital changes first.

Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights

The changes we're making should have a big impact here. Capital ships will have fewer drones to attack sub-capitals. Fighters will deal less damage to sub-capitals. Superweapons won't be able to shoot sub-capitals. Supercarriers will have fewer reserve fighters and fighterbombers, so having your sub-caps take down fighters and fighter bombers will have more of an impact on the fight.

Logging off should not be a viable tactic

Then there are the logoff mechanics. When you log off your character in space, the ship you are piloting disappears after 15 minutes. This, coupled with the millions of hitponts that supercapitals have, means that very few supercapitals are actually being destroyed. When a fleet is losing a large supercapital fight, they can simply log everyone off and be confident that they enemy fleet will only have enough time to kill a handful of their supercapitals. This kind of meta-gaming is not only un-fun but it just doesn't make much sense. When you commit your ship to a battle that should actually be a commitment. Only by winning or by making a tactical, well planned retreat should your ship be able to survive. It has been said that spaceships are serious business and they damn well should be. We are changing the logoff mechanics in such a way that as long as your enemies are actively engaged in fighting you, logging off is not going to save your ship.

The end. Except it's not the end at all.

As a part of our efforts to refocus towards FiS, these balancing changes are going to be the first of many, making sure that we continually balance and shake up EVE for years to come.

In conclusion, here is a full list of the changes we're making.

Supercarriers

• Drone bay can only hold fighters and fighter bombers.
• Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on all Supercarriers by 20%.
• Reduce drone capacity.
  
  • Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
  • Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
  
  
• Remote ECM Burst: Does not affect ships that are immune to electronic warfare (Supercarriers, Titans, Triaged Carriers and Sieged Dreads)

Fighters

• Increase signature resolution to 400

Dreadnoughts

• Remove drone bay from all dreadnoughts.
• Siege Module I: Boost damage bonus from 625% to 700% to compensate for loss of drones.
• Siege Module I: Duration time reduced to 5 minutes. Fuel cost -50%.
• Moros: Remove drone bonus.
• Moros: New bonus: 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level.

Titans

• Remove drone bay from all titans.
• Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints by 20%.
• Superweapon: Cannot shoot sub-capital ships.

Logoff timer

• After a player logs out, there is a check for player aggression every 15 minutes. If you have been aggressed, the timer extends for 15 minutes; if you have not been aggressed, you disappear as before. Note: this is only for player aggression and will not change what happens when you log off during fights against NPCs.

New to EVE? Start your 14-day free trial today.
Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.





More...

Dear Followers of EVE Online,
The past few months have been very humbling for me. I’ve done much soul searching, and what follows is my sincere effort to clear the air with all of you. Please bear with me as I find my way through.
The estrangement from CCP that many of you have been feeling of late is my fault, and for that I am truly sorry. There are many contributing factors, but in the end it is I who must shoulder the responsibility for much of what has happened. In short, my zeal for pushing EVE to her true potential made me lose sight of doing the simple things right. I was impatient when I should have been cautious, defiant when I should have been conciliatory and arrogant when I should have been humble.
This soul searching took me back to when EVE was just an idea. Bringing her to life in 2003 was, in many people’s minds, impossible. But we found a way because EVE is something unique in the world. Getting her to 100,000 subscribers was an even more fantastical feat. Before long, we were launching in China, making DUST 514, merging with White Wolf to build World of Darkness, building Carbon, growing the company to 600 people, increasing our subscriber count beyond that of the population of Iceland and on and on, one resounding success after the next despite earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and even a world economic collapse.
Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated.
You have spoken, loudly and clearly, with your words and with your actions. And there were definitely moments in recent history when I wish I would have listened more and taken a different path.
I was wrong and I admit it.
Captain’s Quarters
Without establishments and meaningful activities to engage in, forcing players into a mandatory single-player Captain’s Quarters experience was a mistake. I mentioned earlier the perils of not getting the simple things right. Removing ship spinning was a negligent oversight and a clear sign that we had fallen out of touch with our community. The interiors for Incarna were so scoped down by our launch window that CQ was essentially a prototype feature that we foolishly promoted as a full-blown expansion. We underestimated our development time, set impractical or misleading expectations, and added insult to injury by removing something in which players were emotionally invested.
I fully empathize with your disappointment in CCP. We would have been much better off positioning Incarna as an optional technology preview that interested players could have experienced and helped us to refine. The tragedy here is that the team really did build solid technology and great art to support what you can see and did it in way that sets a strong foundation for building out the rest. The fact is, in spite of our missteps, they delivered some of the most amazing interior rendering and character technology in the industry, and their efforts deserve praise. The fact we didn’t leverage their achievement more effectively is my fault.
Virtual Goods
Next we arrive at our rather underwhelming virtual goods rollout. There was hardly anything to purchase initially, let alone to put the cost of the infamous monocle in perspective. The last thing we wanted to do was create the perception that all items in the store would be in that price range. Quite frankly, it was rather pointless to begin with because we did not have a multiuser environment in which players could show off their purchases. It was another feature that we rushed out the door before it was ready.
We also didn’t do enough to assure you that this wasn’t the beginning of a “pay to win” scenario in EVE. Let me be blunt: Unless the MMO business changes radically, our virtual goods strategy for EVE Online will remain limited in scope and focus on vanity items, or as we said after the CSM visit this summer: The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time.
Though the introduction was clearly flawed, our plans for virtual goods are intended to make your playing experience better, not to disrupt it. From a strategic perspective, we had to take these first steps because monthly subscriptions are increasingly becoming a thing of the past. The culture of online gaming is changing, just as the notion of digital ownership did with music. If we don’t evolve our technology, our game design and our revenue model, then we risk obsolescence, and we just can’t allow that to happen to EVE or to our community.
Incarna
For the same reasons, Incarna—the real one with actual meaningful gameplay in it— will be a big step towards the future. For an experience that relies so much on emergence and human interaction, it’s remarkable that it’s taken us this long to actually put a face on it. Once Incarna hits its stride, EVE will be more personal, and thus more accessible to general audiences. Visual self-expression in a virtual setting is a core psychological component of gaming; most people need to see their avatars, or something vaguely humanoid, or else they don’t connect with the game. We were behind the curve and it needs to be addressed for the sake of EVE’s longevity. We have the technology. Now we need time to add the content that will bring more meaning to the gameplay—again, without disrupting the space combat simulator that many of you are, or at least were, very much in love with—and without delaying crucial improvements that this core experience desperately needs.
A Humbler, Stronger CCP
I’m sharing these revelations with you now because it’s taken this long to transform them into action. From all this self-reflection, a genesis of renewal has taken root, a personal and professional commitment to restore the partnership of trust upon which our success depends, and a plan that sets the foundation for us to sensibly guide EVE to her fullest potential. In the coming days and weeks, the details of this plan and what it means for you will be unveiled. Part of what led us down this path is the fact we have not communicated well. This blog, and those that will follow, will hopefully demonstrate our conviction to transparency.
Good things are coming. They always do when you learn from your mistakes. In 2007, we faced a similar crisis of confidence, and it resulted in the creation of the CSM. We’re a better company because of it. In the last months, we’ve taken a hard look at everything, including my leadership. What I can say for now is that we’ve taken action to ensure these mistakes are never repeated. We have reexamined our processes, hired experienced industry professionals for key leadership positions, reassessed our priorities, moved personnel around and, above all else, recognized our limitations.
For me, the most frustrating aspect of this is that after all this time, as far as EVE has come and in spite of everything that’s happened, I fervently believe with all my heart that we’ve not even scratched the surface of EVE’s potential. My personal failing is not reconciling that passion with pragmatism. We’ve been trying to expand the EVE universe in several directions at once, and I need to do a better job of pursuing that vision without diluting or marginalizing the things that are great—or could be great—about the game right now. Nullsec space needs to be fixed. Factional warfare needs to be fixed. The game needs new ships. We need to do a better job of nurturing our new players and making EVE the intriguing, boundless universe it has the potential to be.
We really do have something that no one else has. EVE is still unique in the real and virtual world. This is our vision for her, and we want so badly to take you there. But getting there is not an entitlement. It will take hard work, open communication and, above all else, collaboration with you. The greatest lesson for me is the realization that EVE belongs to you, and we at CCP are just the hosts of your experience. When we channel our passion for EVE constructively, we can make this vision a reality together.
But enough talk from me. We all know that much quoted phrase, “It’s not what you say, it’s what you do,” that will make the difference here. From now on, CCP will focus on doing what we say and saying what we do. That is the path to restoring trust and moving forward.
Regards,
Hilmar Veigar Pétursson, CEO
CCP Hellmar
P.S. Please comment on our forums or on Twitter @HilmarVeigar



New to EVE? Start your 14-day free trial today.
Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.



More...