Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 17:38:00 -
[31]
I am gonna be constructive and Snipe this!
-- Fine Mag's no Purple ok!
But I am the Snyper Queen!
|
Spineker
Caldari Chain of Dogs
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 17:39:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Orange Lagomorph
Originally by: Montevius Williams Who cares, QA slip ups happen ALL THE TIME. Ask Toyota, sh*t happens, move on.
The current patch fiasco is more comparable to a scenario in which you pick your Toyota up from the auto mechanic.
Upon turning the key in the ignition, the car fails to start, the windows slide up and down erratically, the muffler falls off, the engine catches fire, and the radio is stuck on a country music station.
LOL but hey I like Country Sometimes!
|
Philip Richardson
Depthstrike Industries G a l a c t i c Industries
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 17:57:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Spineker
Originally by: Orange Lagomorph
Originally by: Montevius Williams Who cares, QA slip ups happen ALL THE TIME. Ask Toyota, sh*t happens, move on.
The current patch fiasco is more comparable to a scenario in which you pick your Toyota up from the auto mechanic.
Upon turning the key in the ignition, the car fails to start, the windows slide up and down erratically, the muffler falls off, the engine catches fire, and the radio is stuck on a country music station.
LOL but hey I like Country Sometimes!
The radio is stuck on a country music station INSTEAD of being tuned to your mp3 player. - I blame stompy for any confusion I might have caused. |
Orange Lagomorph
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 18:02:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Orange Lagomorph on 02/10/2010 18:05:31 I'm sorry, that was uncalled-for. Here's something constructive ù a series of steps that may help people resolve some of the issues they're experiencing:
- Set a long skill to train (~30 days).
- Ensure that the Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor is full of rubbish.
- Enter DeLorean; set the DESTINATION TIME to NOV 2 2010.
- Depress gas pedal until DeLorean achieves 88 MPH.
- There's a 34.6% chance that the patch will be fixed when you arrive.
- If necessary, repeat steps 1-5, substituting DEC 2 2010 (and so on) in step 2 as appropriate.
|
Swidgen
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 18:35:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Swidgen on 02/10/2010 18:40:34 Edited by: Swidgen on 02/10/2010 18:39:58 Here's something constructive: It is pointless to always and forever have 2 threads for each patch, a feedback thread and an issues thread. Doesn't finding "issues" with the patch constitute feedback? What kind of feedback do you expect if reporting issues isn't considered appropriate and on-topic?
Maybe it's a language thing, but there should be ONE official "feedback" thread per patch, and in there players should be directed to the bug-reporting process as necessary.
It's an "all issues are feedback but not all feedback are issues" scenario. Solution: 2 official threads for each patch: Fanbois and Haters (OK, maybe that's not so constructive). |
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 18:37:00 -
[36]
Me being constructive.
Originally by: Bhattran
Originally by: CCP Navigator We have an EVE Online Tyrannis 1.1 Issues Thread in the EIP. Yes, there have been some bugs and players are reporting these through the bug reporting system. We would encourage all players who experience bugs to submit a detailed bug report and we will investigate.
How come those bugs weren't investigated when they were reported on the test server?
-------------------------------------------------------------- Fanboys would make great cult members. |
Cor Aidan
Shore Leave
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 18:44:00 -
[37]
A very simple thing that would help would be to include a section in the patch notes called "Known Issues." This at least gives people an idea of what to expect rather than being surprised.
In my line of work, it's both acceptable and expected to include such a list in the release notes we distribute with our products (especially since we often make releases during development before things are completed). The goal for final release is "No known issues," but it's obvious we're not close to "final release."
|
Squidling
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 19:46:00 -
[38]
Shorter Orange:
- Apply lube
- Bend over.
- Still hurt? Use more lube.
|
Zagdul
Gallente Shadowed Command
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 19:46:00 -
[39]
I have a theory behind a lot of what is happening behind CCP's doors.
CCP started EVE with a small group of people, these people poured their heart into their product. You see this in EVE where a new corporation's CEO fights to recruit, build and grow. After a given timeframe when said leadership/management has done it all, it grows complacent. Even with ISK coming in, they begin to pass off work to others they no longer want to do. The work they pass off is done so to people who may not be as qualified or may not have the drive to put in the enthusiasm which they originally had. This leads to lazy work or half done work. Your POS's aren't as pretty, corp hangars are messy and less organized, spread sheets aren't as frequently updated.
I think something similar is happening in CCP right now where it's original employees who are trusted and high up on the food chain aren't paying forward the knowledge they have, spend more time talking about what they can do and less actual doing. This is resulting in a half cooked product which they feel is alright to release and fix later.
The worst part about all this is when the company was created, it was done so by a group of friends. I have a sneeking suspicion that these friends are not able to tell each other that they're dropping the ball. They're not holding each other accountable.
Whoever the "Project Manager" is at CCP needs to be held accountable. There is someone who's job it is to connect the dots then put their seal of approval.
This person should be a jerk, someone who isn't one of the original hires of CCP and is the "bad cop". CCP, hire someone from EVE to do this. A CEO from a corp in EVE who can manage this, has a bit of an elitist attitude and who will shake things up. Because I'll tell ya what, I've seen it happen in EVE where corps fail from complacency, it can happen to you.
|
Lafayet
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 20:12:00 -
[40]
Some people are actually acting like this patch and the subsequent optional patch completely ruined the game for them.
The number of people who suffered game stopping bugs from this patch was small. The vast majority of people negatively affected by this patch suffered minor inconveniences such as having to reset their chat windows every time they logged or missing audio sounds when they transferred items from place to place. There were a few more issues but none of them stopped the majority of us from playing the game.
I feel bad for any of you who did actually lose time due to the patches but let's try and keep this in perspective here.
|
|
Borun Tal
Minmatar Empire Maneuvers
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 20:21:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Alara IonStorm I think what would be best now is a CCP discussion thread. They would benefit to sit down with the playerbase and have an open discussion about the future of this game!
An open conversation would bring a lot more good will then the pointless rants!
With all respect to the cubicle warriors that work hard to make this game what it is, CCP has made it perfectly clear about what they think about sit-down discussions with the player base, vis-a-vis the CSM. I'm not here to re-open the whole CSM issue; there are plenty of threads, blogs, and minutes posted elsewhere.
|
Zagdul
Gallente Shadowed Command
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 20:22:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Lafayet Some people are actually acting like this patch and the subsequent optional patch completely ruined the game for them.
The number of people who suffered game stopping bugs from this patch was small. The vast majority of people negatively affected by this patch suffered minor inconveniences such as having to reset their chat windows every time they logged or missing audio sounds when they transferred items from place to place. There were a few more issues but none of them stopped the majority of us from playing the game.
I feel bad for any of you who did actually lose time due to the patches but let's try and keep this in perspective here.
It's not the patch.
It's a series of patches which may fix one thing, but break a few others.
Someone said it wisely in another thread somewhere... All these "features" CCP keeps attempting to add on to the game are all dwarfed in comparison to the idea that rockets may be fixed. The fact that a simple tweak to a game mechanic would make the current player base so happy as opposed to adding some super awesome feature that has the potential to create more issues means that possibly CCP may be going in the wrong direction in terms of development.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. It's not that this patch has OMGBROKENEVEISDYING!, it's that all these features and additions CCP is doing to EVE would be much better focused on simple quality control and bug fixing. In my opinion, CCP would retain more customers and gain more via word of mouth if they'd just take the wonderful product they have and make it work better.
Best way to gain new customers/clients is via word of mouth. Right now, the word is that this game is riddled with bugs. Not something that is attractive to new and potential customers. Especially for a game which has been around for as long as EVE has. You'd think they would have perfected the process by now. I just don't get the feeling that they learn from their mistakes as they keep repeating them. This seems to be the frustration of so many players. Not that the game isn't good, but that the people behind the game don't seem to put in the same effort they used to or that they don't learn from previous botched patches of what not to do.
|
Tal'sung
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 20:25:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Tal''sung on 02/10/2010 20:26:30
I can't believe there's people defending CCP spite how bad this patch is, anyone can see that the patch is a complete mess and has obviously broken alot more things than it fixed.
It's funny how the test server went ape **** and completely broke a day or so before this patch was deployed on TQ aswell - something tells me CCP saw it was horribly broken but deployed it on TQ anyway knowing full well it would have alot of issues.
The CCP fanboys can htfu, there's simply no reason for this complete and utter failure of a patch.
On top of this I believe we should get an official apology from CCP at the least.
|
Jaqel Broadside
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 20:55:00 -
[44]
I was gonna put a huge rant in here.
But what is the friggin point ?
CCP you are a laughing stock, friggin epic fail on Program Testing, Analyst testing, Project system testing/management, QA, Procedures, SiSi testing, PR - CCP Navigator epic fail, Director Culture and customer leason.
The worst thing is I'm paying for this *&%$
|
Ty'lem Vek
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 21:17:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Swidgen Edited by: Swidgen on 02/10/2010 18:40:34 Edited by: Swidgen on 02/10/2010 18:39:58 Here's something constructive: It is pointless to always and forever have 2 threads for each patch, a feedback thread and an issues thread. Doesn't finding "issues" with the patch constitute feedback? What kind of feedback do you expect if reporting issues isn't considered appropriate and on-topic?
Maybe it's a language thing, but there should be ONE official "feedback" thread per patch, and in there players should be directed to the bug-reporting process as necessary.
It's an "all issues are feedback but not all feedback are issues" scenario. Solution: 2 official threads for each patch: Fanbois and Haters (OK, maybe that's not so constructive).
To be quite honest, Swidgen, that's what's typically referred to as a "Damage Control II". If there's two threads with twenty pages each, at least you don't have a 40-page quickly growing threadnaught.
CCP, I've been a staunch supporter of yours for the past year. I love this game, I love what it's about - I truly think that it can offer something to the MMO Gaming community that no other game can. But this patch is an atrocity. Your complete and utter lack of response to the fact that the optional patch fixed more or less nothing. All of the major issues are still present.
Before Thursday, I would have recommended EVE to a friend. I did more than that, I recommended it to 3. They've all become subscribers. I'm sure the story is the same for many of the other players. Thanks for making us look like a**hats. (That wasn't constructive..)
As to the constructive bit, maybe you should apologize for this, and put in the time to fix it. Roll back, do whatever you need to do. But please, give us a playable game in the end. The desired outcome here is *not* to announce that other issued will be fixed in a future update "soon".
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 21:18:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Jaqel Broadside I was gonna put a huge rant in here.
But what is the friggin point ?
CCP you are a laughing stock, friggin epic fail on Program Testing, Analyst testing, Project system testing/management, QA, Procedures, SiSi testing, PR - CCP Navigator epic fail, Director Culture and customer leason....
The worst thing is I'm paying for this *&%$
That's the best thing from CCP's standpoint. Their employees need to decide if they are going to peruse the Tiffany's catalog or hit up the local Arctic Cat / BMW / Range Rover dealership for their significant other's holiday gift this season. Our continued subscription fees fuel their bling. This is the natural order of things.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 21:30:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Tippia on 02/10/2010 21:31:23
Originally by: Cor Aidan A very simple thing that would help would be to include a section in the patch notes called "Known Issues." This at least gives people an idea of what to expect rather than being surprised.
/signed
Originally by: Zagdul It's not the patch.
It's a series of patches which may fix one thing, but break a few others.
Someone said it wisely in another thread somewhere... All these "features" CCP keeps attempting to add on to the game are all dwarfed in comparison to the idea that rockets may be fixed. The fact that a simple tweak to a game mechanic would make the current player base so happy as opposed to adding some super awesome feature that has the potential to create more issues means that possibly CCP may be going in the wrong direction in terms of development.
àalso, this. Over the last year or so, CCP have consistently done one thing: every patch breaks more than it fixes, and the breakages are more in-your-face and universally applicable (and thus more universally annoying) than the showcase features added in those patches.
The patch that breaks the UI ù the most obvious part of the game ù is annoying in and of itself; the trend that only shows that these kinds of things will happen more and more frequently and with more and more devastating results is downright horrifying. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Atticus Fynch
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 22:09:00 -
[48]
are we done constructing yet?
|
Orange Lagomorph
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 23:26:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Atticus Fynch are we done constructing yet?
It will take a lot of additional pylons to fix this patch, so... not even close.
|
XIRUSPHERE
Gallente The 8th Order
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 00:29:00 -
[50]
Roll the patch back rather than put a band aid on a fail, put that patch back to test where it belongs. Save quite a few people a headache.
|
|
Jared Reidel
Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 07:03:00 -
[51]
With my best Devil's advocate hat on...
Maybe there were sensible reasons (I'm assuming an internal artificial deadline is not a sensible reason) as to why the patch had to go live even with known bugs. If that is the case I personally would hope to see some more communication about this or comments in the patch notes.
Something like "Folks we have to roll out this patch ASAP because of xyz issues. Unfortunately this will mean a number of bugs will appear and will be live for abc period of time. We know this isn't a great experience but we must stress the importance of patching the client now, please bear with us"
Secondly, if issues do come up then I think the best approach to these sort of issues is one of honesty: "Sorry guys we got it wrong. We've had a meeting and learned what went wrong and have put in place measures to reduce the chance of it happening again and are rolling out a remedial patch to resolve the bugs"
Updates on live systems do go wrong or have some unexpected behaviour, most sane people accept that full, what is needed though is an approach that deals with customers in such a way as to limit their poor experience and ensure they remain fans of your product and company. CS should always be over-indexed when issues arise IMO.
/2p
|
Orange Lagomorph
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 07:08:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Jared Reidel Something like "Folks we have to roll out this patch ASAP because of xyz issues. Unfortunately this will mean a number of bugs will appear and will be live for abc period of time. We know this isn't a great experience but we must stress the importance of patching the client now, please bear with us"
You forgot to add, "We will be waiving your subscription fee(s) this month, as thanks for your participation in this extended bug test and in recognition that the game is nigh-unplayable in its current state."
|
Jared Reidel
Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 07:11:00 -
[53]
Agreed - if they did make the game almost unplayable then a form of compensation would be looked for by many. Personally I don't think this particular patch made the game unplayable but it hasn't been a great experience that's for sure
|
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 11:27:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Bhattran Me being constructive.
Originally by: Bhattran
Originally by: CCP Navigator We have an EVE Online Tyrannis 1.1 Issues Thread in the EIP. Yes, there have been some bugs and players are reporting these through the bug reporting system. We would encourage all players who experience bugs to submit a detailed bug report and we will investigate.
How come those bugs weren't investigated when they were reported on the test server?
I'm still waiting for my answer. -------------------------------------------------------------- Fanboys would make great cult members. |
Celaxi
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 11:47:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Celaxi on 03/10/2010 11:48:58 The constructive solution is a public bug tracker for Singularity:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1393709
|
Krispy Dingo
Minmatar Strangers in a Strange Land
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 14:11:00 -
[56]
I applaud your efforts Hellcity Boston ;)
but the question remains, will CCP sit down for a new little tOte-a-tOte about the problems with the patch in the first place and the patch to fix the patch, which didn't really seem to fix my problems (no sound in places, chat windows, nothing game breaking, just annoyances). As an answer to that, I give you this quote from Fight Club.
Originally by: Narrator A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
We need to modify the equation a little bit, and keep in mind the 80/20 rule at the same time, meaning that of the player base only 20% are probably posting on the forums anyway (and reading the dev blogs, and keeping up to date on general EVE news).
So, A would be the number of known bugs in the latest patch, only big game breaking ones, B would be the number of players that would unsubscribe if we don't do our little sit down fireside chat (which would really only be out of the 20%, and not the full 100% since 80% don't really care enough to go to the forums in the first place), and C would be your $15US or 15Ç which would give you X. If X is less than the amount we currently make per month off subscriptions and the purchase of GTCs, we do not do the sit down.
Xeross is right, transparency is good, but like I said to him on Twitter awhile ago, I think there is a certain level of transparency that is good, but going too far can be even worse. When you start letting your customers see all of your dirty laundry, you start to damage your customer base because they learn just how bad things really are. I know, I work in public warehousing and you should see the things we hide from our customers. We just had a meeting the other day about how best to lie (read cover up) about certain problems that we have with their product so we make ourselves look good in the customers eye. Personally, I find this to he deplorable, and I hate the fact that I told them how to cover it up (they were going in the wrong direction) but I guess that is part of my job when they ask direct questions.
Ok, bringing this too a close, it's much like others have said, you can test the jeebus out of something on your test server, but unless you have a 100% replication between test and live, you just won't see the exact same things. Also, take in to consideration that the current patch problems appear to be fully client related. How many different computer set ups are out there? Maybe, just maybe, there is something about the combination of certain pieces of hardware that causes issues. Do you expect CCP to be able to test it on all iterations?
I am not trying to sound like a CCP fanboi, I just want to make sure people keep in mind that when you test, you test vanilla and you try to break the **** out of it. sometimes, no matter how much you try to break it you just can't do it, and others will always come along and do something you neve even dreamed of.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I am distracted by my 2 year old humming the Cantina song. _____________________________ http://twitter.com/krispy_dingo http://krispydingo.com |
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 14:18:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Helicity Boson
CCP moves patch to live regardless of petitions or posts anyways.
I feel berried deep on page 2 is the correct place to point out to any CCP dev that has wondered in this far.. This is one of the main reasons vets turn bitter and wont help you test anymore. Its something we all know is going to happen, and combine that with next to no feedback on how the tests went and bing, no one feels like helping after a few gos at it.
(This is not aimed at anyone in particular, and is not limited to just 1 department)
Support giving carebears new toys |
Orange Lagomorph
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 14:37:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Krispy Dingo sometimes, no matter how much you try to break it you just can't do it, and others will always come along and do something you neve even dreamed of.
Something like ù just throwing out a couple of examples here ù starting their client or pinning their chat windows.
Only in their wildest fantasies could CCP conceive of people doing such things!
|
Toovhon
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 16:06:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Orange Lagomorph
Originally by: Krispy Dingo sometimes, no matter how much you try to break it you just can't do it, and others will always come along and do something you neve even dreamed of.
Something like ù just throwing out a couple of examples here ù starting their client or pinning their chat windows.
Only in their wildest fantasies could CCP conceive of people doing such things!
And... oh I dunno... opening a can? (so you can see it open in the friggin' middle of the screen, resized tiny with large icon view stuck on). I mean what crazy mother!@#$er would do that?? -- Frog blast the vent core! |
Mardero
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 16:15:00 -
[60]
The problem might be just that CCP could not reproduce bugs reported by Singularity testers, because they all use Macs at CCP HQ. __________________________________________________ The ISK Maker: Hottest tips on what to trade in Eve Online. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |