|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 17:31:00 -
[1]
Originally by: CSM We were pleased when Torfi announced that the current "Disabled Incarna Door" will be replaced with an environment that will provide similar functionality and performance to the pre-Incarna Hangar, and this environment will be available until Incarna performance is similar to pre-Incarna performance.
Missed the point much?
We wanted to choose when we disembarked, have you been reading the threads?
Robert, I'm disappointed.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 17:39:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow I am in transit back home (now in Boston Airport) but will be happy to answer questions as time permits. I hope the devblog clears up a lot of things for everyone.
It's very clear you completely missed the point, as far as CQ is concerned.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:09:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Navigator Return of ship spinning
This is something that a lot of players are curious about and what I can tell you is that we will implement a form of ship spinning but we are not returning to the old hangar view. This new variation will be similar and, while you can spin your ship, it will not be exactly how it was before. The time line for designing, testing and implementing this new variation of ship spinning has not been finalized but we will bring you more information in a future dev blog.
But you missed the point entirly. We wanted the choice of when to disembark.
You've basically said, 'sure you can have spinning back, but we've left the door open so we can pull it asap.'
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:13:00 -
[4]
Trebor Daehdoow you need to get on here man and explain this ship spinning BS.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:16:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kiran yay for ship spinning coming back. CQ at present is boring and non functional.
Read it again, then see if you rejoice.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:22:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Mag''s on 02/07/2011 18:24:41 I honestly don't feel any different than this morning. If anything after reading the 'Ship spinning' rubbish, I actually feel rather disappointed.
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel Ship Spinning:
There's 2 things people want ship spinning back for: 1) we like to spin ships, it's fun. 2) ship spinning took less performance than the current avatar view.
CCP is going to add as a replacement for the door wallpaper that addresses both concerns. It will not be the same old hangar view, but will be similar in terms of functionality and performance.
Wrong. Have you even been reading the forums these past few days?
You're hiding behind the term ship spinning and I call BS.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow The major problem is that right now it takes longer to dock to Incarna (more resources must be loaded) and some functionality that the classic hangar view had isn't there -- so for example it's harder to dock, unload ore, and get back into space for more exciting mining action. And of course, no ship spinning.
No no no. The major problem was lack of choice. Do you even read the assembly hall threads?
We want to choose when we leave our ship, it's called Immersion.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel So it's about the "idea" that your player goes out of its pod? Or is it about the associated performance of loading your character?
Which is it?
Both have been addressed by CCP's statement.
You're trolling, right?
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 19:10:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel So it's about the "idea" that your player goes out of its pod? Or is it about the associated performance of loading your character?
Which is it?
Both have been addressed by CCP's statement.
You're trolling, right?
the current "Disabled Incarna Door" will be replaced with an environment that will provide similar functionality and performance to the pre-Incarna Hangar.
*THAT* answers both those concerns.
The most ridiculous bit about this whole hangar argument is that *I* was the one getting all mad at :ccp: when I thought they didn't understand the whole problem with mandatory InCarna docking. I've been convinced, so please rephrase your issue in clearly defined terms so I can answer them appropriately and kill this.
You missed the most important part of the statement.
and this environment will be available until Incarna performance is similar to pre-Incarna performance.
So I ask again, are you trolling?
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 19:27:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ranger 1 Precisely.
*cough* and this environment will be available until Incarna performance is similar to pre-Incarna performance.
|
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Daxel Magmalloy
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Yes, CCP still wants to dock straight to Incarna. Yes, we all think that's a mistake, and we'll keep on trying to convince them they are wrong.
So they didn't listen then.
Oh, they listened all right. But they don't agree. CSM can't force CCP to do anything, we can only try to persuade.
So instead you gave us some 'make them feel good and bury the truth' blog and it'll all go away? Amirite?
Great stuff, at least you had our backs and were honest.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel The time to complaining "I don't want InCarna" has come and passed, what now matters is the impact for us who care less about the integration between the two.
I still think you're trolling.
I and many others actually really look forward to walking in stations. We simply want to choose when we disembark. Could it be more clear?
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:37:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel The time to complaining "I don't want InCarna" has come and passed, what now matters is the impact for us who care less about the integration between the two.
I still think you're trolling.
I and many others actually really look forward to walking in stations. We simply want to choose when we disembark. Could it be more clear?
I understand the sentiment and argument, it's one I and several others of the CSM have consistently made since May 2010 (first CSM 5 meeting where we were introduced to InCarna). InCarna should stand on its own merit and not be forced down the throat of unwilling participants. I agree.
However I also think CCP wants integration between the 2 gameplays to be of tantamount importance. I disagree with that choice but respect the decisions. My condition for them to get their way in this regard is that I have similar performance footprint I had before.
Resisting for the sake of resisting will get us nowhere. The underlying reasons we are resisting are what matters. In this instance they are: performance, and potential loss of functionality.
Then why the disingenuous CSM blog? Why dance around the houses and not come straight out and say, "sorry chaps, you don't get what you want, you have no choice"?
I think that's what naffed me off the most and I'm pretty naffed off with what you didn't sort out.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:03:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel My question is "what do you want"? If your answer is: - "don't want InCarna". I can't give you that. For better or worse, InCarna and Eve are now one and the same. - "I don't want to be forced into InCarna for philosophical reasons [ie, I play 'flying in space', not 'space dollies]", see point above. - "I don't want to be forced into InCarna for performance reason". We got a compromise solution (and a bit extra) - "I want my hangar functionality where I spin my ship", we got you that
I'll repeat myself.
I like Incarna, I like the idea of walking in stations. I just don't want it every time I dock. You seem to keep forgetting the main sentence in the blog and why I believe it to be disingenuous.
and this environment will be available until Incarna performance is similar to pre-Incarna performance.
You didn't get us anything, we ended up with no choice as we have now.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.03 09:13:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: I'thari (about the hangar going away) you already lost this one. When work is almost done they won't change their mind, ever... no matter what they say.
I don't think so. They have to implement a new "temporary" hangar view using the Incarna engine in order to deal with the performance issues and meet their original functionality commitment to CSM and the community.
Then, at such time as they can meet that commitment in the CQ, they want to remove this "temporary" hangar. We all disagree with this last step, and will do our best to change their minds. We will just keep bugging them about it, and hopefully they will make it permanent just to get us to "STFU, already".
You gained nothing, we are left with the same as now, no choice. Are you really try to have us believe that we shouldn't worry because they will eventually let us have a choice? You couldn't even get them to agree to making it optional, after all that has occurred over the past week.
Disingenuous blog is disingenuous.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.04 14:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Da'gan Ship spinning? People were bothered about that..?
No, not really. But looking at that disingenuous blog, you would think so wouldn't you?
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.07.04 17:16:00 -
[17]
It's pointless posting in this thread any more, CCP have done enough to quell the upset. Nothing has changed and the CSM have shown exactly how useful they really are.
Move along people.
|
|
|
|