Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 05:12:00 -
[91] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Care to explain why or you just prefer larger bounties that will just again get nerfed as soon as the inflation rate goes up I was talking about how you started with saying null needs a unique resource to trade with the rest of the game and then concluding that you need to take away one of null's unique resources that it trades with the rest of the game. No tech is not a unique resource it is a badly implemented broken mechanic.
But in saying that if the Alliance that held those moons gave all the profits of them to its members, the members would not have such a crappy risk vs reward. They are not a resource for players unlike ring mining they are a welfare hand out to corps. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 05:19:00 -
[92] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:No tech is not a unique resource it is a badly implemented broken mechanic.
But in saying that if the Alliance that held those moons gave all the profits of them to its members, the members would not have such a crappy risk vs reward. They are not a resource for players unlike ring mining they are a welfare hand out to corps.
Tech is absolutely a unique resource. Too unique at a point, sure (not anymore thanks to alchemy - check the market prices of Tech if you want), but a unique resource nonetheless. Your solution to this is to destroy an entire game mechanic (moon mining) because one single resource was given far too much importance by a short-sighed CCP change.
Moon mining doesn't need to be touched at all. Play with alchemy or T2 schemas to minimize the impact of bottlenecks, sure. Removing the entire mechanic (especially for some vaguely defined Jesus feature like Ring Mining) is just stupid and unnecessary. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 05:27:00 -
[93] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:No tech is not a unique resource it is a badly implemented broken mechanic.
But in saying that if the Alliance that held those moons gave all the profits of them to its members, the members would not have such a crappy risk vs reward. They are not a resource for players unlike ring mining they are a welfare hand out to corps. Tech is absolutely a unique resource. Too unique at a point, sure (not anymore thanks to alchemy - check the market prices of Tech if you want), but a unique resource nonetheless. Your solution to this is to destroy an entire game mechanic (moon mining) because one single resource was given far too much importance by a short-sighed CCP change. Moon mining doesn't need to be touched at all. Play with alchemy or T2 schemas to minimize the impact of bottlenecks, sure. Removing the entire mechanic (especially for some vaguely defined Jesus feature like Ring Mining) is just stupid and unnecessary. If moon mining did not need to be touched at all, then if you take the total income provided by Moon mining in Null and divide it by the number of Null sec players, subsequently their incomes are substantially higher.
Subsequently their risk vs. reward is more acceptable. You can not have it both ways complaining that the individual players are broke while some corporations are raking in trillions a year from moon mining.
It is a broken mechanic, corps and alliance funding should be from the bottom up, not the top down or you end up with a circumstance like this where some corporations are wasting money hand over fist while their members are on the forums bitching about Nulls risk vs reward. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 05:41:00 -
[94] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:If moon mining did not need to be touched at all, then if you take the total income provided by Moon mining in Null and divide it by the number of Null sec players, subsequently their incomes are substantially higher.
Subsequently their risk vs. reward is more acceptable. You can not have it both ways complaining that the individual players are broke while some corporations are raking in trillions a year from moon mining.
It is a broken mechanic, corps and alliance funding should be from the bottom up, not the top down or you end up with a circumstance like this where some corporations are wasting money hand over fist while their members are on the forums bitching about Nulls risk vs reward.
You're being quite dishonest representing nullsec as a whole - only a fairly small region of the game was fortunate enough to have Tech. Non-tech mining is nowhere near as lucrative (Neo's the closest at 35k p/u, then Plat and Dyspro at 9-10k p/u. For reference, Tech at its highest point broke 200k p/u). Moon mining itself isn't the problem - the high necessity for Tech in T2 production combined with its geographical scarcity was the problem, and that's been dealt a very heavy blow by alchemy. Check tech prices if you doubt this - ever since the alchemy changes went in, Tech's been dropping heavily (aside from the brief spike at the beginning of the CFC - Dotbros war in the North that interrupted supply) and still has room to drop - I think some of the math placed its likely floor at ~40k.
Still, talking about tech and applying the problems associated with it to all of null is a straight-up lie, and you're using it to advocate nuking a mechanic that, aside from the Tech issue, isn't even some major problem. The major problem with null is that there has never been any good ground-up methods to make an alliance prosper - it was either luck out on moons or rent your space to whoever was paying. That's the direction null changes need to go in, and removing moon mining doesn't accomplish any of that. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 05:51:00 -
[95] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:If moon mining did not need to be touched at all, then if you take the total income provided by Moon mining in Null and divide it by the number of Null sec players, subsequently their incomes are substantially higher.
Subsequently their risk vs. reward is more acceptable. You can not have it both ways complaining that the individual players are broke while some corporations are raking in trillions a year from moon mining.
It is a broken mechanic, corps and alliance funding should be from the bottom up, not the top down or you end up with a circumstance like this where some corporations are wasting money hand over fist while their members are on the forums bitching about Nulls risk vs reward. You're being quite dishonest representing nullsec as a whole - only a fairly small region of the game was fortunate enough to have Tech. Non-tech mining is nowhere near as lucrative (Neo's the closest at 35k p/u, then Plat and Dyspro at 9-10k p/u. For reference, Tech at its highest point broke 200k p/u). Moon mining itself isn't the problem - the high necessity for Tech in T2 production combined with its geographical scarcity was the problem, and that's been dealt a very heavy blow by alchemy. Check tech prices if you doubt this - ever since the alchemy changes went in, Tech's been dropping heavily (aside from the brief spike at the beginning of the CFC - Dotbros war in the North that interrupted supply) and still has room to drop - I think some of the math placed its likely floor at ~40k. Still, talking about tech and applying the problems associated with it to all of null is a straight-up lie, and you're using it to advocate nuking a mechanic that, aside from the Tech issue, isn't even some major problem. The major problem with null is that there has never been any good ground-up methods to make an alliance prosper - it was either luck out on moons or rent your space to whoever was paying. That's the direction null changes need to go in, and removing moon mining doesn't accomplish any of that. I believe you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
No the majority of Null does not make trillions from Moon mining, that is just the now 1 alliance that hold those moons.
So the largest alliance in Null has a good risk vs. reward while everyone else has a crap return. Moon mining is a crap mechanic you whack up a tower and visit it weekly and the corporation gets cash. The whole model of eve is based on income=effort expended, even PI requires more effort than moon mining and at least PI is a ground up funding system.
So the easy answer is No I don't think you should have your cake and eat it too. Moon mining should be scrapped in the upcoming POS revamp and ring mining introduced to Null, low and Wormholes equally, with no special welfare program for Null. Null should have unique goods gotten by the players for their efforts, no matter where that may be.
Then they can fund their corp with Taxes. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 05:55:00 -
[96] - Quote
I see you're going for the Frying Doom "ignore rebuttals and keep saying the same thing over and over again" method. I'll put this in caveman terms just in case things like "paragraphs" and "points" throw you.
Tech bad. CCP need fix tech. CCP start fix Tech. This good thing. Moon mining not Tech. No break moon mining because of Tech. Just fix Tech. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:01:00 -
[97] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:I see you're going for the Frying Doom "ignore rebuttals and keep saying the same thing over and over again" method. I'll put this in caveman terms just in case things like "paragraphs" and "points" throw you.
Tech bad. CCP need fix tech. CCP start fix Tech. This good thing. Moon mining not Tech. No break moon mining because of Tech. Just fix Tech. ok You want Null fixed
You want to keep isk from Tech and moons
You want ring mining just be tech, as moons mining the rest.
You want isk with no effort. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:04:00 -
[98] - Quote
There we have it, even caveman speak is over his head. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:06:00 -
[99] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:There we have it, even caveman speak is over his head. And insults or no you are just worried about your low maintenance isk fountains.
Oh and you have insulted me a lot worse before and it has never bothered me, you might like to check your posting history and come back with a better insult. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:07:00 -
[100] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Snow Axe wrote:There we have it, even caveman speak is over his head. And insults or no you are just worried about your low maintenance isk fountains.
Right, that's exactly why I keep advocating for nerfs to tech. Unless you're trying to say that non-tech moons are isk fountains, in which case looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:09:00 -
[101] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Snow Axe wrote:There we have it, even caveman speak is over his head. And insults or no you are just worried about your low maintenance isk fountains. Right, that's exactly why I keep advocating for nerfs to tech. Unless you're trying to say that non-tech moons are isk fountains, in which case looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool Tech should not be nerfed it should be gone.
Yeah as people put up moon minng operations because they are high maintenance and loosing businesses.
No they are not huge fountains like tech but they still do not require much player interaction to gain reward. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:16:00 -
[102] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Tech should not be nerfed it should be gone.
Yeah as people put up moon minng operations because they are high maintenance and loosing businesses.
No they are not huge fountains like tech but they still do not require much player interaction to gain reward.
Right, remove tech and replace it with what exactly?
Raw mineral mining moons aren't isk fountains anymore - only tech and neo are capable of bringing over a bil a month, then there's plat and dyspro which are just over 700mil/month. After that you're getting into the "might cover fuel costs for a large tower" crowd. Reactions and advanced materials may be a different story, but they're far from low effort.
In conclusion, you're making **** up as you go along as usual.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:30:00 -
[103] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Tech should not be nerfed it should be gone.
Yeah as people put up moon minng operations because they are high maintenance and loosing businesses.
No they are not huge fountains like tech but they still do not require much player interaction to gain reward. Right, remove tech and replace it with what exactly? Ring Mining, that was what that feature is for. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:34:00 -
[104] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Ring Mining, that was what that feature is for.
Ring Mining doesn't even exist outside of a name yet. Talking about replacing anything with Ring Mining before Ring Mining exists is dumb at best and dangerous at worst. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:37:00 -
[105] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Ring Mining, that was what that feature is for. Ring Mining doesn't even exist outside of a name yet. Talking about replacing anything with Ring Mining before Ring Mining exists is dumb at best and dangerous at worst. Actually as I have said in other threads, I personally think tech should be an NPC good until they do the POS revamp and the ring mining, as it is so out of balance to the rest of the game. Yes alchemy lowered its price but it is still distorting the whole of Null. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
118
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:37:00 -
[106] - Quote
CSM is full of the cheaters, hackers and RMT:ers that caused CSM to exist in the first place.
It is like the republican party and seleene is mitt Romney.
Enjoy them free trips to iceland. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 06:42:00 -
[107] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Actually as I have said in other threads, I personally think tech should be an NPC good until they do the POS revamp and the ring mining, as it is so out of balance to the rest of the game. Yes alchemy lowered its price but it is still distorting the whole of Null.
If it's still distorting the whole of null, it's because the rest of null by itself really is *that* worthless, not that Tech is still some massive problem. Hence why giving 0.0 its own bottom-up income tools and industrial capacity is important enough to make it into this document - a fact you've opposed already.
Either way, the overarcing point in all of this is that your laser focus on tech and moon mining is completely missing what the actual problem with sov null is. Thankfully the CSM members who wrote this document weren't so petty and myopic as you. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 07:17:00 -
[108] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Actually as I have said in other threads, I personally think tech should be an NPC good until they do the POS revamp and the ring mining, as it is so out of balance to the rest of the game. Yes alchemy lowered its price but it is still distorting the whole of Null. If it's still distorting the whole of null, it's because the rest of null by itself really is *that* worthless, not that Tech is still some massive problem. Hence why giving 0.0 its own bottom-up income tools and industrial capacity is important enough to make it into this document - a fact you've opposed already. Either way, the overarcing point in all of this is that your laser focus on tech and moon mining is completely missing what the actual problem with sov null is. Thankfully the CSM members who wrote this document weren't as petty and myopic as you. Actually my primary opposition to this document was the fact that it was once again another "Lets use all the companies resources to fix Null"
As if that would do much for gaining new players, it would help to a degree with vets and bittervets, but there are a lot more of both in Hi-sec. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 07:20:00 -
[109] - Quote
svenska flicka wrote:CSM is full of the cheaters, hackers and RMT:ers that caused CSM to exist in the first place.
It is like the republican party and seleene is mitt Romney.
Enjoy them free trips to iceland. While I do think that the actions of some of the CSM members make the CSM look like a Null sec lobby group, I do not believe the above statement is true, nor do I believe that allegations such as that should be made without factual evidence.
But having said that as scamming votes is a legal strategy, how can you tell that it is not just a rubbish the other guy to scam votes campaign. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 07:21:00 -
[110] - Quote
So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources? |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 07:23:00 -
[111] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources? No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
118
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 07:28:00 -
[112] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:svenska flicka wrote:CSM is full of the cheaters, hackers and RMT:ers that caused CSM to exist in the first place.
It is like the republican party and seleene is mitt Romney.
Enjoy them free trips to iceland. While I do think that the actions of some of the CSM members make the CSM look like a Null sec lobby group, I do not believe the above statement is true, nor do I believe that allegations such as that should be made without factual evidence. But having said that as scamming votes is a legal strategy, how can you tell that it is not just a rubbish the other guy to scam votes campaign.
It is true but you are unaware, don't feel bad, I played both on and of for almost a decade and know most of them.
Oh and it is kinda stupid to be allowed to scam for votes, kinda defeats why CSM was made in the first place, but then again, if EVE Online was run by a legit team of devs and company there would never be a need for such a system. Never had to deal with devs in WoW getting legendary weapons or clearing dungeons first, the opposite was true even, in EVE I am sure most devs cheat that play, caught I know at least 3 times, top of the iceberg is what I would call that.
It only ever has been an 0.0 cheating lobby group getting free trips to Iceland. |
Fractal Muse
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
41
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 08:36:00 -
[113] - Quote
My issue with this document is that it doesn't address EVE Online as a -whole- instead it addresses it as pieces.
Each little piece gets attention without attempting to relate it back to the other pieces of EVE.
EVE is already a series of disjointed and separate 'mini-games' that only broadly interact with one another (usually through the market at a macro level in terms of minerals) and this isn't good for a game that is supposed to be player driven and embodying the concept of 'emergent' gameplay... unless that was dropped at some point.
EVE suffers from a lack of overall focus for the -whole- game. All of this talk of 'iteration' is great but it has the side affect of continually separating the game components into isolated regions or games.
CCP needs to start treating EVE online as a framework that encourages and allows players to interact and impact the game environment.
What makes a game successful over the long term: Continual introduction of new and interesting things that build upon previous new and interesting things.
People love to hate on WoW but this is what WoW does right: They release new content that is different and fun (and yes the basic gameplay is the same) with each release. New stuff. New dungeons. New raids. New skills. New abilities. New equipment. New stuff for people to do together and can be done quickly if wanted.
Further, WoW guides players through a process of discovery of not only their own character but also how to group with others. Over the levels players are brought into easy dungeons at first and then continue to grow, meeting other people along the way, and by the time they reach the 'max level' there is more content for them but they also have lots of friends that they have met. WoW even teaches players how to raid (because they know that raids - being gameplay that multiple play together forms the basis of their continued subscription retention) by having easy mode raids to hard mode raids.
EVE Online has nothing like this. From the start of playing EVE the gameplay is almost all solo based and CCP does nothing to bring new players together either to work together or to fight one another. Many players drop out of the game because they reach the end of the tutorials and there's nothing there. This has to be improved.
The ironic part is that best EVE experience is actually based in corporations and alliances. Of dozens, hundreds, even thousands of players working together. But, new players don't even get a taste of this.
I am very disappointed in the CSM for not even bringing up the concept of EVE Online being interconnected and an ecosystem. I don't like that they didn't suggest much, of anything, that would bring more players together into interacting with one another in different ways.
I loved incursions because it brought players together. But, incursions is just another mini-game within the overall game. It is separate from the rest of the universe.
I love 0.0 because it brings players together. The sovereignty mechanisms while clunky and extremely limited are great in bringing masses of players together into Alliances - this is GOOD.
I want to see EVE Online treated like an ecosystem of players which encourages players to interact with one another not just in bad ways but also in good ways.
Please, start treating the Universe as a whole and not as a series of mini-games that barely interact with one another.
And.. what about wormholes? Have they just disappeared off the face of the galaxy? |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
658
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 15:48:00 -
[114] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Snow Axe wrote:So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources? No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year.
That 20% provides about 80 to 90 % of the news, action and "drama" that *gets* people to eve...
svenska flicka wrote:It is true but you are unaware, don't feel bad, I played both on and of for almost a decade and know most of them.
Oh and it is kinda stupid to be allowed to scam for votes, kinda defeats why CSM was made in the first place, but then again, if EVE Online was run by a legit team of devs and company there would never be a need for such a system. Never had to deal with devs in WoW getting legendary weapons or clearing dungeons first, the opposite was true even, in EVE I am sure most devs cheat that play, caught I know at least 3 times, top of the iceberg is what I would call that.
It only ever has been an 0.0 cheating lobby group getting free trips to Iceland.
CSM was envisioned to be CCP's watchdog - but that job was taken over by internal affairs.
I'm sure CCP Sreegs would love whatever proofs you might have of all these nefarious deeds...
You might want to check out some of the previous CSM rosters:
Quote:It only ever has been an 0.0 cheating lobby group getting free trips to Iceland.
I'm pretty sure this is categorically incorrect too....
HTFU, Post with your Main, provide proof or STFU and GTFO.
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2013
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:07:00 -
[115] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Snow Axe wrote:So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources? No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year. That 20% provides about 80 to 90 % of the news, action and "drama" that *gets* people to eve...
ATM that 20% provides only the same boring news about ganking the low IQ piloted hi sec freigther.
I was there when every other week the EvE news were rife with "massive 120 supercaps fight happened between X and Y" and X and Y often were different then those stated in the previous news.
Now it has died and all we have are bored endless blue ballers who made their land a piece of hi sec and now want to adsorb more and more attention.
You know what could paradoxically happen? That CCP could cave in and remove hi sec completely (I even suggested how to do it in the assembly all...).
And after 6 months? All hi sec would be another extension of the boring blue ball.
What would they have to cry after next? Themselves? CCP? Certainly not the guys they break the balls of every day. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
658
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:20:00 -
[116] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Snow Axe wrote:So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources? No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year. That 20% provides about 80 to 90 % of the news, action and "drama" that *gets* people to eve... ATM that 20% provides only the same boring news about ganking the low IQ piloted hi sec freigther. I was there when every other week the EvE news were rife with "massive 120 supercaps fight happened between X and Y" and X and Y often were different then those stated in the previous news. Now it has died and all we have are bored endless blue ballers who made their land a piece of hi sec and now want to adsorb more and more attention. You know what could paradoxically happen? That CCP could cave in and remove hi sec completely (I even suggested how to do it in the assembly all...). And after 6 months? All hi sec would be another extension of the boring blue ball. What would they have to cry after next? Themselves? CCP? Certainly not the guys they break the balls of every day. So - it's your contention that the Summer of Rage, Ice interdiction and Jitageddon (and endless Hulkageddon) were *not* the results of overwhelmingly specific groups of people living in a specific sec status space, making an effect in Eve, and being reported on all over?
k, gotcha.
So...... What other news happened that got reported on?
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2013
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:28:00 -
[117] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:So - it's your contention that the Summer of Rage, Ice interdiction and Jitageddon (and endless Hulkageddon) were *not* the results of overwhelmingly specific groups of people living in a specific sec status space, making an effect in Eve, and being reported on all over?
k, gotcha.
So...... What other news happened that got reported on?
It's *1* bloc, operating *outside* their sovereignty they fought so much to conquer and it's about them doing something Privateers or similar could have done without the need of having 10k people supporting them.
Notice (since you don't seem to) that I am not *blaming* the only guys still *breathing* in this game to have done something to revive the hugely asphyctic news.
I am blaming that game ATM is more like a zombie than a real game.
And you experience it. And we experience it.
And yet, the "recipes" given, usually about making hi sec as a crap (or worse) place than nullsec, don't absolutely factor in that it's not the point.
Because the point is that even if hi sec did not exist, game's stagnant like a deader, period.
Actually the only reason why you can claim to have done some hi sec events is because hi sec is less dead than nullsec, yet people want to make both the same.
And the CSM don't seem to minimally notice it.
Disconnected suggestions driving to random directions with a result of zero dot zero.
As another poster said, EvE needs a refocus. Or it will slowly fade. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
763
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:35:00 -
[118] - Quote
svenska flicka wrote:CSM is full of the cheaters, hackers and RMT:ers that caused CSM to exist in the first place.
It is like the republican party and seleene is mitt Romney.
Enjoy them free trips to iceland.
Hey, don't hold back.
If you have something you want to say, just spit it out. This is not a signature. |
None ofthe Above
369
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:40:00 -
[119] - Quote
Wow.
I don't think a single one of you actually read the document well enough to understand that the point was:
- You can't chase Jesus features, committing all resources to a new feature without maintenance and iteration.
- You can do big projects that innovate and provide new shinies without abandoning the maintenance and iteration.
- You can even do themed releases that tie major updates and iteration together.
The things you are all arguing about are a set of examples on applying the above principles to development themes. (Apologies if I missed one or two of that did get it, didn't notice in the example to the contrary.)
Please reread this part:
Quote:Examples for Consideration
The following examples, in alphabetical order, are included to provide concrete illustrations of a pillar-based approach in practice. These examples center on themes and concepts widely considered by existing subscribers as significantly broken and would likely need to be spread out over two expansions/12 months. Each area is a significant problem taking money out of CCPGÇÖs pocket through lost or missed subscriptions. They are not wish-lists, but rather illustrations of how new features and iteration can be weaved into powerful, themed expansions with broad demographic appeal.
Now one could argue that the choice of examples and the proposed implementations were flawed, but its worth talking about the central premise.
- Does EVE needs big new features to attract new players, and retain old ones?
- Can EVE survive another Jesus feature binge that has nearly all the companies resources committed to some new project?
I would argue that the reaction supports my assertion that you have to matrix the targets of:
Quote:Potentials -- people who have never or only briefly subscribed. (90% Shiny, 10% Iteration) Newbies -- players with less than a year in the game. (70% Shiny, 30% Iteration) Veterans -- players with more than a year in the game. (10% Shiny, 90% Iteration) Bittervets -- unsubscribed veterans. (50% Shiny, 50% Iteration)
against the professions and residency. The development cycles are too long to have one large segment of the population lay stagnant for several releases.
I would suggest that while maintain a themed focus, continued work on "spreading the love" is necessary. Smaller projects spread around into the interest groups (which I think has been done a bit, to give CCP credit I do see some attempts at this). And making sure the communication is there to make sure people know why this is done. Themes need to be selected for the maximum impact for all age players across the variety of professions and residency.
While the discussions about null vs low vs high, and this feature vs that feature are valuable, you have a chance to discuss and influence the strategic direction of the companies development. Don't waste it squabbling over tactical details.
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
2043
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:55:00 -
[120] - Quote
svenska flicka wrote:It is like the republican party and seleene is mitt Romney.
Near ten years I've been playing this game and this is probably the worst thing I've ever been called. Damn, son, that's harsh. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |