Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
133
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 14:10:00 -
[271] - Quote
Ingvar, you keep confusing your ideas with common sense. The simple fact that many people don't agree with you show they are not "common sense". They may be good or not, but in any case they require massive changes to the mechanic that CCP can't do in time for the expansion anyway.
I'm more worried about CCP not interacting with us about their current implementation. They don't provide us with testing tools (seeding the structures, giving us a central location for implementation feedback), nor acknowledge or clarify bug reports.
For example, tax rates on Sisi make no sense (P0 > P1). Are the devs even aware of this? Also, you can't attack a CO with drones, they just ignore your orders. Is this intended? If so, why are they penalizing gallente drone boats? (both have been bug reported).
We've seen CCP take this approach before. It never ends well. It ends with threadnaughts on release day over stuff that was known but ignored on Sisi. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
558
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 14:46:00 -
[272] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Ingvar, you keep confusing your ideas with common sense. The simple fact that many people don't agree with you show they are not "common sense". They may be good or not, but in any case they require massive changes to the mechanic that CCP can't do in time for the expansion anyway.
I'm more worried about CCP not interacting with us about their current implementation. They don't provide us with testing tools (seeding the structures, giving us a central location for implementation feedback), nor acknowledge or clarify bug reports.
For example, tax rates on Sisi make no sense (P0 > P1). Are the devs even aware of this? Also, you can't attack a CO with drones, they just ignore your orders. Is this intended? If so, why are they penalizing gallente drone boats? (both have been bug reported).
We've seen CCP take this approach before. It never ends well. It ends with threadnaughts on release day over stuff that was known but ignored on Sisi.
I think you've hit on a main concern there... they're so intent on releasing it based on a schedule that they're not taking the time to make sure they're releasing a product that's actually ready for release. Forget the freakin' calendar dates, get it right from day one and push day one out a little if you have to!
To be fair... many have also agreed with me. You meany-poopyhead. *cough* sorry 'bout that *cough* Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
KC-01000011
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 15:02:00 -
[273] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:To quote from the latest blog GÇ£One thing that really stood out was your concern for the transition period when all customs offices will be removedGÇ¥
What about the other 80-odd pages of concerns ?
The GÇ£NewGÇ¥ CCP is supposed to be listening to the players concerns, if you are still bringing this crap in, then obviously you are not.
This
Quote:we believe we have a pretty good grasp on your feedback
Seems to be sarcastic? can't tell...
Did you even read all 85+ pages? Or just answered to the couple of posts that fitted your schedule?
Also; good job on giving them killmails, you've just given 3th parties that wan't absolute nothing to do with with PI (and therefore will never replace the POCO's themselves for profit) one more reason to shoot them down. |
Darkstar David
Veterans Fleet
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 15:08:00 -
[274] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:Also, I still think this is a pretty terrible idea you are trying to impose especially in low sec and NPC zero sec. PI in its current implementation is incredible limited and consist of moving dots around and pressing a few buttons. Simplistic, tedious and boring gameplay will many agree to. But some find it interesting game play anyhow, just like some people enjoy mining. PI (on the planet) can easily be done by a solo or small corporation which gives them purpose.
Now you brilliant idea is forcing these people either into a gameplay that is pretty much the opposite of the current PI (adrenaline pumping ship to ship combat) or the option to abandon PI altogether (on their way to doing the same with EVE in general). I seriously cannot see the selling point in limiting peopleGÇÖs access to one game feature by letting another be able to rule over it. That is the reason why Darkfall is crap if you are interests are in crafting and market mechanics because hackGÇÖnGÇÖslash rule all. Same reason why people who enjoy fighting against other players hate when they are forced into PvE raids to get gear for these fights.
Within a month or so we will see one blob of players identifying what PI mineral is the bottleneck, stock it up and then wipe out all POCOs in low sec, or take them over to exclude everybody else, for that particular mineral. Or we will see the Goons doing us all a favor by rapidly destroying each and every POCO in low sec.
Fundamentally; did you seriously believe people would get more interested in PI when you do not improve on the actual PI mechanics but instead limits peopleGÇÖs access to them? What kind of player are you hoping to draw in with this?
If PvP should be a greater element in PI it should have be done on the darn planets.
Perfectly explained. Please CCP, take note... |
Meldan Anstian
Imperial Genesis The Seventh Day
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 15:57:00 -
[275] - Quote
This is basically a example of mind over matter.
We don't matter and CCP doesn't mind. |
Solo Player
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:27:00 -
[276] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote: What you view as "common sense" is irrelevant to good gameplay, else there would never have been customs offices in wormholes in the first place.
Absurd! Let me correct that:
What some view as "good gameplay" is irrelevant to common sense.
In a sandbox, common sense always takes precedent over "good gameplay", if there even is such a thing. Gameplay is reserved for games and might at most apply for a certain mechanic in EVE, and always needs to make sense within the larger vision. At least that's what I always thought. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
132
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:16:00 -
[277] - Quote
New Interbus CO"s a BAD IDEA!
Look, the only thing you're doing is adding a 2 hour+ investment PER PLANET ON TOP OF an 80Million ISK cost to anyone who wants to ACTUALLY USE YOUR SYSTEM. If someone actually wants to setup a POCO Network now, you're just making it a PAIN in the ASS for them to do so! So what incentive are you giving people to USE it except more hassle?
I seriously think you need to make those Interbus POCO's have about 1/3 of the HP of their player made counterparts, so that there is more than a monetary incentive to put up your own POCO but also more importantly a tactical decision to not have an easily destroyed space object!
Also, PLEASE review the Defense Choice paradigm on the attack system so that there is an option to defend other than being force to go at your reinforcement timer. NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Chicken Pizza
Penumbra Institute Inver Brass
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:26:00 -
[278] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote: What you view as "common sense" is irrelevant to good gameplay, else there would never have been customs offices in wormholes in the first place.
Absurd! Let me correct that: What some view as "good gameplay" is irrelevant to common sense. In a sandbox, common sense always takes precedent over "good gameplay", if there even is such a thing. Gameplay is reserved for games and might at most apply for a certain mechanic in EVE, and always needs to make sense within the larger vision. At least that's what I always thought.
I suppose you just arbitrarily decided that, right? There must be some rule that specifically states common sense takes precedence over good gameplay. No? Okay.
You can't play semantics to refute someone's argument. EvE Online is a game. I'm tired of hearing this "sandbox" garbage. When you go to www.eveonline.com, what phrase is displayed at the top the webpage? The frickin' game website wrote:"The world's largest game universe."
Furthermore, if you feel that common sense takes precedence over good gameplay, then answer this: why DO customs offices exist in wormhole space?
I could list literally hundreds of things about EvE that flat-out do NOT make sense if applied to realistic science, among other things. That's why it's called science-fiction.
Instead of droning on about things "making sense", why don't you do what many other players have done in the past and create the explanation yourself? If it doesn't make sense to you, then make it make sense to everyone. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
559
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 18:44:00 -
[279] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:New Interbus CO"s a BAD IDEA!
Look, the only thing you're doing is adding a 2 hour+ investment PER PLANET ON TOP OF an 80Million ISK cost to anyone who wants to ACTUALLY USE YOUR SYSTEM. If someone actually wants to setup a POCO Network now, you're just making it a PAIN in the ASS for them to do so! So what incentive are you giving people to USE it except more hassle?
I seriously think you need to make those Interbus POCO's have about 1/3 of the HP of their player made counterparts, so that there is more than a monetary incentive to put up your own POCO but also more importantly a tactical decision to not have an easily destroyed space object!
Also, PLEASE review the Defense Choice paradigm on the attack system so that there is an option to defend other than being force to go at your reinforcement timer.
I think they should have triple the HP, 99% resists and the option to select whatever tax you feel is fair to pay, as well as the complete inability to lock anyone out of PI.
See! I can have bad ideas too! Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Solo Player
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 18:45:00 -
[280] - Quote
Chicken Pizza wrote: I suppose you just arbitrarily decided that, right? There must be some rule that specifically states common sense takes precedence over good gameplay. No? Okay.
Quoting because that is seriously funny. Irony?
Quote:The frickin' game website wrote:"The world's largest game universe."
Indeed. "Universe" being the noun, "game" merely its attribute.
Quote: Furthermore, if you feel that common sense takes precedence over good gameplay, then answer this: why DO customs offices exist in wormhole space?
Because someone had a bad idea (placing "gameplay" above "sense")?
Quote: I could list literally hundreds of things about EvE that flat-out do NOT make sense if applied to realistic science, among other things. That's why it's called science-fiction.
Instead of droning on about things "making sense", why don't you do what many other players have done in the past and create the explanation yourself? If it doesn't make sense to you, then make it make sense to everyone.
Please read up more about science fiction. I don't have to pay 15 bucks/month to make up pretty things in my mind. What's your point?
|
|
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 18:51:00 -
[281] - Quote
Let the carebears fight!
Allow player owned customs offices to be set up in highsec! |
Chicken Pizza
Penumbra Institute Inver Brass
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:06:00 -
[282] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:more garbage
Do you even know what irony means?
And..let's see...more reinforcing of what i said...
Ah! There's one. If customs offices are a bad idea in wormhole space, then what do you propose? Planetary launches? Don't make me laugh.
I think maybe you should look up not only words like "irony" before you use them, but also words like "fiction", and maybe do some research on what "common sense" is. Fiction and common sense are not synonymous in the least.
I can see you don't really have anything to say of actual value anymore, though I'm hard-pressed to find anything of actual value that you've already said in the first place. There's got to be something...
Go play a free-to-play game if 15 dollars a month is what you consider being worth small aesthetic changes so things "make sense". |
Solo Player
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:20:00 -
[283] - Quote
Forgive my derailing, but...
u m a d ? |
Chicken Pizza
Penumbra Institute Inver Brass
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:50:00 -
[284] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Forgive my derailing, but...
u m a d ?
Naw, because I know it'll never happen. And even if it did, I'd just avoid the hassle. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:57:00 -
[285] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:pussnheels wrote:Dear CCP do you actually read the feedback ; on those 89 pages of feed back the overwhelming majority said NO bad idea and what did you do ?? Yep just went ahead and itroduced a new game mechanic that will NEVER work
Why ccp WHY They addressed pretty much the only valid points made in those 89 pages. 88 pages were hysterical rewording of the exact same non-fact based imaginings.
As someone with plenty of pages worth of fact or experience based objections, I disagree. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:00:00 -
[286] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Does CCP want any player feedback or testing on the POCOs?
This is one of the very few expansion features without its own thread on the Test Server Feedback forum. They haven't even seeded the gantry structures on Sisi, so to test this feature on the test server, you have to jump through hoops and run FW missions on there. Even without an official thread, people are posting about it and the devs are not replying.
Omen dissapeared from the thread after just a couple hours (even faster than the last time). Is he even still reading? Will he post again? Or does he only communicate through devblogs?
I was looking forward to POCOs. But at this rate, it looks like the rollout will be a complete mess.
I agree. He actually wanted to discuss some of the far-reaching implications, but bowed out for some reason. The early discussion was exactly what the players are looking for. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:05:00 -
[287] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Ingvar, you keep confusing your ideas with common sense. The simple fact that many people don't agree with you show they are not "common sense". They may be good or not, but in any case they require massive changes to the mechanic that CCP can't do in time for the expansion anyway.
I'm more worried about CCP not interacting with us about their current implementation. They don't provide us with testing tools (seeding the structures, giving us a central location for implementation feedback), nor acknowledge or clarify bug reports.
For example, tax rates on Sisi make no sense (P0 > P1). Are the devs even aware of this? Also, you can't attack a CO with drones, they just ignore your orders. Is this intended? If so, why are they penalizing gallente drone boats? (both have been bug reported).
We've seen CCP take this approach before. It never ends well. It ends with threadnaughts on release day over stuff that was known but ignored on Sisi.
On the massive changes... If massive changes are required to make the feature work, it needs to be pulled. Period. Being a software developer for a large company, my #1 priority is the customer's welfare. When we screw customers, we lose buiness and revenue. This translates to cutbacks in resources (think lay offs).
Leaving the current system in place will not harm players. Putting this in half-baked will cause more havok than we've ever seen. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
114
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:40:00 -
[288] - Quote
Oh well, guess it is too late to wish for changes now; POCOs will be released as stated in this blog and CCP will monitor and adjust "if needed".
It is not because I do not appreciate what CCP is trying to achieve here and, back in the days, I would perhaps believed it could succeed. But the whole point of CCP Greyscales "Lessons Learned" were exactly to demonstrate how mechanics that were initially thought out to bring interesting and engaging play to the game turned out to fail in the real world of EVE, and therefore should be avoided to use in new mechanics. (Unless CCP follows a corporate policy of identifying poor design so it can be repeated). As POCO mechanics does not only fit one but many of the items on Greyscales list I would have to be incredible naive to believe POCOs will be a success*.
Link to CCP Greyscales list about Lessons Learned regarding unsatisfying gameplay.
*: I suspect the team never decided upon a way to determine success or failure, as such; it will of course be a success. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 00:45:00 -
[289] - Quote
I've been playing with the new numbers for the taxes and... they seem a bit odd. If they stay as they currently are on sisi, exporting by launchpad will cost more than export by command center at a rate of 10%. One would have to have a tax rate lower than 7.5% if they want to be cheaper than exporting by command center. More details on the numbers here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=377210#post377210 PI Profit Calculator: calculates your profits and taxes of any PI product depending on how you built them! |
Chicken Pizza
Penumbra Institute Inver Brass
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 05:59:00 -
[290] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lessons learned
Shooting at stationary structures is boring IT'S BORING. STOP GIVING US UNNECESSARY STRUCTURES TO BLOW UP. See: Starbase warfare, Dominion sov warfare. Even the good fights that do happen around such objectives could be improved by having better objectives.
Shooting at things with hitpoints scales very efficiently with fleet size, which encourages lag-producing behavior People will hotdrop them. People will provoke fleet fights over them. Just how we'll be affected by it is yet to be seen, but clearly the possibilities have not been taken into account.
Having to spend significant amounts of effort defeating an enemy which isn't even fighting back is really boring ONCE AGAIN IT'S ******* BORING. See: Starbase warfare, Dominion sov warfare. See in particular how long it took to clear IT Alliance's ownership out of Delve, as a recent example
Waking up every morning and having to clean up the mess made while you were asleep is boring Boring is a bad thing, CCP. A bad thing. Not a good thing. See: station ping-pong pre-sov, repairing station services. Having to do something tedious every day before you can actually play the game is not cool
Doing something just "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" is always a bad idea and will come back to bite you later See: Jump bridges, cyno jammers, Sov 4, AoE doomsdays, titans in general, supercarrier boost... Note that we should still obviously strive to make everything cool/neat/awesome, but when we start off with an awesome idea rather than an actual problem we want to fix or a feature that has a clear, functional and necessary goal, it generally requires painful fixes further down the road Is the goal of the POCO necessary? No. Have you learned nothing from your past mistakes? Have fun with your painful fixes.
Cost is a useful variable to tune but an unwise thing to rely on to enforce scarcity or balance - players will always be richer than you think See: outposts, titans, supercarriers
Making something tedious will not stop players doing it if it's very clearly the best option. They'll do it, and they'll hate it This is important, possibly more than you realize. But you need to keep in mind that there is a balance within the spectrum of tedium that you MUST maintain. The concept of the POCO is tedious by nature. You grind LP/ISK to buy a BPC, you grind ISK for buying/produce your own materials to build it with. You spend time building it, must defend it, repair it, treat it like an undefended miniPOS. Your contact list will become an unmanageable clusterfawk. It's nothing but tedium. You expend far too much effort for relatively no gain unless you **** off/drive away the local populace. And that is harmful. See: everything involving starbases. As a counterpoint though, things like the one-per-corp-per-system-per-day starbase rule demonstrate that if something doesn't make a big difference but is sufficiently awkward to do, then any theoretical "exploit" scenarios tend to fall out of favor quickly as they're just not worth the effort.
People like to do one-stop shopping, and will "go to Jita" for everything unless doing so is comparatively very inconvenient See: moon mineral distribution, high-strength booster resource distribution, neither of which achieved much in the way of the nullsec-to-nullsec trade that they hoped to encourage
My 2 cents are italicized.
Whoever was posting this earlier, I felt the need to post it again. They need to put this damn thing up on their walls in poster form. Maybe some motivational posters. I should make some for them. They should chant it every day when they come into work, like our Pledge of Allegiance in schools(bad example because that's actually a stupid requirement. But mine isn't!!). |
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
144
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 10:46:00 -
[291] - Quote
A question for any devs that might still be reading this thread. Are you watching the test server feedback forum for the bugs and problems people are reporting? Can you acknowledge or comment on them? Examples so far:
- Customs offices can be anchored inside POS force fields or right on a station undock as long as the distance to the planet is small enough.
- Drones ignore orders to attack customs offices.
- Customs offices have extremely small (100m) sig radius, so any missiles larger than heavies don't apply full damage.
- Taxes for P0 items are larger than P1, and both are very different from the expected values.
Keep in mind, this is what people found despite all the obstacles to acquire a gantry on Sisi. Who knows what will actually surface once everyone is using them on TQ. |
Vio Geraci
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 10:57:00 -
[292] - Quote
So many tears in response to a nuanced, well-thought out game change that will make a boring world of dots and lines actually result in player driven conflict/content. For shame, babies, for shame: CCP did good on this one. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
570
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 12:00:00 -
[293] - Quote
Vio Geraci wrote:So many tears in response to a nuanced, well-thought out game change that will make a boring world of dots and lines actually result in player driven conflict/content. For shame, babies, for shame: CCP did good on this one.
Wait a minute, what are you looking... oh, wait... Goon.
Nevermind. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
John DaiSho
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 14:39:00 -
[294] - Quote
Heh, and hes actually right. |
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations 0ccupational Hazzard
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 15:14:00 -
[295] - Quote
Hey,
Thx for the update! Good changes. I like the smooth Interbus in-between solution. Tried to shoot a Interbus office with a siege dread + Mega , but got bored after a few minutes :-)
|
Max O'Deel
O'Deels Reclaimers
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 19:53:00 -
[296] - Quote
As Quoted in DEV Blog "We hope that you like the adjustments we are doing, we certainly value the feedback!
The Player Owned Customs Office feature will launch with the winter expansion.
May your plans be dark and full of tax money!
Best regards
CCP Omen on behalf of Team Pi"
Basically No! for the simple reasons we hold a C4 WH with 5 corp players who use the PI to fuel our POS. so who the Heck are we going to tax in that WH, The only other players who are in there are either PVPers or site raiders, and they sure as F**K aint interested in PI, when are you going to wake up Bud, to the fact that in a WH we have no one else to tax but ourselves and that is just plain stupid, I really wonder whether you have an education or actually play in this environment to see the balls up this is for WSpacers in general. Also as we are mainly in WH space with access out being way to unpredictable the BPC's are going to be almost inaccessable to us as we cannot achieve the points in a sensible time or run the risk of leaving the POS undefended. Thats like leaving a Porche down town in the roughest area you can find and expect it to stay in one Piece whilst you go about finding or in this case making the new fuel. and the mechanism to get the fuel to your car, talk about dumb... it just dont come in to it.... |
Max O'Deel
O'Deels Reclaimers
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:11:00 -
[297] - Quote
CCP Omen wrote:Here are some replies to topics raised:
"People will grief the Interbus COs" That is quite probable, even with this change of deployment, our guiding light is that EVE is player driven. This way the transition between NPC owned and Player owned will be smoother. It's no silver bullet and balancing between player driven and player convenience is very difficult. Our hope remain that you, the player will organize and sort out the supply and demand of PI goods and the availability of Customs Offices. If that does not happen, and there is a measurable decline in lowsec or PI activity then we will act. How we act will be decided if that event occurs, but we will not simply let lowsec die. We strive to invigorate lowsec, not just with this feature but for the long run. You may disagree that this feature will accomplish that, but that is never the less one of our goals and we will monitor how it pans out.
"Do you think more people will do PI?" No, as many have pointed out the PI gameplay in itself is far from perfect and we are absolutely not trying to make people do PI. The player owned customs offices are meant to increase meaningful space conflict and the verisimilitude of the EVE universe. Actual improvements to PI is an entirely different topic. Having said that, we are hoping for activity to stay somewhat the same.
"Did you have a clue the prices went up based on the previous blog?" Yes - absolutely and that was expected. We also fully expect the prices of PI goods to be unstable while the market adapts. The higher prices are in fact essential to drive motivation to operate Customs Offices. In the end, we believe the prices of for instance POS fuel will stabilize as we have seen with nearly all other player driven commodities in EVE.
"You did not account for all or even most of the feedback to the first thread" We acted on the feedback that we agreed with and that was feasible within the time frame. Many ideas were excellent but too grand.
Regards Omen
Still no support for WSpacers then, you sure as hell never played in that environment, its all, oh we will keep an eye on low sec; typical stereo typed approach. and very blinkered... |
Markata Lazair
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:14:00 -
[298] - Quote
To hell with the details, I am looking forward to setting up some POCOs in our w-space system just so we can lure a few people away from the WH itself to shoot at it. |
Vio Geraci
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 22:02:00 -
[299] - Quote
Markata Lazair wrote:To hell with the details, I am looking forward to setting up some POCOs in our w-space system just so we can lure a few people away from the WH itself to shoot at it.
I bet you could make a whole mini profession of finding wormholes that have static connections to high sec, and populating the planets there. Who is going to bother blowing them up? You'd never need to look at the wormhole again, either, after all the POCOs are down. |
Solar Wander
5th Front enterprises Mayhem.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 23:37:00 -
[300] - Quote
I believe the mistake many of the posters on this Blog have made, was the belief that CCP actually wanted to hear your input on the PCCO, so that meaningful changes if necessary could be made from suggestion from those who regularly play the game. I feel that the decision to go ahead with this, in my opinion erroneous change, was made long before the announcement was ever made. I am sure hundreds of man hours had gone into the implementation and programming of this feature and why would CCP want to lose that kind of investment simply by listening to what their subscribers felt was a bad move. All this posturing about listening to what people actually want is just that, posturing to appease the masses. By saying the inclusion of this is what some players at the Fanfest indicated they would like to see is just another attempt to justify CCP in their plans to put this in place. I wonder how many people actually attended that forum, and how does that compare to how many have posted their disdain for this change to the CO? After this change is implemented how much time will have passed and how many players will have left in frustration before we again get an apology saying sorry people we didnGÇÖt listen to you and realise we should have taken our player base more into account before making changes, or maybe it will be more like GÇ£We at CCP are constantly listening to our players and as a result we have decided to enhance the game by moving COs under NPC control to further improve the immersive game that Eve-online has becomeGÇ¥, Hmm I wonder. I will continue to monitor this blog but I have lost any hope of major change occurring, but expect to see the odd tinkering. By the way this is not intended to be a Flame or Troll of any sort, merely my thoughts on this matter. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |