Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gerry Mack
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 10:42:00 -
[1]
I played another MMO (Ryzom) that suffered devastating backlash for poor patching (the infamous patch 1 amongst others).
By not paying attention to the advance feedback from your testers you seem determined to follow that route. Bear in mind that we play the game and want it to remain successful.
I'm beginning to wonder if you have reached the cost effective limit to server etc upgrades and are happy with your current customer base. Be aware, that can all change rapidly. I hope this is not the case.
|
Xelios
Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 10:45:00 -
[2]
If CCP is looking to hire someone to read this forum I'll gladly alt+tab it while I'm playing EVE, for a modest salary
|
MJ Maverick
IronPig Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 11:02:00 -
[3]
Meh, we all know they don't pay attention to the forums and when they do, we don't know because they never post or interact.
--------------------
CCP arse kissing drones are not welcome in my threads. CCP are not perfect. |
Leana Darkrider
Creatio -ex- nihilo
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 11:11:00 -
[4]
And another CCP epic failing thread
|
Gerry Mack
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 11:20:00 -
[5]
That's only because they are "epically failing". I recognise the excellent work done on this game overall.
By taking player feedback into account and a few more days preparation, they could save themselves time and this kind of criticism. Having to redo patches is surely less time effective than doing them properly?
|
Alex Raptos
Caldari Phoenix Rising.
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 12:35:00 -
[6]
CCP Are not perfect. They **** things up. They make bad choices (In both the Many and the Few's respective views). They make mistakes (boot.ini) and individually (but rarely) bad personal decisions (T20), and they occasionally let things slip through the cracks (POS incident).
But all of this regardless, I have yet to encounter -any- company that fesses up and puts their own balls on the line as often as CCP do. I've never seen such detailed analysis of something which has been so wrong nobody thought eve would survive (The POS incident). I've NEVER encountered a company willing to completely scrap a change they have planned for months/weeks as fast as they scrapped the Carrier Changes that were planned a year or two ago, and I've never seen any company react as fast as CCP did during the Boot.ini incident (seriously, it took what, 20-30mins before they yanked the patch and had a new one out an hour or two later?) and this was less than 4-5 minutes after the first report of a Boot.ini deletion. Bare in mind it was pretty late hours in GMT when this happened if i'm not mistaken (Nearly midnight or something?).
Overall, I have no complaints, minus the complete lack of a response in the cloaking thread here in game dev, but there was so many people just saying "bad change" its an easy thing to just pass off as people who are averse to change. Nobody really LOOKED into the instawarping thing until a day before the patch, and very few came up with hard numbers on why it would **** up escaping gatecamps.
/rant?
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 16:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Alex Raptos CCP Are not perfect. They **** things up. They make bad choices (In both the Many and the Few's respective views). They make mistakes (boot.ini) and individually (but rarely) bad personal decisions (T20), and they occasionally let things slip through the cracks (POS incident).
But all of this regardless, I have yet to encounter -any- company that fesses up and puts their own balls on the line as often as CCP do. I've never seen such detailed analysis of something which has been so wrong nobody thought eve would survive (The POS incident). I've NEVER encountered a company willing to completely scrap a change they have planned for months/weeks as fast as they scrapped the Carrier Changes that were planned a year or two ago, and I've never seen any company react as fast as CCP did during the Boot.ini incident (seriously, it took what, 20-30mins before they yanked the patch and had a new one out an hour or two later?) and this was less than 4-5 minutes after the first report of a Boot.ini deletion. Bare in mind it was pretty late hours in GMT when this happened if i'm not mistaken (Nearly midnight or something?).
Overall, I have no complaints, minus the complete lack of a response in the cloaking thread here in game dev, but there was so many people just saying "bad change" its an easy thing to just pass off as people who are averse to change. Nobody really LOOKED into the instawarping thing until a day before the patch, and very few came up with hard numbers on why it would **** up escaping gatecamps.
/rant?
If they had proper testing the boot.ini problem would have never, and I mean never, made it to live.
CCP, recently, has made alot of rash changes that are riddled with poorly tested features and very poorly thought out ideas.
The Falcon change, while a change WAS needed to ECM, was poorly thought out and even poorer implementation.
Then the change to the cloaking mechanics, which do more than adjust what they were trying to adjust. Couple that with the complete lack of testing of the mechanic only for people on the live server (the third beta server) to find it in a mater of minutes upon release.
What baffles me the most is the astounding amount of fantastic ideas on how to fix said problems and CCP ends up going with some hack version of a couple meshed together. It gives me the feeling that they want to take 100% credit for the changes themselves.
The whole direction of the development is frightening when taking into account the actual implementation of the changes.
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 17:23:00 -
[8]
I think much of what you're seeing is the result of "agile development methodology" not being implemented fully.
With agile (as opposed to traditional watershed) can put software in front of your users very quickly. You end users to some extent are your testers and designers. They give you feedback, and you then incorporate that feedback into another iteration if needed. You quickly zero in on what the users want and then deliver it to production once it's ready. This is a good thing.
No amount of internal testing is a substitute for end user feedback in an agile process. The whole point of agile is skipping an exhaustive upfront "setting in stone" of the whole system.
Unfortunately, if nobody listens to the users the process breaks down. You deliver what looks like completely untested code into production. When you combine the worst aspects of agile (eschew lengthy upfront analysis) and watershed (ignore user feedback until product is in production) you get what we got.
That's my theory, anyway.
And in summary, bigger blobs are the answer. Now what was the question? |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |