EVE Search - Point of order Mr CCP Zymurgist

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Point of order Mr CCP Zymurgist

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:02:00 - [1] Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 12/11/2009 23:05:31 Quote: Test Server Feedback is not the place for this (petition thread protesting stealth change to Supercarriers on the test server and subsequent dev responses). Jita Park Speaker's Corner would be more appropriate if you wish to bring this up with the CSM. I don't understand your response. These changes are due to go live in 19 days. How can the CSM affect such an issue in that time? My understanding of how the CSM works seems to be at odds with yours. Can you expand on this response and suggest an effective form of mass feedback for us?
Aphrodite Whiterose Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:06:00 - [2] We are posting feedback about a sudden change on the test server, this is nothing to do with the CSM. ----------------------------------------------- Amarr - Playing EVE in Hardcore Mode since 2007
Seneram Caldari B'haxed Productions The Dominium	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:09:00 - [3] We are protesting about a change that is yet to hit TQ,, The ONLY place its live is here... I thought you wanted our constructive feedback, Since we havent gotten a reasonable response in 2 days now we are resorting to extreme methods. ------------------------------------------------- PewPew
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:12:00 - [4] I'd like to add that CCP really doesn't seem to listen to the CSMs to begin with.
Traxio Nacho Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:14:00 - [5] I believe the CSM is for changing/adding new stuff into Tranq not about changes to SISI and content that hasn't even been put into the live server? Tell people to post stuff like this to the CSM's is silly at best, even if they did bring the current changes up it would be months before it even got looked at. You appear to be new to Eve Mr Zymurgist and do not know that to get CCP to change their mind on a subject you have to spam things 23/7 to make them notice otherwise you just get ignored.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:18:00 - [6] Wades in your tears. Oh inb4 the lock.
SXYGeeK Gallente do you Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:19:00 - [7] he means that the test server forums are not the proper place for a petition. a lengthy thread with everyone repling "Signed" is not constructive feedback. the CSM is indeed the place to raise such a petition and rally players support to prompt the action of the CSM. they are also not the proper place for you to question the moderation of the forums... i expect this thread will be locked shortly as well. -We So SeXy
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:22:00 - [8] Translation: go provide "constructive feedback" somewhere else, so that when we ignore everything near-unanimous disagreement on these changes we can point to the CSM forum and say "look, something is being done" instead of having to confront the fact that we are giving a giant "**** YOU" to the community and refusing to listen. -----------
Logan Williams Caldari Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:25:00 - [9] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang I'd like to add that CCP really doesn't seem to listen to the CSMs to begin with. QFT Although, in fairness, perhaps NOT name a thread "petition"? I don't fly any capitals, because I've thought them to be a money sink anyway. It seems that the problem is two-fold however. First, a product that costs upwards of 14 Billion isk is suddenly being made worth 5 Billion in build cost. Not bad for people like myself, but to anyone who has bought one within the past three months, that's entirely a slap in the face. Secondly, you're taking away amount bonuses from MS in the way of deployable fighters. Along with this, CCP is doing some crazy thing with explosion velocity which is making the already decreased numbers of fighter-bombers totally useless. Perhaps incriment these changes in stages. First, allow pilots to dock in upgraded stations where they may purchase insurance for their tremendous investments. Then phase in the build cost adjustment so they can blow up their investment and buy 3 when the patch hits. Third, if you decide to keep the deployable amount nerf, leave the drone bay large as to allow a possible range of fighter-bombers. (similar to "Fury/Normal/Precision" in regards to missiles)
SXYGeeK Gallente do you Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:26:00 - [10] it's quite clear that these posts lack substance and are little more than spam. the test server forums are not a poling place. there are plenty of other legitimate concerns we are all trying to work with here, and this is only wasting everyones time. -We So SeXy

Obsidian Hawk Aliastra	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:34:00 - [11] Regardless, it should be pointed out that more threads are popping up all over the place, CAOD, GD, even in sell orders and trade forums!! we have a PETITION IN CSM Forums (everyone go sign this hurry!) a locked 11 page petition / feedback thread saying, we dont like this change revert this. Everyone call upon the full wrath of your alliances, sign the petitions have them all give construtive feed back saying " We want our +3 drone bonus back, we want our clone vat bay and triage back, we want our cost to remain the same"
db T M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.13 00:26:00 - [12] Originally by: SXYGeeK it's quite clear that these posts lack substance and are little more than spam. the test server forums are not a poling place. there are plenty of other legitimate concerns we are all trying to work with here, and this is only wasting everyones time. Tool.
Lady Deja	Posted - 2009.11.13 00:44:00 - [13] ccp you have 3 options now. option 1) Give us back the old supercarriers, 2) hope that players are good with capitals and not supercaps, or 3) Refund our money that we wasted traning for a giant pile of junk. make your choice wisely, otherwise there will be a bigger quit of players than the massive isk seller/macro bans.
Sith LordX	Posted - 2009.11.13 12:00:00 - [14] Edited by: Sith LordX on 13/11/2009 12:05:59 CCP how about you look at all the signed/ posts in the thread about how many people want the silly super cap nerfs undone. "Nobody wants your damn nerfs, undo them, or people are going to quit your game!" Kind of talk. Don't lock threads and ignore people. You need to do what your customers want. You need to listen to people. This crap has gone too far. All the work that has gone into training for them and making the isk to build them is more then enough. Suddenly nerfing something to oblivion is not the solution. Thats just under cutting and screwing your customers. Super capital ships need their firepower felt on the battle field. They need their 25 fighter bombers, and caps need their 200%+ bonuses to damage per level and the DD fire time needs to be reduced back to the way it was. Their hp needs to stay as it is, massive. They need a reason to be risked on the battlefield as the ultimate weapons in eve. Not as a god damn paper weight that does crap dps that can't even break a dreads tank.
Minmatar citizen4561451	Posted - 2009.11.13 12:29:00 - [15] Edited by: Minmatar citizen4561451 on 13/11/2009 12:29:40 If any of you actually READ the last QEN, you would know this change affects only ~400 people. Why all of a sudden are 3000 people coming out against this change? lolz
Nye Jaran	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:32:00 - [16] Originally by: Minmatar citizen4561451 Edited by: Minmatar citizen4561451 on 13/11/2009 12:29:40 If any of you actually READ the last QEN, you would know this change affects only ~400 people. Why all of a sudden are 3000 people coming out against this change? lolz The data used by the QEN is based on a snapshot of data and does not account for any changes that have occurred recently. It also doesn't appear to introduce any significant trending factors. Also, it does not appear to include how many SCs are in the cooker, how many SCs have been produced since the last snapshot was taken, nor how many players have plans for flying a mom. What you want is a basic trending report to perform some basic data analysis and extrapolation. A more accurate determination of the numbers would be: Count the number of ships currently fielded. Count a small percentage (10%, for arguments sake) of all players who meet or exceed the requirements to board a SC and are in alliances with CSAAs Look at snapshot over snapshot (apparently month over month) trending of 1 years worth of data for all non-CSAAs onlined alliance members and non-alliance players who have Moms. Extrapolate a reasonable number of these pilots based on the averaged trend figure (increase / decrease). Add these up, and that's probably a more realistic number of players affected. Sadly, it doesn't include players who are planning on flying a Mom and are early in their skill plan. Also, don't forget that the change doesn't just affect the SC pilots, if affects everyone who flies with them. Sometimes, I really wish CCP had some sort of drilldown capable BI tool available to users for these kinds of things. Then againm that would require something better than monthly snapshots to get accurate data for proper BI.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:34:00 - [17] Do continue to whine about your pixels.
Jazuz Krist	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:45:00 - [18] i was ushered into this thread attracted by the great gnashing of teeth of super carrier owners, especially the ones hwo purchased over priced nyx over the last couple months bargaining on a 'test' set of stats on sisi. flame on!

CCP Navigator C C P C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:48:00 - [19] Originally by: Mynas Atoch Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 12/11/2009 23:05:31 Quote: Test Server Feedback is not the place for this (petition thread protesting stealth change to Supercarriers on the test server and subsequent dev responses). Jita Park Speaker's Corner would be more appropriate if you wish to bring this up with the CSM. I don't understand your response. These changes are due to go live in 19 days. How can the CSM affect such an issue in that time? My understanding of how the CSM works seems to be at odds with yours. Can you expand on this response and suggest an effective form of mass feedback for us? Hello all, CCP Zymurgist is simply advising players who are making petition threads on the test server forum that the proper place for such actions is with the CSM. You are very much within your rights to post suggestions and comments regarding Super Capital changes in this thread. Locked. Navigator Senior Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online



Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.