Originally by: McTecman

---

Originally by: Ghuarran

---

I respect your position, I really do. But it's kind of disturbing that such a director could publish changes as sweeping as this, referencing mechanics that simply do not work in game, and have the team not notice or care. Surely a team of developers would notice that you cannot target paint supercaps, or seiged dreadnaughts. Shouldn't that thing have been caught?

---

I'd like to believe they'd notice as well. But in the end, this is the development team that allowed the infamous "boot.ini" fiasco to happen.

It's one thing to explain that changes on SiSi don't always translate into changes on Tranquility via patch or an expansion, because that's obvious with a piece of software like EVE that's constantly a work in progress. However, it's an entirely another situation where one of the changes inside an upcoming expansion that's essentially two weeks from launching isn't up to spec yet or has directly conflicting settings which "break" a certain, quite expensive, playstyle - ESPECIALLY if the player group that will end up being the target usergroup has done so much in terms of testing and feedback on the entire situation and was more or less happy with the proposed, initial variables (and was expecting nothing more than tweaks, not a goddamn chainsaw).

If the developers feel like something is amiss, don't try to forcefully release an unfinished expansion, especially one that involves a very delicate network of endgame player-driven space empires and warfare with tons of possible screw-ups. I'm starting to understand why 0.0 has been left alone for so long, it's essentially a designer's nightmare to fix.

The funny bit however is that all it took was to slightly alter Supercarriers and we would've been fine. Now we're stuck with this mess.

Honestly, either delay all of Dominion, or delay the entire Capital and Supercapital restructuring so you don't break it all by having one or more of the set pieces out of focus or sub-parly designed.

---