| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Casqade
   |
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:07:00 -
[1]
This is not true at all.
The only things that are changed without it reaching Singularity before, are changes with exploit potential. This is done for a good reason and is also mentioned in the patch notes when it reaches Tranquility. This is also very rarely done at all, but an example of such changes has been the removal of NPC sell orders to remove the artificial price cap on minerals.
Stealth fixes isn't something we do. Because they aren't very stealthy if they are obvious. If something has changed, which has not been communicated and present in the patch notes, it is probably a bug.
|
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:20:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Cone Filler
you meen like the Blackbird stealth changes when the falcon got nerfed?
"Stealth changes" that are obvious are not very stealthy.
Sometimes we miss documenting changes in patch notes, but as soon as it is pointed out we add them in green text. Mistakes happen and sometimes things are forgotten. It is that simple.
Originally by: EvilweaselSA
Do changes that might prompt speculation fall into this category? For example, would you consider altering the moon mining values for Dominion without putting them on Sisi first, or would that sort of thing always go on Sisi unless it was decided on too late in the process?
I cannot answer this question in a good way, so I'm going to answer "maybe" as it depends on the situation. In general we always try to communicate changes and have them available on Singularity for public testing to get feedback on them.
But going back to my previous example of the NPC orders capping the price for minerals. If we would have told you that we were going to remove the NPC orders for shuttles because they created an artificial cap on Tritanium before it happen, we would have had lots of people buying tons of shuttles to profit from the change. This was undesirable so we decided to tell you after it was done.
The reason I answered this thread was because the OP tried to incite fear in the community and spread false rumors about how changes are released.
|
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:43:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Mrs Snowman
While its true they very rarely fail to document 'somewhere' about forth coming changes sometimes certain changes are given 'low-key'
The biggest recent example of this is the directional scanner change.
I agree with this. We made a mistake in not explaining the reasoning behind this change well enough. But we did not try to hide it from the community. This is the point I am trying to make here. We are not changing things without informing you because it is fun or because we hope that you will not notice it anyway. When things are not properly communicated we have made a mistake. And having mistakes pointed out to you in a constructive manner is important if you want to become better at what you do. So please keep the constructive feedback coming. But just let me point out that false rumors and tinfoil is not constructive.
|
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:12:00 -
[4]
Originally by: EvilweaselSA
Well, if I'm reading you correctly, what you want to avoid is situations where you can make a profit against the game by knowing the changes (by using NPC goods) but don't really have a problem with making a profit against other players by knowing the changes (for example, puzzling out the profitable moon minerals post-dominion and buying them from other people, making a profit by effectively tricking them out of the profit they'd have made instead). In the first case, people are printing money, in the second case the more informed are profiting against the less informed.
You are not reading me correctly and you seem to in fact draw illogical conclusions of the example I made.
What we want to avoid is not communicating changes well enough.
What we want is to avoid confusion and an angry community.
What we want is constructive feedback on our ideas and changes.
|
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:35:00 -
[5]
Originally by: EvilweaselSA
As I understood your post, it's that you want to announce any changes you can and get feedback, besides changes that would risk game exploitation if they were known in advance.
This is correct.
Originally by: EvilweaselSA
What I was trying to figure out is what you consider "exploiting" the changes.
This depends on the situation and the specific change and as I cannot answer for all past changes and upcoming changes, I am unable answer this question in a way that you would be satisfied with. I am sorry.
Originally by: EvilweaselSA
As Sophie said, part of the reason is that the moon mining changes as they currently exist probably make the situation worse (there's a long thread in MD detailing why, basically you will have worse chokepoints in the system meaning more profits for the 'right' moon holders) and I'm sort of hoping the reason there's been no response to that is that CCP doesn't want to reward patch speculators. However, that doesn't seem like it fits the only category you listed where you would intentionally not announce a change. I'm just trying to figure that out, if re-tweaking the t2 ship BPO's would be one of those things that would not be announced beforehand.
Here is where I think we went wrong. And I mean this in a respectful manner. You tried to make sense of my generalized answer and response to the OP, which had nothing to do with the changes you are talking about. I do not know about the changes you are talking about as it is not my area of expertise. Again, I am sorry if I have been unable to answer your specific question. But I hope you understand what it is that I am trying to say.
|
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:01:00 -
[6]
Let's not derail this thread into talking about specific changes. Those changes you are discussing already have their threads.
Originally by: Vrenth
Fact: we play this game. We, as a whole, know what is best for the game. If 90% of us say something is okay, listen to us. If 90% of us say it's screwed up, then change it. If you don't want to listen to our ideas, fine... but listen to our complaints, at least.
While you present the democratic way of dealing with changes. There is one flaw with your idea. The forum does not represent anywhere close to 90% of the users. In fact it represents a clear minority of them. So in order to get to the point where we can hear the opinions of 90% of of our users we need to get a system for it. The CSM had 9,74% of the users voting in the last election: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=664
|
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:39:00 -
[7]
Thank you for the kind words. They are also a part of the constructive feedback we want.
|
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:55:00 -
[8]
Please read the rest of my replies in this thread.
|
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:04:00 -
[9]
Since people seem to be missing the point of this thread. This is my last reply to it.
Originally by: MADDOGzors
Since you actually reply, when do we get tier 3 navy battleships and tech 2 or 3 tier 3 battleships. I can't believe you're working on tech 3 frigs before bs's.
What?
|
|
| |
|