EVE Search - What will ccp put in on patch day we dont know about

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

What will ccp put in on patch day we dont know about

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.23 11:36:00 - [1] These wil be the things that arent disclosed until TQ goes down for expansion updates, usually the contraversial stuff. Maybe supercarrier changes might be deployed anyway. And other things that might balance and be good but will upset everyone to start with ... So making predictions Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.23 12:01:00 - [2] cat girls an puppies ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
Metaplex	Posted - 2009.11.23 12:24:00 - [3] Quote: What will ccp put in on patch day we dont know about I predict they will put the stuff we don't know about in the patch, on patch day. Since we don't know about it it will be unknown content that contains the unknown but when it's know it will be known content and then the stuff will be known. This makes everything that is "don't know about" in the patch "do know about" after the patch! Furthering the quandry is the possibility of deliberatly placing things we do know about in the patch which could cause an issue with what we don't know in the patch, further complicated by what we could possibly know or not know about the stuff that is either known or unknown. Which may or may not be, but possibly could be, contained within (but not exclusivly) or without said patch...

CCP Casqade	Posted - 2009.11.23 14:07:00 - [4] 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.

sue denim	Posted - 2009.11.23 14:20:00 - [5] Originally by: CCP Casqade 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. what about some insurance?
Supreme Cookie	Posted - 2009.11.23 14:28:00 - [6] Cant get on sisi, no update available O.O?
Myrkala Minmatar Aurora Acclivitous	Posted - 2009.11.23 14:38:00 - [7] Maybe the "unknown" stuff is being tested by CCP on Singularity right now, they just didn't release a patch... so it's "private".
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.23 15:03:00 - [8] Originally by: CCP Casqade 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. humm? like the interdiction nullifier bug/exploit? btw, how can your logs not show that... [no, i did not lose one myself -.-] - putting the gist back into logistics
Walker Bulldog Minmatar VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD	Posted - 2009.11.23 15:06:00 - [9] Predictions? Okay, how about this: all Minmatar capital ships have been removed from the game, since nobody flies them anyway. What do you meant "refunds"? Nobody ever used them, so nothing to refund!
Cone Filler	Posted - 2009.11.23 15:11:00 - [10] you meen like the Blackbird stealth changes when the falcon got nerfed?

Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.23 16:01:00 - [11] Originally by: CCP Casqade 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. What HeliosGal is addressing is CCP's habit of undocumented changes that may have been on Sisi at some point, but were never detailed in the final patch notes. After nearly every patch I discover some small change [improvement or otherwise] that was never documented. This is especially true of the user interface. I hope that CCP manages its code change control and regression testing better than it writes its patch notes.
EvilweaselSA Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.23 16:05:00 - [12] Originally by: CCP Casqade 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. 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?
Mrs Snowman	Posted - 2009.11.23 16:15:00 - [13] 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. There was no warning, nothing mentioned in any dev blog and just a single line in the patch notes surrounded by many other single lines. It also came at about the same time they announced Dust514. There have been many such instances to which I feel the OP is refering too. I have noted changes to the 'Jukebox' which dont appear to be documented anywhere....yet.. but ive no doubt this will not impact anyone. At all.

CCP Casqade	Posted - 2009.11.23 16:20:00 - [14] 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 - [15] 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.

Sophie Daigneau CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.23 16:53:00 - [16] I think most of the fear is coming from the moon mining/alchemy changes. It has been well-documented by others how the current changes on sisi would ultimately break the system even worse than it currently is, and we're running out of time to analyze and assess the next iteration of changes. The :tinfoil: crowd is now speculating that there intentionally won't be another iteration made available before patch day to mess with all the speculators.
EvilweaselSA Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.23 16:56:00 - [17] Originally by: CCP Casqade 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. 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.

CCP Casqade	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:12:00 - [18] 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.

EvilweaselSA Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:25:00 - [19] Originally by: CCP Casqade 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. I'm not sure you got what I was trying to figure out. 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. What I was trying to figure out is what you consider "exploiting" the changes. 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.
Overlord Anubis Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:25:00 - [20] What do you consider exploit potential? Does that include legal in game actions that a wise entrepreneur could monopolize on before the patch if he had certain information? Trying to figure out your posts with the video of you lead economist and his twice mentioning that ccp is holding some information trade secret until the patch, and a second time that you don't tell us everything.

Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:28:00 - [21] So many employees, so much time learning how to communicate with a community. And still you keep on missing so many basic details. (If you want a detailed version of this post, look here)
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:32:00 - [22] Still waiting documentation/dev blogs on the new UI, planets and Eve-Mail ____ Minmatar ship fixes...

CCP Casqade	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:35:00 - [23] 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.

Overlord Anubis Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:39:00 - [24] Edited by: Overlord Anubis on 23/11/2009 17:44:29 please direct the person with that expertise to the thread, thanks. keep in mind that if the player community feels you are breaking their game, well they are fanatical and I do not think you could even contemplate the level of media attention that they will be able to generate to explain why they love or HATE EVE based on the potential anticipated changes. People always believe the player base more than the company since a corporation is mostly considered the bad guy. tl;dr bad game breaking changes will lead to the end of eve as quick as the dinosaurs disappeared.
Vrenth Gallente Lightning Industries	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:42:00 - [25] Edited by: Vrenth on 23/11/2009 17:44:00 Originally by: CCP Casqade What we want is constructive feedback on our ideas and changes. Constructive feedback, from what I have seen, is useless if the game balance team cares about their own wants and needs more than the communities. A perfect example of this was my thread with 60 PAGES of responses telling CCP that supercarriers were great on their first release on SISI, and just needed some tweaking. Instead they were nerfed, nerfed again, and then rolled back to their previous installation of motherships... which can not be used AT ALL in dominion because of their HP. There was no communication at all, players did not ask for any of those nerfs that were put live, and our feedback and ideas were not listened to. 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.
Overlord Anubis Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:49:00 - [26] Originally by: Vrenth Edited by: Vrenth on 23/11/2009 17:44:00 Originally by: CCP Casqade What we want is constructive feedback on our ideas and changes. Constructive feedback, from what I have seen, is useless if the game balance team cares about their own wants and needs more than the communities. A perfect example of this was my thread with 60 PAGES of responses telling CCP that supercarriers were great on their first release on SISI, and just needed some tweaking. Instead they were nerfed, nerfed again, and then rolled back to their previous installation of motherships... which can not be used AT ALL in dominion because of their HP. There was no communication at all, players did not ask for any of those nerfs that were put live, and our feedback and ideas were not listened to. 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. We are lazy our protests will come in the form of mass postings and articles published on blogs, news outlets, submissions to magazines, etc. It has been done before but that was a small scale effort by a few people on a issue, imagine a mass effort by fanatical people worried about the theft of their crack stash.

CCP Casqade	Posted - 2009.11.23 18:01:00 - [27] 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

Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.11.23 18:07:00 - [28] CCP Casqade for CCP's helpful dev guy 2009. if only some devs could post as half as you do --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.23 18:20:00 - [29] thank you CCP I would like to add one thing to this disscussion. remeber that most mmos wouldn't even have this problem, as most mmorpgs don't let you test anything befpre a patch/expansion. And there is 0 player feedback. So seriously, don't ***** about undocumented changes, when at least CCP gives us a test server. I for one think CCP is a forward thinking company, but please don't forget that they are in every right, spoiling us because they WANT the game to be better, and they WANT our feedback. we might not agree with what they do with that feedback, but seriously, I feel spoiled. -mothermoon

CCP Casqade	Posted - 2009.11.23 18:39:00 - [30] Thank you for the kind words. They are also a part of the constructive feedback we want.




Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.