|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
jackaloped
   |
Posted - 2011.07.02 19:53:00 -
[1]
CCP zulu explained that there are very few devs assigned to in space feature (what i call game play features since there is no gameplay in incarnatransactions)at all. That is whether you are talking about fixing old stuff or creating new content.
Until that changes no improvements of any sort will happen for eve's gameplay.
|
jackaloped
|
Posted - 2011.07.03 02:52:00 -
[2]
Edited by: jackaloped on 03/07/2011 02:53:03
 Originally by: JMERCENARY
Originally by: Onyx Blackman
Originally by: JMERCENARY
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Boy, you sure told them.
Why make long posts explaining the obvious which is that CCP is not working at EVE atm.
Isn't funny how many players are so quick to defend ccp for abandoning eve gameplay development, so they can develop other games?
And the bad analogies in these threads are never ending. Whatever, if people want to keep paying for a dead end game, ccp will happily keep taking your money for it.
|
jackaloped
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 13:54:00 -
[3]
Edited by: jackaloped on 06/07/2011 13:54:24
Originally by: Khamelean
Your not paying for the development of WoD, Dust or Eve. Your paying a subscription for the game as it exists now. CCP is delivering your service for the game as it exists now. Anything on top of that is bonus.
If your unhappy with the game as it is then stop paying.
done
BTW anything at the press conference about this issue?
|
jackaloped
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 01:22:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: DECEPTIBROW
Agree with OP.
The last 3 expansions have added nothing to the game for me.
It's obvious that CCP are only interested in console shooters, second life rip offs, spacebooks, and mindless clickfests.
So your argument is based on the fact that CCP have released no content that interests you in Eve therefore they have spent no money working on eve?
To follow your logic.
Since they have released no content at all for Dust for WoD, they clearly have not been working on them either.
I can't say what his argument is based on but my argument is based on ccp telling us they are not working on eve gameplay. They explicitly said what percent of devs was going to incarnatransactions and fis.
True they didn't tell us how many are devoted to dust or wod but even looking at the devs that are supposed to be working on eve its clear they abandoned eve gameplay in favor of incarnatransactions.
|
jackaloped
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 03:22:00 -
[5]
It almost seems like some people here are encouraging CCP to mothball eve gameplay.
I mean are most MMO companies so blunt that they are not going to work on and improve the gameplay for the players and only spend their time/money making new games and figuring out how to charge the playerbase more money in mt?
Incarnatransactions, wod, and Dust seems to account for well over 90% of the ccp resources.
|
jackaloped
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 13:27:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Miss Rabblt
real level of forum whiners is here.... Where have i found that tale "Eve community is more amateur than in other games"???? 
We even have a few whiners about the whiners.
Regardless of what you call us, there is no denying allot of players are fed up with ccp ignoring eve gameplay for incarnatransactions, wod, and dust.
There can be little doubt that this is having an effect on those who are remaining unsubbed. Its up to ccp if they want to do anything about it.
I tend to think they will just let the "bitter vets" leave and try to keep getting new players in the revolving door for a year or 2 instead of trying to make the game something that can be enjoyable for several years.
|
jackaloped
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 13:48:00 -
[7]
Originally by: BoBoZoBo
1) Paying them is your choice
2) What they do with the money is their choice.
If you don't like where #2 is going, revise #1
1) Posting our disappointment that eve gameplay development was abandoned is our choice
2) Reading the forums is your choice
If you don't like reading #1 revise #2.
|
|
|
| |
|