EVE Search - PAX Prime 2011 With CCP Sound Wave

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

PAX Prime 2011 With CCP Sound Wave - Q&A #2

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
BLACK-STAR	Posted - 2011.09.01 01:32:00 - [31] Originally by: Vin Hellsing You didn't listen, did you? There are technical hurdles with the Carbon Engine that makes it unfeasible in the current timeframe. I don't care about the excuses. I want the old hangar functionality back like it was before it was ****d. That's my point, and I don't care for excuses about it. CCP certainly can easily do it if they choose to. Sloppy works come sloppy excuses. "Technical difficulties" bull.
Kartaugh Gallente	Posted - 2011.09.01 01:35:00 - [32] Originally by: Vin Hellsing You didn't listen, did you? There are technical hurdles with the Carbon Engine that makes it unfeasible in the current timeframe. Except that's not what he said. That's what was said in the past, in the same explanation that said they WERE working on it, but there were the aforementioned technical difficulties. That explanation has now been changed to: Response> No, we don't have any plans for that. Incarna is essentially an addition that is central to the future of EVE. Can you notice the difference? Stance 1 = It's hard, but we're trying. Hang on to your butts... Stance 2 = We're not trying. Two possibilities here. One, they lied when they said they were trying (even if it was hard). Two, CCP Soundwave is incredibly out of the decision making and inside information loop, and frankly, I don't know which one is worse... Thank you for conducting the interview, as I now know more about CCP than I did before. Too bad it's not a good thing to know this much... -------------------------------------------- "It's not that I am afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Boris Grushenko
Vin Hellsing	Posted - 2011.09.01 01:42:00 - [33] Originally by: Razin Originally by: Vin Hellsing Originally by: BLACK-STAR Quote: Unknown Submitter> A large number of EVE players do not like to leave their ship every time they dock. Some have computer hardware issues running several clients, some find it extremely immersion breaking and completely against EVE lore, and some would just rather abstain from Incarna alltogether. *The return of the old ship hanger or some version of it with a disembark button* would make all those people happy. When does CCP plan to do it? Response> No, we don't have any plans for that. Incarna is essentially an addition that is central to the future of EVE. @CCP Old hangar. Return it. Immediately.** How is a JPEG of a door central future of EVE? gtf off your high horse please. The question explains hundreds of problems people are having and offers a solution but Dev just gives the finger about it. ,,\|,, CQ is terribly coded, and I disabled it indefinitely. Old hangar is more practical and efficient. You didn't listen, did you? There are technical hurdles with the Carbon Engine that makes it unfeasible in the current timeframe. Could you point to the place where CCP Soundwave says that? Because his quoted response looks to be very categorical in its denial of any return of the hanger in any form. Regarding the technical hurdles - it was suggested as a reason by someone during Monoclegate. Personally, I think that is the main issue CCP is facing. However, that is NOT attributable to CCP Soundwave as far as I know. The reason for the really brief and stuccinct response, is probably Soundwave and I were out of it during the Q&A. I know I was - it was the last day of PAX Prime and he probably didn't realize the significance of the question. I'll try to get the question clarified when/if we do the next Q&A.
Kartaugh Gallente	Posted - 2011.09.01 01:45:00 - [34] Originally by: Vin Hellsing The reason for the really brief and stuccinct response, is probably Soundwave and I were out of it during the Q&A. I know I was - it was the last day of PAX Prime and he probably didn't realize the significance of the question. Ok, I can buy this. I've done stuff like this before and I do understand how tired you can get, and then mistakes are made. Putting my indignation on hold. -------------------------------------------- "It's not that I am afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Boris Grushenko
Vin Hellsing	Posted - 2011.09.01 01:48:00 - [35] Originally by: Kartaugh Originally by: Vin Hellsing The reason for the really brief and stuccinct response, is probably Soundwave and I were out of it during the Q&A. I know I was - it was the last day of PAX Prime and he probably didn't realize the significance of the question. Ok, I can buy this. I've done stuff like this before and I do understand how tired you can get, and then mistakes are made. Putting my indignation on hold. I appreciate your patience. I will try to get in touch with CCP and get a response on this question ASAP.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.09.01 01:55:00 - [36] Edited by: Razin on 01/09/2011 01:55:30 Originally by: Vin Hellsing Originally by: Kartaugh Originally by: Vin Hellsing The reason for the really brief and stuccinct response, is probably Soundwave and I were out of it during the Q&A. I know I was - it was the last day of PAX Prime and he probably didn't realize the significance of the question. Ok, I can buy this. I've done stuff like this before and I do understand how tired you can get, and then mistakes are made. Putting my indignation on hold. I appreciate your patience. I will try to get in touch with CCP and get a response on this question ASAP. Thanks man! The question did allow some leeway in response by asking for "the old ship hanger or some version of it", however it was probably easy to miss in the situation you describe. Hopefully the main import of the issue can be fully considered by CCP in calmer circumstances. ... Return the Old Hangar Back... for Immersion.
Vin Hellsing	Posted - 2011.09.01 01:58:00 - [37] Edited by: Vin Hellsing on 01/09/2011 02:00:47 Originally by: Razin Edited by: Razin on 01/09/2011 01:55:30 Originally by: Vin Hellsing Originally by: Kartaugh Originally by: Vin Hellsing The reason for the really brief and stuccinct response, is probably Soundwave and I were out of it during the Q&A. I know I was - it was the last day of PAX Prime and he probably didn't realize the significance of the question. Ok, I can buy this. I've done stuff like this before and I do understand how tired you can get, and then mistakes are made. Putting my indignation on hold. I appreciate your patience. I will try to get in touch with CCP and get a response on this question ASAP. Thanks man! The question did allow some leeway in response by asking for "the old ship hanger or some version of it", however it was probably easy to miss in the situation you describe. Hopefully the main import of the issue can be fully considered by CCP in calmer circumstances. That's the goal with my current e-mail. I've just written it up and fired it off to their Media department. All we can do now is wait patiently. Now that you've mentioned it, the context does make sense - they aren't bringing back the old hangar system...but instead devising a new hangar system to take its place within the Carbon Engine. The question I just sent off will address this, as well.
SilentSkills Gallente Tax Evaders Inc.	Posted - 2011.09.01 01:59:00 - [38] I like how CCP dropped the plans to bring some form of the old hangar back without missing a heartbeat. I remember CCP said they would when the **** hit the fan 2 months ago and they realized "the emotional attachment our players have with the old hangar/ship spinning", Soundwave's response was just a clear NO. So regardless of all the protests and recommendations both players and CSM made CCP's answer is "No, we don't have any plans for that." In other words: NO disembark from ship NO transition from ship to CQ/door other than a loading screen NO animations NO shipspinning The Monocle Definition
Rhaegor Stormborn BURN EDEN Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.09.01 03:04:00 - [39] God, CCP is terrible.
Ethan Bejorn Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.09.01 03:13:00 - [40] Originally by: Vin Hellsing Originally by: Albetta Originally by: Vin Hellsing Unknown Submitter> A large number of EVE players do not like to leave their ship every time they dock. Some have computer hardware issues running several clients, some find it extremely immersion breaking and completely against EVE lore, and some would just rather abstain from Incarna alltogether. The return of the old ship hanger or some version of it with a disembark button would make all those people happy. When does CCP plan to do it? Response> No, we don't have any plans for that. Incarna is essentially an addition that is central to the future of EVE. god **ing damnit You'll live. You are a *got.

Vin Hellsing	Posted - 2011.09.01 03:20:00 - [41] Originally by: Ethan Bejorn Originally by: Vin Hellsing Originally by: Albetta Originally by: Vin Hellsing Unknown Submitter> A large number of EVE players do not like to leave their ship every time they dock. Some have computer hardware issues running several clients, some find it extremely immersion breaking and completely against EVE lore, and some would just rather abstain from Incarna alltogether. The return of the old ship hanger or some version of it with a disembark button would make all those people happy. When does CCP plan to do it? Response> No, we don't have any plans for that. Incarna is essentially an addition that is central to the future of EVE. god **ing damnit You'll live. You are a *got. I love you, too.
KaarBaak Minmatar Seatec Astronomy	Posted - 2011.09.01 03:30:00 - [42] Originally by: Vin Hellsing However! We will return to this question in the next Q&A, this time with a better-written question that will reference the CSM summit's results. That should produce a more concise and accurate response, assuming CCP Soundwave doesn't decide to step in here and clarify it for us ahead of time. :) You have access to the summit minutes? Please share, because nobody else has seen these mysterious notes. Or are you just assuming what you think is in the summit minutes? It's disturbing to see the level people will stoop for access (and the hope of continued access) to a CCP dev. He who breaks the law shall be punished back to the House of Pain. -- Sayer of the Law
Vin Hellsing	Posted - 2011.09.01 03:41:00 - [43] Originally by: KaarBaak Originally by: Vin Hellsing However! We will return to this question in the next Q&A, this time with a better-written question that will reference the CSM summit's results. That should produce a more concise and accurate response, assuming CCP Soundwave doesn't decide to step in here and clarify it for us ahead of time. :) You have access to the summit minutes? Please share, because nobody else has seen these mysterious notes. Or are you just assuming what you think is in the summit minutes? It's disturbing to see the level people will stoop for access (and the hope of continued access) to a CCP dev. Not asking for access to the Summit's minutes, sorry. That would be overstepping my bounds. The question for the next Q&A - or hopefully just this question, and a lot sooner - will focus on whether or not CCP Soundwave's response had any bearing on the response given by CCP at the CSM summit. That is to say, in a nut shell: Does Soundwave's answer negate what CCP had asserted to the CSM about the Post-Incarna hangar system? My hope is that the answer to that question will be this: "No, it does not. The answer was referring specifically to the old hangar system, which is incompatible with Incarna." My focus for the community is a series of honest, direct Q&A's with the dev team, not the CSM. In closing, I hope to have a solid response from CCP on this issue by the start of next week.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.09.01 03:52:00 - [44] CCP did say in the past that they were considering a "replacement" for the old hangar view as a substitute for the door. However, CCP Soundwave has merely confirmed CCP's previous position that Incarna will be an integral part of EVE, and that it will not remain optional indefinitely. At this point, nothing anyone says will change their mind. So CCP may have decided to not allocate any resources towards developing a new hangar view, since that hangar view will be disabled anyway in a few months at most. I do not think that pushing Incarna onto the players in its current state is a good idea. Much as CCP did not make the Trinity graphics mandatory for a long time, it should not make Incarna and its excessively resource-intensive graphics mandatory for at least a year, and perhaps longer. It's not like Incarna will contain any meaningful or essential gameplay in the foreseeable future. That said, if Captain's Quarters is made non-optional in its current state, I will cancel my subscription. That is not a threat, it is a fact; CCP won't miss my $14 per month, so a threat would be pointless. But my computer cannot run the current version of Incarna without overheating at virtually any reasonable settings, and I would no more run Incarna on it regularly than I would run Metro 2033. To the trolls: No, I can't shove a pair of fans inside a laptop, and no, I do not have $500 to spend on a desktop just to play EVE.
Ghoest	Posted - 2011.09.01 05:03:00 - [45] In summery "We dont want to do some of that - but the rest of it we like but will never get around to. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Pr1ncess Alia	Posted - 2011.09.01 05:13:00 - [46] Summary: "I don't know about all that flying in space business. What I do know is that the hangar isn't coming back and WAIT TILL YOU CHECK OUT THESE SHIP PAINT JOBS, THEY ARE S-W-E-E-T! YOU'RE GOING TO LOVE IT AND THEY'LL ONLY RUN 1k AURUM EACH SO PLEASE, GET IN LINE, HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARDS READY" I mean really, why develop a game when the players will pay you NOT to develop it? Amirite? --- Players are losing faith and loyalty in CCP due previous expansions not living up to player expectations. The CSM and CCP agreed that expectation management can be improved
Craven Aleros	Posted - 2011.09.01 05:30:00 - [47] There's a pattern emerging in those answers but I just can't work out what it is yet?!? _____________ I got beef...
RedClaws Amarr Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.09.01 07:02:00 - [48] Sad :( All we have to look forward to is empty promises of features we never wanted in the first place. If CCP messes up the 0.0 update I really feel like Eve will be done for.
Florestan Bronstein 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2011.09.01 07:15:00 - [49] Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 01/09/2011 07:19:23 Originally by: Vin Hellsing You didn't listen, did you? There are technical hurdles with the Carbon Engine that makes it unfeasible in the current timeframe. Quote: Just out of curiosity, how many people would inject the old ship spinning in station if I released it here? I ask because it sits right in the middle of some of your definitions, and is actually quite "risk-free" among injections. Quote: Injections I use (some not very regularly): - ScanHelper (includes super d-scan that estimate result range with a slider range control) - WarpToZero - FlightHelper (WASD directional steering) - ActiveItemHelper (gives me sliders for keep range/orbit) - ShipSpinner (gives me old station environment) - TargetHelper(white target underlay) - LocalWatch (report local hostile number, flash warning and autowarp to safe spot togglable) - DistanceWatch (sets anchor, button to add to watchlist, displays watchlist items' (and your own) distance to anchor) - LootScooper (scoops closest wreck/cargo that's within 2500m, filter customizable) - Mining and ratting bots (my mining bot is actually more efficient than any macro based miner, due to access to information unobtainable from image recognition) maybe he is just bragging, maybe he is not - the general tone of his comments is reasonable, we know that CCP likes to disable features rather than to remove them and the other mods he uses are not surprising (feature-wise). I am inclined to believe his claim... Seeing that the value of NeX items is directly related to Incarana/CQ adoption CCP simply has no interest in making it easy or comfortable for people to bypass Incarna completely.
Living Dead Girl	Posted - 2011.09.01 07:23:00 - [50] Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia Summary: "I don't know about all that flying in space business. What I do know is that the hangar isn't coming back and WAIT TILL YOU CHECK OUT THESE SHIP PAINT JOBS, It'll Be Awesome! YOU'RE GOING TO LOVE IT AND THEY'LL ONLY RUN 1k AURUM EACH SO PLEASE, GET IN LINE, HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARDS READY" I mean really, why develop a game when the players will pay you NOT to develop it? Amirite? fyp, gotta keep up with the ccp catch phrases a lil better

Lu'Marat	Posted - 2011.09.01 09:19:00 - [51] Edited by: Lu''Marat on 01/09/2011 09:20:51 ... I gotta say, I'm usually part of the "Give CCP a break" crowd and I do like CCP Soundwave but if that Q&A really reflects the state of things then that's a definite buzzkill. Ah well. We'll see what's up ahead. Anyway, thanks to Vin Hellsing for getting this done, that was a lot of work. Sorry I can't be more enthusiastic about it.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.09.01 09:36:00 - [52] Originally by: Vin Hellsing There are technical hurdles with the Carbon Engine that makes it unfeasible in the current timeframe. Then how about not using the Carbon engine if it's so incapable? And don't come back with that ôoh, it will look different/break immersionö because CCP don't give a flying **** about immersion, as shown by all thing Incarna. Any attempt towards to deflect it by ôduplication of effortö can also go die, because the assets already exist. There is no duplication, or rather, the duplication has already happened and doesn't cost anything. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Ciar Meara Amarr Virtus Vindice	Posted - 2011.09.01 09:52:00 - [53] Originally by: Vin Hellsing Mindless fanboyism and invention of reasons/explenations Man I hate it when people say it but... Hilmar is that you? - Hilmar getur ekki tala= vi= ¦ig n·na, hann er a= fara f japanska tfskuverslun.
Sekket Caldari White-Noise	Posted - 2011.09.01 10:38:00 - [54] Quote: Response> We'll see the Jove more in the future, but they're a bit like a christmas present - you won't know when they'll show up, or what they'll bring. I'm pretty sure Christmas presents show up on December 25th.
Liquid Drops	Posted - 2011.09.01 11:47:00 - [55] Liars are scum! Just saying. Lie to me once shame on you lie to me twice then **** you.
Pestilent Industries	Posted - 2011.09.01 15:23:00 - [56] People of Eve, your leaders have lied to you.
Vin Hellsing	Posted - 2011.09.01 18:36:00 - [57] Originally by: Ciar Meara Originally by: Vin Hellsing Mindless fanboyism and invention of reasons/explenations Man I hate it when people say it but... Hilmar is that you? And I hate it when people make assumptions based off a very vague question and answer. :P I'm working on getting a clarified answer on the matter. Maybe I should just stop posting Q&A's here on the forums and keep it to the mailing list - the forums are definitely a hive of scum and villainy... OR maybe people just overreact too goddamn much?
Sullen Skoung	Posted - 2011.09.01 18:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Vin Hellsing Originally by: Albetta Originally by: Vin Hellsing Unknown Submitter> A large number of EVE players do not like to leave their ship every time they dock. Some have computer hardware issues running several clients, some find it extremely immersion breaking and completely against EVE lore, and some would just rather abstain from Incarna alltogether. The return of the old ship hanger or some version of it with a disembark button would make all those people happy. When does CCP plan to do it? Response> No, we don't have any plans for that. Incarna is essentially an addition that is central to the future of EVE. god ****ing damnit You'll live. Funny thing is thats pretty much CCPs take too an yeah, we'll livem but enough of this shiot getting rammed down our throats an we'll be "live"ing in another game -------- CCP knows better than the players whats good for their game. SOE knew what was best for SWG too. Better than all those players that left too.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.09.01 19:28:00 - [59] Originally by: Vin Hellsing Originally by: Ciar Meara Originally by: Vin Hellsing Mindless fanboyism and invention of reasons/explenations Man I hate it when people say it but... Hilmar is that you? And I hate it when people make assumptions based off a very vague question and answer. :P I'm working on getting a clarified answer on the matter. Maybe I should just stop posting Q&A's here on the forums and keep it to the mailing list - the forums are definitely a hive of scum and villainy... OR maybe people just overreact too goddamn much? Apparent failure to read does not a vague question make. And besides, overreaction is the only proven customer relation mechanism that CCP seems to understand. ... Return the Old Hangar Back... for Immersion.
Vin Hellsing	Posted - 2011.09.01 19:30:00 - [60] Originally by: Razin Originally by: Vin Hellsing Originally by: Ciar Meara Originally by: Vin Hellsing Mindless fanboyism and invention of reasons/explenations Man I hate it when people say it but... Hilmar is that you? And I hate it when people make assumptions based off a very vague question and answer. :P I'm working on getting a clarified answer on the matter. Maybe I should just stop posting Q&A's here on the forums and keep it to the mailing list - the forums are definitely a hive of scum and villainy... OR maybe people just overreact too goddamn much? Apparent failure to read does not a vague question make. And besides, overreaction is the only proven customer relation mechanism that CCP seems to understand. Jesus christ, you're not wrong on that count. When I see the overreactions, I wonder: "Is everybody more deaf than I am, or is it a mental disease?"



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.