Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cancel Align NOW
Maas Industries
594
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:48:07 -
[61] - Quote
Nice post CCP. |
Tuxia Braindead
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:51:12 -
[62] - Quote
Thank you CCP. Keep up the good work.
o7 |
Canenald
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
82
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:02:40 -
[63] - Quote
If you don't like how CCP devs interact with players, go play another spaceship game for a while then come back and reassess your opinion.
source: I came from STO. |
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
295
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:04:32 -
[64] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:Nice post CCP. +1
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Crake Gaterau
Black Ronin Incorporated Neo-Bushido Movement
33
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:11:26 -
[65] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium. You rock. Thank you. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3977
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:12:58 -
[66] - Quote
The irony here is that the OP missed to notice what's been the actual PR lingo these days.
AKA: "Expansions are back"
That's the PR way of saying "since we messed up by releasing Sov mechanics bit by bit, and as the Citadels feature is so damn big that it will require a glorified patch larger than any other released to date, we're calling it a "expansion". Although it's not scheduled regularly, there's no plans to make another one and is not thematized +á-la-Unifex. But you know, the sound of "Expansion" will thrill equally to bittervets and noobs".
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6835
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:13:13 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option. Out of curiosity, if you don't like getting bad feedback (who does?) why don't you listen to the constructive feedback that is given before you make design decisions that annoy people. Most of the problems occurring with the sov system were predicted quite publicly long before the system was introduced.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Felo Maxun
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
110
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:13:52 -
[68] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog.
10/10 I endorse this post and or service
|
Niiro Kallstrom
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:28:56 -
[69] - Quote
Quote:Well, that's it for me. You are a joke, CCP. There really is no point in playing a game that can be won by the person who has the most money to buy PLEX and turn it into ISK (I might as well play RL). But when incompetent programming and logic causes **** like this to repeatedly happen, **** it. No point.
Oh, and CCP, quit calling your joke a 'sandbox'. It MAY be a sandbox relative to other games out there, but a TRUE sandbox is a game where ONLY the physics of the universe is programmed into it. So to call this game a sandbox is a serious fail.. much like your programming!
Bye New Eden
This was three years ago. Why are you still here? |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3978
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:38:59 -
[70] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option. Out of curiosity, if you don't like getting bad feedback (who does?) why don't you listen to the constructive feedback that is given before you make design decisions that annoy people. Most of the problems occurring with the sov system were predicted quite publicly long before the system was introduced.
Well, do you know what is "design by committee?" It's very real and leads to all kind of funny stuff. Like ignoring against all warnings that a exploitable game mechanic will be exploited to death.
The comittee decided against evidence that people would grow bored of playing trollceptor shenanigans before they became a issue.
Sh*t happens, just that. On the plus side, the mistake has been adressed very fast, probably by single-person decission making.
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
52039
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:40:41 -
[71] - Quote
Raffael Ramirez wrote:Thank you !
Also, I don't know why Reddit is the communication tool of choice at the moment , but could someone link the relevant information to this forum ? The information might reach more people and lets them see how much work the DEVs put in and how feedback gets incorporated and hopefully stop at least some of the negativity.
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Since we are being Blunt here, I should not have to Sign up for Reddit, join slack or other social media that you guys are more active on Compared to your own Official Forums. It's amazing how much more communicative you are outside of your own forums compared to on here.
Is it because we are actually able to talk without Censor from your own community Moderators, or do you feel being more active on other sources is better then being as active on here? I am often amazed how much more active you guys are on Slack or on Reddit that I have to log into another companies website to join in on conversations concerning a game that your own company hosts forums for.
Maybe instead of having these forums, you should just direct every Eve Player over to the other Social Media sites you are more actively discussing with those communities upcoming changes, then this one.
Just me being blunt here. Don't get me wrong, I love how you guys work with us and the lengths you go for the community. No matter how much Shyt heads we can be. But it irks me when Pilots link me upcoming changes or discussions that CCP is doing on other sites When I check Dev Posts on here daily and barely see anything. Other players might see more of whats going on if you guys were as active here on the Official forums as you are on Reddit or Slack. It might help rebuild that bond the EVE-O forum users had Compared to the tight bond you hold over at Reddit Vs here.
Agree 100%.
Information is King and Communication is it's Queen.
The initial release of information regarding new or existing game design should be presented first in the Official Eve Online Forums. After that Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Podcasts, Game news sites, etc can then be used for more exposure and further discussion.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
14015
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 09:59:43 -
[72] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Since we are being Blunt here, I should not have to Sign up for Reddit ...etc etc etc /me taps downvote
I'm in it for the money
Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
|
blazigen
Infinite Point DARKNESS.
10
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 10:08:36 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium,
Since the announcement of fozziesov since the announcement of phoebe. A lot has changed in eve. We can argue all we want if it was for better or for worse.
It did **** of a lot of people. Among which super cap pilots and capital pilots. And especially the supercap pilots who are for now still stuck in pretty much useless flying deathtraps that are absolutely almost impossible to move without a lot of dedication.
BUT. The moment I saw you taking the stage at fanfest. And you started talking about those structures. I felt that things would eventually be alright. You at that time to me sounded like the dev eve needed. Not the dev eve wants. I am glad you and your team took so much time into evaluating feedback and came to the conculsion there was a gaping hole in content and especially in roles for some obsolete ships due to fozziesov. And that our now infamous sovwand was not the answer for structures
I am happy you and your team are thinking this is the best course of action for the citadels. And do not mistake me if eve is to survive I feel these citadels are the one thing right now that can pull this game out of its slump. Not the current sov systems. Not Phoebe and its jump ranges and fatigue nerfs (I am looking forward to more about this in the near future).
But the citadels are what is going to make or break this game for me personally.
SO to all devs out there GOODLUCK. And CCP Ytterbium and your team GOODLUCK and I see you when the dust settles. |
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
44
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 10:16:12 -
[74] - Quote
https://i.imgur.com/IAt9wjT.jpg |
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 10:49:42 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Manifest wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Confirmed. Ytterbium is not a PR person.
I don't know about that. The OP deserved the full high slot rack of Neutron Blasters to the face for his post. I would say you handled that rather deftly.
Not only did you get "top damage", but you got the final blow on the forum KB. Ashamed that the rest of us were too late to even whore in ( can i say that? ) on the kill. That, and the loot was crap.
Keep up the good work
Max |
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
44
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:12:26 -
[76] - Quote
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:If you guys ever feel like you're not being appreciated by the players, just remember that there's still tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of use quiet ones that are actually playing the game, loving it, and continuing to pay you guys because we get value and enjoyment out of the hard work that you've put into it. >hundreds of thousands
Oh boy, you're a good one.
In case anyone of you needs even more vaseline, trade me in Jita please. CCP did indeed a damn fine job elevating EVE straight into the dumpster. You guys need to stop being so apologetic for being a paying costumer.
I just hope all my whored PLEX is not going to go to waste when this games goes F2P in a year or two. For now, let us see how CCP is gonna tackle problems at hand. One is for sure - I have a little more of free time for other things now. |
Galphii
Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn
346
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:23:51 -
[77] - Quote
Knocked it out of the park Ytterbium, we appreciate your directness, honesty & CCP's willingness to talk with the player base as much as you do in spite of certain... difficult elements.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26314
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:35:01 -
[78] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Agree 100%.
Information is King and Communication is it's Queen.
The initial release of information regarding new or existing game design should be presented first in the Official Eve Online Forums. After that Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Podcasts, Game news sites, etc can then be used for more exposure and further discussion. Now look what you made me do: I had to positively quote and like a DMC post.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:35:59 -
[79] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Information is King and Communication is it's Queen.
I'm stealing that |
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
226
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:43:23 -
[80] - Quote
I am kind of "hoping for the best, expecting the worst" with what I am reading in the dev blogs. I am really hoping to be pleasantly surprised but not betting on it.
Entosis mechanics was a step in the right direction but obviously far less than perfect. Kind of a case of "right idea, right goal, maybe the wrong toolset to achieve that." At least it shook up the stupefying stagnation that had largely defined nullsec for the last couple years. Yes, I know it upset rental empire enthusiasts especially but eggs, omelettes, etc...
Citadels sounds so far like a bigger and better step in the right direction. Also maybe improves a few other aspects of the game to make living in space more interesting and fun. Still won't be perfect but better is always good. From what I've read so far, it sounds like a good potential generator of big fights, something that was certainly missing from the current paradigm.
Not sure this is actually going to work out the way the devs might envision though. EVE players have a way of ****ting in the sandbox, big style. Citadels with their sov flags being destroyable is awesome...but if they are invulnerable 99% of the time and it takes a capital fleet to exploit the short weekly window of vulnerability...that is secret to all but the owner...that does not seem likely to lead to lots of dynamic space pew pew in the long term.
We shall see how it plays out, eh?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
226
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:51:47 -
[81] - Quote
...and by the way, I really like the way CCP is handling this so far. Some really good ideas in those citadel dev blogs. Seems pretty professional and responsive to their customer base as far as I can tell!...
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Ammzi
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1904
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:56:24 -
[82] - Quote
OP is a ******, he got ****** hard in the ass. |
Outlawd
Evian Industries EVIAN NATION
39
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:56:54 -
[83] - Quote
Oh my. I've never seen a case of OP "getting rekt" so hard. |
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25670
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:08:06 -
[84] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option. Out of curiosity, if you don't like getting bad feedback (who does?) why don't you listen to the constructive feedback that is given before you make design decisions that annoy people. Most of the problems occurring with the sov system were predicted quite publicly long before the system was introduced.
Occupancy based SOV is what the blocs told CCP they wanted, and this is what CCP provided.
The problem with player feedback in a game like EVE is that a lot of it is given in the interest of an alliance and not in the better interest of the game. CCP has to keep the metagaming at arm's length, which means a lot of good advice can get thrown out. The perfect feedback system doesn't exist because EVE players have historically been terrible at maintaining their own objectivity.
And I wish I could shout you out
|
Lucia Denniard
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
27
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:16:34 -
[85] - Quote
We asked for occupancy sov, we didn't ask for EHP-free occupancy sov. |
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25671
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:18:26 -
[86] - Quote
Because the playerbase in general had a very high opinion about structure grinding, right?
And I wish I could shout you out
|
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1249
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:21:09 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Kazini Jax wrote:"Long story short, we have had long meetings about the structure attack system, and came to the conclusion that, while Entosis Links do indeed achieve our design goals for the Citadels, they are not actually delivering an experience we are satisfied to provide."
CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. It was the user base that doesn't like the stale mechanics of Entosis links. Call it what it is and quit trying to mislead us. This tactic is getting real, REAL old and I am sure it plays a role in your bleeding of users. I know, cause I am ready to permanently close my 3+ accounts over it. To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures. That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve. To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours. We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option. Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose. Thank you.
CSM Confirming Yitterbaum and Nulabor are literally BOSS F$#%^&* TIER. The communication from these guys and their team has been nothing short of amazing.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12472
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:25:27 -
[88] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option. Out of curiosity, if you don't like getting bad feedback (who does?) why don't you listen to the constructive feedback that is given before you make design decisions that annoy people. Most of the problems occurring with the sov system were predicted quite publicly long before the system was introduced. Occupancy based SOV is what the blocs told CCP they wanted, and this is what CCP provided. The problem with player feedback in a game like EVE is that a lot of it is given in the interest of an alliance and not in the better interest of the game. CCP has to keep the metagaming at arm's length, which means a lot of good advice can get thrown out. The perfect feedback system doesn't exist because EVE players have historically been terrible at maintaining their own objectivity.
Thing is, the issue of the sov system isn't an issue of bad player feedback, it's an issue of developers making a convoluted system with some goals (some supported by players, others that weren't) that lead to a situation that was unfun for many of us. Even though the system 'works' in a way that makes us in null more comfortable (you'd need a mighty big sledge hammer to get through the bonuses in my ratting system lol), it made some things from the old system worse.
As for 'structure grinding', the most important point is that they took something that was tedious but at least interactive (you at least got to shoot at something) and made it more tedious (whack a mole) and even more boring (instead of shooting, we sat there and watched ONE GUY LASER A THING lol).
I've been talking about sov since 2009, Aegis-Sov is NOT what i asked for.
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
992
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:26:15 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures. That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve. To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours. We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option. Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose. Thank you.
You tell em!
Not today spaghetti.
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25671
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:30:07 -
[90] - Quote
I'm only responding to Lucas's idea about CCP not listening as some kind of active effort on their part because they don't like player feedback.
Many players wanted many things out of SOV, and CCP's implementation has plenty of flaws that have been discussed ad nauseum.
Jenn, if you personally wanted something else, that's fine.. but it's not like you're the only person giving feedback, and it's not like a large group of players rallied behind your ideas in some kind of statement delivered to CCP.
And I wish I could shout you out
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |