Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Kazini Jax
Starlight Operations
17
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 22:31:14 -
[1] - Quote
"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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3137
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 22:36:24 -
[2] - Quote
K bye.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 22:39:19 -
[3] - Quote
You would rather
''CCP admits they released a failed design and are now scrambling to fix a system players don't want''
pasted all over the gaming press.... That will do wonders for attracting new players.
Sometimes PR spin is for a good reason. The role of PR is to make outsiders / potential new players believe the game is going well and new and exciting features are planned. Not to talk about the problems and mistakes devs inevitably make in a game world as complicated as EvE...
EvE is a business.... not your local church... grow up.
"... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á | zoonr-Korsairs |-á QFT !
|
Marsha Mallow
2540
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 22:41:02 -
[4] - Quote
Pretty sure they just tweaked the Citadels to shut the space coffin 'I need to grind to feel alive' crybabbies up. There's some nice backdoors in the design though. They're going to die gruesome deaths.
The sov rework is more about waking up 1000s of scrub ratters/Dota players and forcing them to log in and undock, rather than smack badly on forums.
Funny how the failures are racking up.
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: TO THE PITCHFORKMOBILE!
Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
Jenn aSide wrote: does anyone have any assless chaps I could borrow?
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
949
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 22:47:36 -
[5] - Quote
< Stuff < |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1766
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 22:48:38 -
[6] - Quote
can I have your stuff?
and given citadels aren't even in game yet, I'm sure they are still having meetings about them, and probably will for a while. hell, they will probably have meetings about citadels after they come out
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
1046
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 23:03:44 -
[7] - Quote
the system is still being deployed and you expect perfection.
htfu ibtl
Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896
Free The Scope Three
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1589
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 23:25:09 -
[8] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. That seems totally backwards to me unless you are in the business of wasting time. Why would you continue long discussions about something unless you found it in some way lacking?
|
DaReaper
Net 7
2569
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 23:29:27 -
[9] - Quote
god you are an idiot.
They took feed back into account. But also when they sat down and looked at caps they most likly went 'uh oh... these things need a role.. hmm... crap' so modified the structures accordingly.
For the record.. 99% of all players are ******* stupid. CCP has way more information then most players do, and they make changes for reasons, sometimes reasons people don;t have info on or can;t understand fully.
also a lot of eve players are whining babies.
This is how business works. you make an idea, show your client and they can go 'erm no thats not gonna work and heres why' which after a few times thinking it over and looking at your plan you can go 'oh... yea thats not going to work, crap' and fix it.
Welcome tot he world of software design.
HTFU and stop your bitchen
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Yes i am optimistic about eve.. i'm giving it till dec 31st 2016 before i doom n gloom
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
614
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 23:34:36 -
[10] - Quote
Bye bye. I am sure that valuable feedback will help them improve.
How was CCP supposed to know eve players still wouldnt put up a gf to defend?
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
|
Divine Entervention
Legion's Knights Of The Round Intrepid Crossing
620
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 23:53:28 -
[11] - Quote
CCP should have had the foresight to understand that even though they made the sov system better, people are apprehensive to any kind of change. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4092
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 00:52:27 -
[12] - Quote
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. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26287
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 00:56:59 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. =ƒÆò
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.
|
Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 00:57:23 -
[14] - Quote
*mic drop* |
Divine Entervention
Legion's Knights Of The Round Intrepid Crossing
620
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 00:59:31 -
[15] - Quote
daaammmnnnn
WORLD STAR BABY!
WORLD STAR! |
Fadiyah Zamayid
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 01:06:49 -
[16] - 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.
Well done. I'm a software engineer so I live this reality also.. Don't let the immature ones get under your skin.. just keep on doing the right thing.. many out here in customer-land appreciate the work you are doing. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2512
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 01:15:01 -
[17] - 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. As happy or unhappy as I am with any particular change, here's a Thank You for actually taking the time to have considered meetings regarding our feedback, and be willing to adapt plans. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
614
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 01:23:32 -
[18] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Pretty sure they just tweaked the Citadels to shut the space coffin 'I need to grind to feel alive' crybabbies up. There's some nice backdoors in the design though. They're going to die gruesome deaths.
The sov rework is more about waking up 1000s of scrub ratters/Dota players and forcing them to log in and undock, rather than smack badly on forums.
Funny how the failures are racking up.
Oh F***, I just liked a Marsha Mallow post...
/me jumps in the tub for a wash.
Best description of Eve Online and why the community is the way it is
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
617
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 01:27:07 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TL:DR
We do love our players <3
Thank you.
Of all the PR things a game company can do, that is absolutely wonderful to hear. I work in industrial development myself and know how much feedback can both boost and dishearten.
If it means anything, I was getting pretty inactive with eve. The changes and announcement really showed me a great deal and got me heavily enthused for eve online again. Knowing that you take feedback seriously and are working with the player base with your post really has me even more enthusiastic for the next coming years.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Raffael Ramirez
Alcohol Fuelled The Marmite Collective
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 01:47:46 -
[20] - 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.
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.
|
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
148
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 02:06:21 -
[21] - Quote
OP.. please biomass. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Northern Coalition.
1810
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 02:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
i know for a fact from personal experience that direct user feedback does have an influence on game design decisions.
i once told CCP greyscale that some modules (like cloaks, probe launchers, interdiction nullifiers and others) should have longer production times than simple 150mm railguns. he agreed and changed their ranks.
this change, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem boosted my confidence in CCP a lot. They do listen. and they do act.
|
|
CCP Manifest
C C P C C P Alliance
1206
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 02:22:22 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: I am a senior game designer, not a PR person.
Confirmed. Ytterbium is not a PR person.
======== o7
_CCP Manifest | Public Relations and Social Media | @ccp_manifest_
|
|
Raffael Ramirez
Alcohol Fuelled The Marmite Collective
4
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 02:25:53 -
[24] - Quote
CCP Manifest wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Confirmed. Ytterbium is not a PR person.
Maybe that is a good thing :)
Edit:
Meaning , when I hear Buzzwords I instantly distrust the content - I not commenting on CCP Ytterbiums suitability for a PR role. |
Kibitt Kallinikov
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
11
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 02:34:16 -
[25] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:K bye.
It gets better when you look at OP's 17 post history. This is the first time that account has spoken on the forums in 3 years.
The last statement before then was this monstrosity. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Phoebe Freeport Republic
1662
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 02:42:20 -
[26] - 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. Well said. I think it's actually amazing how much effort you all put into communicating and listening to players. I've been frustrated at times and probably made a few whiney crap posts myself, but once you realize how much feedback CCP gets and how many decisions they have to make, it becomes real clear fast the effort they are all putting in.
So thank you CCP. It's appreciated.
GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Silence Dubensky
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 03:09:18 -
[27] - Quote
My input on this matter is: you unsubscribe your 3+ accounts, OP, cause you obviously have NO clue how much work goes into even little changes, let alone a change such as reworking an entire mechanism in a way that keeps it balanced. CCP do this to keep their customers happy, not ungrateful sods like you. I don't think any of us will miss you.
To the CCP employees reading this: there are still a lot of us who appreciate what you guys do, as I think the responses in this thread proves. There may be matters you don't agree with the community on but just the fact that you even bother listening to us says you're willing to put the effort in. There's been plenty of drama since I made my first account in 2009 but you've still got a playerbase and you're still going strong, so just keep on keeping on. |
Divine Entervention
Legion's Knights Of The Round Intrepid Crossing
623
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 03:15:03 -
[28] - Quote
nvm everything's been said already. |
Zarek RedHill
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 03:16:21 -
[29] - Quote
Bravo!
Know that 99.9% of your userbase appreciates your work and understands that individually we may not agree or like everything that CCP decides on for the game -- and that's okay. Don't the loudmouth 0.1% get you down -- they aren't worth you having a lousy day.
In real life anytime I deal with a crappy user (I'm a software engineer w/ 10 years of experience) or co-worker I just keep telling myself, "at least he is not dating my sister", and that puts me back in an okay mood. :)
-Z |
Dan Seavey Allier
Seavy Acquisitions
47
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 03:28:20 -
[30] - Quote
Thank you, Yitters for the heartfelt post.
There is a lot of frustration in the community, both from those who are unhappy with the results of change and those who are acting out in fear of ultimately loosing a game which we are invested in so many ways.
It's easy to loose perspective and start grabbing torches and pitchforks in an nonconstructive festival of **** posting.
Thank you for being honest, blunt, and sincere in your reply.
I don't post very much, but I truly believe that your efforts and the efforts of your teams will end up delivering a renaissance era that we are all hoping for.
Thank You for enduring some very harsh criticism, and Thank You for putting forth your best efforts in making this a better game for everyone.
Time will prove the merit of your designs.
Dan
Honey Never Sleeps.
|
|
Whipple Shai
Artisans of Eternity. DeepSpace.
30
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 03:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Dudes and Dude'ttes:
I shall now endeavor to take the following as much out of context as possible: "...we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so."
Feedback huh? I'm 53 and the first computer game I played was in 4th grade where a computer tried to guess a number from 1 to 20 randomly chosen by the student. I started playing this one almost three years ago and have 10 accounts. Why? Because your game rocks.
Eventually it may shut down, I sure hope not. But if if does, I know what I'm doing about 30 seconds before the final downtime. I'll be pointing each characters ship towards the second star to the right and flying straight on till morning. As the screen fades to black; I know my time in Neverland will be over and it'll be time to grow up.
Whipple
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2772
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 03:42:05 -
[32] - Quote
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.
Don't make idle threats, cancel you accounts you little ninny.
I'm sure somebody in EVE would miss you though off the top of my head i can't really imagine anybody who'd give a damn
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Johan Civire
Flux Technologies Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
977
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 03:42:47 -
[33] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Pretty sure they just tweaked the Citadels to shut the space coffin 'I need to grind to feel alive' crybabbies up. There's some nice backdoors in the design though. They're going to die gruesome deaths.
The sov rework is more about waking up 1000s of scrub ratters/Dota players and forcing them to log in and undock, rather than smack badly on forums.
Funny how the failures are racking up.
pwnd them hard |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3140
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 03:53:30 -
[34] - 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. Epic post, but I had some trouble understanding you accent.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
NinjaTurtle
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
99
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 04:07:54 -
[35] - Quote
threatening to unsub your accounts hasn't been a threat since ever long live ytterbium
I do things.
http://declarationsofwar.com
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 04:08:45 -
[36] - 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.
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.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2773
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 04:45:15 -
[37] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: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. 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.
We are in fact more moderated here, its a requirement of the front facing nature of the EVE Official forums.
Should a new potential player swing by to see 'what EVE is about', these forums are what they see first.
CCP protects that area with a relatively iron clad fist, as they should.
However not long after its creation, players gave themselves the vent they needed in some of the various foums found online, anything from Failheap, to Kugu, to SA, to Reddit, there have always been places where the devs can interact with us while not bound to what must be a strick code of conduct for a companies public forums.
I'm not sure why it irks you so much to click a link but i mean, you should just be happy we get this much face time with ANY devs, much less all of them constantly like they currently are on reddit. No other game has quite the relationship with its playerbase that CCP does, you shouldn't care where the hell you have to go to get that kind of relationship, you should just be thankful that you're getting it.
I mean hell, Imagine if you'd given CCP a portion of 60+ million dollars for a game that still had no release and ships were selling for hundreds of actual dollars.
Life could be a lot worse.
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Thoric Frosthammer
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 04:47:18 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Confirmed. The structures team has been by far the most communicative and generally transparent team during my term as CSM. I think you can get the impression from my various communications I'm rather sparing with praise when it comes to CCP. What I'm saying is, don't rain crap on the people who least deserve it~ |
Zappity
the 57th Overlanders Brigade A Band Apart.
2458
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 04:48:45 -
[39] - Quote
The OP raises some interesting questions. First and foremost among which is, 'Why do we not have a dislike button?'
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Darth Terona
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
180
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 04:53:42 -
[40] - 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.
Be careful. I've seen other devs go down this road. Once you start playing the forum trolls game, you've already lost.
Don't let one guy, who may be 12 for all we know, ruin your day brother. Keep up the good work
|
|
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
321
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 04:55:54 -
[41] - 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. 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.
We appreciate you guys, no matter what some shitposter on the forums says. |
Insidious
Hax. Shadow Cartel
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 05:15:39 -
[42] - Quote
n/a |
Axe Coldon
59
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 05:25:09 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog.
That is the most awesome line ever! Way to go CCP Ytterbium
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
Sacu Shi
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
58
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 05:36:37 -
[44] - 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.
Personally, I thinks there should be more heartfelt, sincere and to the point posts like this from CCP. It might begin to put the trolls back under their bridges for a while.
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1042
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 05:59:22 -
[45] - Quote
Vocal Minority, Silent Majority. Keep up the good work CCP!
"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."
U-MAD Membership Recruitment
PoH Corporation Recruitment
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
3018
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 06:17:46 -
[46] - Quote
WE discussed, we argued and looked at all sides. We asked the players and were on way too many different mediums of communitcation and when we talkd to the devs, they listened.
Make everybody happy? Impossible. Make a perfect game? Ditto
Doing their best? I damn well believe that (in this case) they are.
I am mad someone stole my first thought . . .
mic drop
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Malcoreh Vakarhn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 06:38:32 -
[47] - Quote
If any there was a time to say this: Refit thermal. |
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
114
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 06:49:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We wouldn't have to spend time reading [...] reddit You should save yourself some time on that one anyway. Nothing of value ever came from there, contrary to claims of how they "did it". |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
944
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 07:52:58 -
[49] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. I'm guilty of making some unfairly harsh and immature posts myself, but I can't even fathom how it is you came to this conclusion, much less decided to make a thread about it. |
Johnny Twelvebore
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
68
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:02:03 -
[50] - Quote
Well done CCP, for quite some time now you guys have been putting up with every pre-pubescent spergelord shouting on any online forums he can find about how you all collectively suck and that he is unsubbing.
Saying nothing and letting the product speak for you is the professional thing to do I suppose but really in this case it is quite refreshing to see a few guys come out of the woodwork and lay down some home truths (I expect it also makes you feel a great deal better for an hour or so).
Keep on with the upgrades, the silent majority are broadly supportive (and lowsec love you for the BC love). Personally I'm still a fan after the changes years ago that meant I didnt have to hide my frigate from gate guns for 15 mins after killing something - how we ever played in that system I don't know:)
All the best from the Tuskers.
Bloody hell, another eve blog! http://johnnytwelvebore.wordpress.com
|
|
Jesse Wilham
Burning Alder
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:07:26 -
[51] - Quote
ccp getting tired of yo **** man...
|
Xylem Viliana
Protomonolithic
322
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:12:33 -
[52] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog.
Go for the eyes Boo, Go for the eyes!
or in this case beautiful shot to the self important nuts |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
371
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:14:41 -
[53] - 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.
I can't thank you and your team enough for all the tireless work you guys put into this game we all love, it's a shame people like the OP can't seem to see this. when you're ever done (dont' think so) with being a Dev you could work in PR.
best dev response in a long time.
|
Apothne
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:15:08 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium, the PR man we deserve
[center]mastersdegreeinspaceships.wordpress.com[/center]
|
Saint Michaels Soul
Zero Effect Industries Phoebe Freeport Republic
26
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:18:13 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Thank you.
No, thank you for your hard work, making this ace game. |
Asuna Crossbreed
Redemption Road Affirmative.
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:24:46 -
[56] - Quote
So I just want to point out the bigger flaw in this whole thread. While CCP Ytterbium is 100% correct and I love the work they do and the commitment they have made to bring the community into the discussion. It should really be noted that CCP as a whole has done what the OP is accusing them of many times in the past. I'm not sure how this distrust in CCP can be fixed without just continually proving it wrong. I really hope that by bring this more to light it can be thought about by everyone in the process and even be stated sometimes to help inform players that CCP is aware of this fault they had and are actively working to fix it.
Thank you and love you all. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
371
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:34:45 -
[57] - Quote
Asuna Crossbreed wrote:So I just want to point out the bigger flaw in this whole thread. While CCP Ytterbium is 100% correct and I love the work they do and the commitment they have made to bring the community into the discussion. It should really be noted that CCP as a whole has done what the OP is accusing them of many times in the past. I'm not sure how this distrust in CCP can be fixed without just continually proving it wrong. I really hope that by bring this more to light it can be thought about by everyone in the process and even be stated sometimes to help inform players that CCP is aware of this fault they had and are actively working to fix it.
Thank you and love you all.
there is no flaw, OP fires a shot, Dev has agro, Dev returns fire. more of this i say
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6835
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:40:01 -
[58] - Quote
helana Tsero wrote:You would rather ''CCP admits they released a failed design and are now scrambling to fix a system players don't want'' pasted all over the gaming press.... That will do wonders for attracting new players. Sometimes PR spin is for a good reason. The role of PR is to make outsiders / potential new players believe the game is going well and new and exciting features are planned. Not to talk about the problems and mistakes devs inevitably make in a game world as complicated as EvE... EvE is a business.... not your local church... grow up. Yes, I'd rather see that.
The thing is, no matter how much spin they put on it, we all know it's spin, so they aren't successfully spinning it. Worse, they then try to save face by standing by the mechanics trying to tweak them into working. If they just said "we effed up" and moved on to making a decent mechanic, it would work out much better in the long run. Instead we now have to watch as they slowly iterate the mechanic until it's a new mechanic.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Ari Xali
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:41:54 -
[59] - Quote
I just want to drop my own line of appreciation to the Devs of CCP.
Thank you.
For everything.
Nothing is perfect and i've seen hundreds if not thousands of changes made by CCP over the years. Change is good, change keeps things from being stale and the lengths CCP go to to listen to the players, interact and try to improve the game we all love, should be and is appreciated by me and many others.
Keep up the good work and don't let the trolls get you down. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2031
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:44:29 -
[60] - Quote
It's not CCPs fault.
They gave the players everything they asked for.
______
+1 Ytterbium, +1 |
|
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
|
|
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
447
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:36:56 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: How about, thank you? Indeed. Thank you Ytterbium!
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format.
Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12472
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:42:16 -
[92] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
I pressed the like button on a DeMichael Crimson post and a Lucas Kell post. It was like divding by zero..
But at least something positive can come from all this a new corporate motto:
"CCP hf, bringing even mortal enemies together, one disastrous miscommunication at a time"
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12472
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:50:04 -
[93] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote: 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.
Well, they don't seem to like player feedback. That is why I had this reaction.
For years they've announced stuff, many of us have posted saying "there is a flaw here, and here's what it is". There seemed to be a 'digging in' by CCP and they stick to their plan. It goes wrong, then they have to spend time and money fixing the thing that many of us told them would be a problem.
In other words, giving feedback to CCP is exactly as effective as giving feedback to my 17 year old daughter lol. Too many times to count, CCP has asked for feedback and then seemed to ignore it, even when that feedback was damn near unanimous. This gives the impressions (real or imagined) that CCP doesn't really want feed back and is just asking for it for "PR" reasons.
You know how much I appreciate and admire CCP, I go to forum war daily in support of their efforts. But they have traditionally had a problem with communication, and have sometimes seemed to make decisions based on some really faulty assumptions which results in them implementing stuff poorly, which is no fun for us, but, more importantly, costs them time and money to fix. Even a "CCP fanboi" like me has to admit this. |
Seven Koskanaiken
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
1648
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:57:19 -
[94] - Quote
Lucia Denniard wrote:We asked for occupancy sov, we didn't ask for EHP-free occupancy sov.
Before proteus (January) CCP release a survey to gather to player feedback on structure gameplay.
The last section deals with sov structures. The final question is "What is the main problem with Sovereignty structure gameplay today based on your experience?".
In March the devblog is released announced entosis.
Now it could be everyone filled that question out telling ccp how much they love ehp and CCP completely ignored it and decided to spite the players by doing the exact polar opposite. Or it could be eve players are, in the main, a bunch of impossible to please adult babies who suddenly want the toys back that they previously threw out of the pram... |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
248
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:09:38 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
well, if we really want to be honest here, regarding player feedback, i must say that this case is the exception and not the rule;
don't get me wrong, i really appreciate your " open approach" and i hope this will be the "new CCP way " but just saying this is how CCP managed always or even most player feedback just is not right; yes, you guys do a great job with this "citadel 2.0", but there are allot of let's say very bad examples in this last year where CCP ignored player feedback entirely or just used the bits convergent with theyr own views;
one recent example that come to my mind, is last missile rebalance thread, where after asking for feedback, CCP went missing, totally ignoring player feedback: basic and pertinent questions like, "are this numbers posted for scripted or unscripted mods?" or are the new mods stacking penalized with missile rigs" or "are the missile rigs staking penalized now?" where answered many days latter by a...CSM member, cose no one at CCP could be bothered ; and don't get me started about new map or new icons or new inventory...
so if we are to talk about respect, while you are right to say what you say, that you desrve respect, how about the players that spent hours on test server to test new proposed mechanics and find out that CCP completely ignored they'r effort and dedication; how many bugs made on live server this last year, despite them being reported on test server?
"respect" is a two way street; maybe it's time to take a moment, look around a bit and start using both ways of the street
while this reply was addressed to CCP Ytterbium, by "CCP" i'm not refering to you in particular, but at the entire CCP; like i said, this exception of yours is very nice and probally the only thing that is keeping me into the game, but the fact is, CCP have a problem, and the first thing in resolving a problem is admitting you have one
ps.: and lol at all those eve players jumping into the bandwagon stomping on the op; last week you are all "waaah eve is dyeing" and now you pretend this never occured ...
|
Utemetsu
119
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:12:50 -
[96] - Quote
Been playing on and off since 2009, and currently have a total of three accounts subscribed. I've only just recently started flying again, but each time I log in, I find the game better than before.
Keep it up, CCP. You're doing revolutionary work. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25136
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:14:29 -
[97] - 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. Shots fired.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
623
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:20:20 -
[98] - Quote
Sad to see so much hindsight whining. In the end to the current sov, I doubt anybody predicted that inties would become the meta so strongly. Yeah, it is wack a mole and all that means is there is a hole in playstyle. It is adaptable. Why is it if say... 200 ceptors come in cannot the defenders just instaswat them from the skies. Why dont the inties need defenders?
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6841
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:25:26 -
[99] - Quote
It's what was asked for, but it's not was provided. Occupancy only has one role in sov, raising indices. If occupancy itself was the driver for control in the system, i.e. living in and utilising the space is a key part of deciding ownership, then it would be occupancy sov. As it is, sov is instead controlled by who can get one pilot unmolested for a given amount of time to mine the structure, much like the old system but with less players and less guns. The occupancy part just changes how long that pilot has to mine.
Sibyyl wrote: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. Of course they do, but then when people are stating things are going to happen and be bad - like trollceptors - it doesn't take a genius to work out it's probably spot on. And surprise surprise, it is.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Amber Starview
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:37:26 -
[100] - Quote
Lots of people bashing the OP here but he is not the only person to spread misery and salt on these forums , constantly amazed the level of bitterness towards fellow players and ccp
Hopefully this at least stops some of it In the future ,good job Dev good job |
|
Fugue Crow
Dirt 'n' Glitter Local Is Primary
10
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:41:27 -
[101] - 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.
Sorry for the long quote, but I have to step up here. As a former game dev lead for a few different (mostly smaller but I had a brush with Privateer Press for a bit) companies, I have always been impressed with how CCP goes out of their way to cater to their playerbase.
That said, you also have to consider the playerbase of Eve, and how deeply connected they are to the quality of the game. Eve is much deeper than a theme park MMO where they can throw flash and bad mechanics at people.
Frankly, Ytterbium, I don't think the game would have lasted this long if you guys took that attitude. It's your dedication to the playerbase that has done the most for us.
Not enough people play on the test server or value time on the test server enough for us to have really known everything the new sov mechanics were going to do. We DID know about the interceptor problem, though, and I really hope that one goes up on your product wall of shame. That was a big boo-boo and I hope no one involved forgets it for a while. Every dev shed has goofups like that though - and in game development, rushing a fix to production often does more harm than good. CCP didn't play that one very well, but they did okay in my books.
Nullsec has developed a disgusting culture of risk aversity, as shown by my lack of "Test Alliance Please Ignore" as of last weekend. My personal thought towards it is to put this damage mitigation and citadel structure stuff on dominion sov and make a few tweaks, and call it a day. I think that would force a lot more big fights over XL sov structures (base the size on indices) without letting a superpower faceroll smaller groups out of their sov as easily.
I'm curious to see what further tweaks you guys make to Aegis sov to make alliances heat things up. It's not the new sov mechanics that have made me leave - frankly, I like them, they make for a lot of small and medium gang fun - but it's the alliances response. Sov null has never been about good small and medium gang skirmish fights - that's FW and I love it - null is about the big ****.
With the game as it is right now I don't think we'll ever see another B-5RB.
...that said, don't forget Asakai started over a lowsec customs office...
daily PSA: don't hit jump instead of bridge! |
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12473
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:43:32 -
[102] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:Sad to see so much hindsight whining. In the end to the current sov, I doubt anybody predicted that inties would become the meta so strongly. Yeah, it is wack a mole and all that means is there is a hole in playstyle. It is adaptable. Why is it if say... 200 ceptors come in cannot the defenders just instaswat them from the skies. Why dont the inties need defenders?
This guy predicted it 39 minutes after CCP annnounced aegis-Sov and opened it's feedback thread.
39 minutes.
That was in March. CCP disallowing entosis links on ceptors will be what, next month? October.
39 minutes for someone to identify the problem, 7 months for CCP to fix it. See how this might be an issue with feedback? |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1378
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:45:13 -
[103] - Quote
@CCP Ytterbium, thank you for all your years of hard work. I greatly appreciate it when devs not only listen to the player base, but take time out of their day to respond on the forums.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25674
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:47:54 -
[104] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Of course they do, but then when people are stating things are going to happen and be bad - like trollceptors - it doesn't take a genius to work out it's probably spot on. And surprise surprise, it is.
There were plenty of people defending trollceptors in the feedback threadnaughts. Hindsight is always 20/20 but unfortunately you're mistaking it for prescience. There has never been player consensus for SOV.. you see consensus because a lot of people with strong opinions always seems to have blinders on.
I'll make a list of fallacies: 1. CCP owes it to the players to listen to them and implement their feedback 2. CCP not listening to players always results in problems 3. CCP listening to players never results in problems 4. CCP must not have had any motivations I am personally not aware of 5. CCP owes it to us to communicate first on the forums because we haven't learned how to use reddit or Twitter 6. The game development process should be perfect 7. As a player I should be consulted before changes are made in the game 8. CCP should have listened to one specific person out of a 1,000 because in hindsight their feedback seems right to me
Really, the entitled folks I see in here are the ones I'd never expect to adopt that position. It's surprising.
And I wish I could shout you out
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1379
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:51:23 -
[105] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Markus Reese wrote:Sad to see so much hindsight whining. In the end to the current sov, I doubt anybody predicted that inties would become the meta so strongly. Yeah, it is wack a mole and all that means is there is a hole in playstyle. It is adaptable. Why is it if say... 200 ceptors come in cannot the defenders just instaswat them from the skies. Why dont the inties need defenders? This guy predicted it 39 minutes after CCP annnounced aegis-Sov and opened it's feedback thread. 39 minutes. That was in March. CCP disallowing entosis links on ceptors will be what, next month? October. 39 minutes for someone to identify the problem, 7 months for CCP to fix it. See how this might be an issue with feedback?
C, as much as I appreciate the level of developer interaction we enjoy these days (it didn't used to be like this) sometimes devs don't listen until it is too late.
TBH, I think the problem is more to do with interdiction nullified interceptors themselves, which was identified as a problem from the very beginning.
I am disheartened to see a return to the EHP days of super-cap supremacy. All it will take to roll someones sov now will be hiring PL to bring 100 supers and roll all the structures again. If you can't hire them for more or have your own fleet sufficient to fight them, you can't win.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:54:22 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:00:52:27 UTC Nuff said. I'm pretty sure there was a lot of "thank you" in the feedback thread. Alongside with some constructive criticism. |
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12474
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:00:59 -
[107] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Of course they do, but then when people are stating things are going to happen and be bad - like trollceptors - it doesn't take a genius to work out it's probably spot on. And surprise surprise, it is. There were plenty of people defending trollceptors in the feedback threadnaughts. Hindsight is always 20/20 but unfortunately you're mistaking it for prescience. There has never been player consensus for SOV.. you see consensus because a lot of people with strong opinions always seems to have blinders on. I'll make a list of fallacies: 1. CCP owes it to the players to listen to them and implement their feedback 2. CCP not listening to players always results in problems 3. CCP listening to players never results in problems 4. CCP must not have had any motivations I am personally not aware of 5. CCP owes it to us to communicate first on the forums because we haven't learned how to use reddit or Twitter 6. The game development process should be perfect 7. As a player I should be consulted before changes are made in the game 8. CCP should have listened to one specific person out of a 1,000 because in hindsight their feedback seems right to me Really, the entitled folks I see in here are the ones I'd never expect to adopt that position. It's surprising.
You're making a mistake here Sibyyl. I know, I've made the exact same mistake when talking to Lucas Kell . Normally, relying on the idea that "well, Lucas Kell said it, therefore it must be wrong" Is a reliable way to think, but it doesn't always work.
(That's right, even when I agree with a mofo, Ima take a swipe at him. It's the American way lol)
No one is expecting CCP to be perfect,, to predict the future or anything. And No one is saying CCP owes us anything at all other than access to their game in exchange for a sub (well, at least I'm not saying those things, others might be lol).
But that being said, CCP is pretty bad imo at listening to the feedback they ask for. The 1st time I personally noticed this was in early 2011, I was one of the people telling CCP that this could be a mistake (I can't read the future, so I didn't 'know' the future any more than they do, but I had a strong feeling). They went ahead with it, many PVErs fled to high sec to run incursions and other things, and CCP had to come back an revisit it 9 months later.
I was like "WTF, why wouldn't you want to do it right the 1st time rather than have to spend time and money to fix it later" and I've been that way several times since. Somewhere there is a disconnect between what game designers at CCP think and what actual players do, and many of us have pointed this out, but the underlying way of doing things don't seem to ever change, leading to frustration.
Frustration that could be avoided if CCP were a tad bit better and gauging good feedback vs noise. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:04:49 -
[108] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:I am disheartened to see a return to the EHP days of super-cap supremacy. Supercap supremacy is the problem of supercaps themselves, particulary the fact that they dont have asymmetric counter. That flaw can and should be fixed. And that fix can and will be something other than "remove them from the game altogether". Taking away EHP grind was exactly a part of "remove" plan, it was a mistake, now it's getting fixed.
Have a patience to wait for capship rebalance. |
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25674
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:09:13 -
[109] - Quote
Ok I see what you're saying Jenn. I'm sort of inclined to quote Frank Underwood and say "You're entitled to nothing".. but I get your point.
And as far as the forum piranhas go.. Lucas, Tippa, you, DMC.. well it's always been a fascinating Discovery Channel show watching who eats who.
And I wish I could shout you out
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
623
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:19:05 -
[110] - Quote
39 minutes, and the post was lost within 15 to unconstructive whining. Just example that I am all to familiar with where people are more concerned about pushing their own point instead of discussing the problem. So right there it could have been the main focus, and instead people just whined that sov wasn't restricted to rolling supercap fleets.
There are multiple ways that it can be thwarted. Increased sig size, entosis disables your prop mods, etc. I can see CCPs vision, having the attack fleet with entosis ships, and defense fleet on counter entosis. I just think they didn't take seriously how difficult stopping a trollceptor fleet would be. Even me, i cannot actually envision it.
You know what it is? Entosis range simply too far. What happens if they drop that range down? Simply force the ceptors within a reasonable scram range.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
|
Spurty
Dimension Door We need wards.
1570
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:25:05 -
[111] - Quote
Waiting for capship rebalance .. with expectations that something is going to morph into a Supercap assassination machine.
There are good ships
And wood ships
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are
Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Commander Spurty
Dimension Door We need wards.
1570
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:25:05 -
[112] - Quote
Waiting for capship rebalance .. with expectations that something is going to morph into a Supercap assassination machine.
There are good ships
And wood ships
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are
Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Arec Bardwin
1861
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:25:59 -
[113] - Quote
CCP Manifest wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Confirmed. Ytterbium is not a PR person. He is now. His post makes me renew my 12 month subscription plans.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2101
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:28:58 -
[114] - 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.
I have yo ssy you arey favorite french man ever!!! Ty ccp you guys are awesome and we love you guys and gals
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3981
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:31:51 -
[115] - Quote
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:Lucia Denniard wrote:We asked for occupancy sov, we didn't ask for EHP-free occupancy sov. Before proteus (January) CCP release a survey to gather to player feedback on structure gameplay. The last section deals with sov structures. The final question is "What is the main problem with Sovereignty structure gameplay today based on your experience?". In March the devblog is released announced entosis. Now it could be everyone filled that question out telling ccp how much they love ehp and CCP completely ignored it and decided to spite the players by doing the exact polar opposite. Or it could be eve players are, in the main, a bunch of impossible to please adult babies who suddenly want the toys back that they previously threw out of the pram...
Oh, but that poll had a small flaw... almost neglectable...
It didn't asked why people was NOT using structures.
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?"
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12474
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:33:23 -
[116] - Quote
Commander Spurty wrote: Waiting for capship rebalance .. with expectations that something is going to morph into a Supercap assassination machine.
I remember talk of a tech 2 BS that was like a giant bomber to deal with super caps. I really wanted to see that.
Same thing for the "strategic weapons" that were supposed to be a part of T3 cruisers but never materialized.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17071
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:33:46 -
[117] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Markus Reese wrote:Sad to see so much hindsight whining. In the end to the current sov, I doubt anybody predicted that inties would become the meta so strongly. Yeah, it is wack a mole and all that means is there is a hole in playstyle. It is adaptable. Why is it if say... 200 ceptors come in cannot the defenders just instaswat them from the skies. Why dont the inties need defenders? This guy predicted it 39 minutes after CCP annnounced aegis-Sov and opened it's feedback thread. 39 minutes. That was in March. CCP disallowing entosis links on ceptors will be what, next month? October. 39 minutes for someone to identify the problem, 7 months for CCP to fix it. See how this might be an issue with feedback? C, as much as I appreciate the level of developer interaction we enjoy these days (it didn't used to be like this) sometimes devs don't listen until it is too late. TBH, I think the problem is more to do with interdiction nullified interceptors themselves, which was identified as a problem from the very beginning. I am disheartened to see a return to the EHP days of super-cap supremacy. All it will take to roll someones sov now will be hiring PL to bring 100 supers and roll all the structures again. If you can't hire them for more or have your own fleet sufficient to fight them, you can't win.
Sov won't be based on citadels
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Nicola Arman
Lacuna.
57
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:39:22 -
[118] - 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. Love you. |
Sophie Elongur
Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 15:03:55 -
[119] - Quote
cya m8 |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
8629
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 15:23:56 -
[120] - Quote
Neither electoral reform nor proportionate representation is getting old, nor should we whine about it.
[b]----
CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.[/b]
|
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
694
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 15:31:44 -
[121] - Quote
We'll adapt to whatever you throw at us.
Please sir, can we have some more?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Clyde en Marland
Raised By Wolves Inc Nerfed Alliance Go Away
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 15:32:10 -
[122] - 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.
CCP, you provide us with the following:
- A playground full of wonderful toys
- Hours of entertainment
- Regular updates
- Regular fixes
- Experiments
- Changes when we don't like something, or when something doesn't work
- Daft Xmas presents that exists for no other reason than they're funny (how much work does your humour create you?)
On behalf of R3MUS & NAGA, & anyone of worth who hasn't seen this travesty of an OP, thank you. |
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
694
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 15:42:34 -
[123] - Quote
Clyde en Marland wrote:CCP, you provide us with the following:
- A playground full of wonderful toys
- Hours of entertainment
- Regular updates
- Regular fixes
- Experiments
- Changes when we don't like something, or when something doesn't work
- Daft Xmas presents that exists for no other reason than they're funny (how much work does your humour create you?)
On behalf of R3MUS & NAGA, & anyone of worth who hasn't seen this travesty of an OP, thank you.
Don't forget vigilant anti-monopoly regulations as well.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6841
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 15:45:14 -
[124] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:There were plenty of people defending trollceptors in the feedback threadnaughts. Of course there were, the people using them. There will always be people defending something that benefits them greatly no matter how ********. LEt's face it though, the idea that a single frigate is all you need to contest sov is way up there with the dumbest **** ever.
Sibyyl wrote:Hindsight is always 20/20 but unfortunately you're mistaking it for prescience. There has never been player consensus for SOV.. you see consensus because a lot of people with strong opinions always seems to have blinders on. It's not hindsight though, it was foresight. We (as in anyone with a remote amount of common sense) knew about trollceptors and the problems they would cause LOOOONG before they existed.
Sibyyl wrote:I'll make a list of fallacies: 1. CCP owes it to the players to listen to them and implement their feedback 2. CCP not listening to players always results in problems 3. CCP listening to players never results in problems 4. CCP must not have had any motivations I am personally not aware of 5. CCP owes it to us to communicate first on the forums because we haven't learned how to use reddit or Twitter 6. The game development process should be perfect 7. As a player I should be consulted before changes are made in the game 8. CCP should have listened to one specific person out of a 1,000 because in hindsight their feedback seems right to me
Really, the entitled folks I see in here are the ones I'd never expect to adopt that position. It's surprising. We don't expect perfection or CCP to listen to everyone or to run everything by us, but the entire entosis system has been a complete ****-up, and much of it could have been prevented by CCP having a basic understanding of what the players enjoy. Most of this was explained to them in great detail by numerous sources and they seemed even more reluctant to listen to players than normal. It's no surprise now that they are already starting to backtrack.
The thing is, I think they should just put their hands up say "we messed it up" and try again, rather than the desperate attempt to save face by taking the shards of the broken mechanics that look OK-ish and build them. I'm certainly not going to pat them on the back and say "well done chaps" for delivering a steaming pile of manure and expecting us to jump into it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
694
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 15:50:26 -
[125] - Quote
The only thing I really hate about fozziemechanics is the timezone ****.
I used to reave in one region for 25 and half hours a day for nine days a week.
Now when I get home at odd times, I sometimes end up relegated to strategic ratting duty!
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Bluespot85
Cherry Popper Mining Company
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 16:55:23 -
[126] - 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.
I don't think it's helpful for a CCP employee to be that blunt when addressing the people that pay your wages. Why don't you try a line that involves a $500 pair of jeans instead.
So since being blunt is the new way that CCP commincates, i'll do the same.
Maybe you should try introducing some real content into the game instead of ship skins, nerfs and all the other useless crap that has gone on so far this year. Drip feeding shite content involving drifters that do **** all, player built star gates that never materialise, poorly thought out 0.0 mechanics only serve to **** people off....then again, why change the habits that CCP is so adept at. OOOO look, theres a star going supernova, what fun.
This game is bleeding players, everyone can see it, yet you seem incapable of doing anything about it, try playing the game once in a while and you might learn something.
Nobody can be arsed to go on sisi and test the pile of shite that you conjure up, have you not realised that after 18 years of development? You ignore most of the feedback given...boot.ini anyone?
The real problem with eve online now isn't fozzie sov, it's CCP skylark. The fact that the game is bleeding subs is down the her, it's on her watch that this has happened. You can't improve a game that is supposed to be based on conflict with a woman at the helm. It's generally accepted that women are far less aggresive than men....so why appoint a woman to run a game based on aggression and conflict......now that was a stupid decision. Replacing a guy who looked stoned all the time with a woman.....really? CCP Soniclover would have been the perfect choice, everytime he is allowed to have some input into the game it gets better.
As an organisation you have become known as a bunch of liars. So many features are shown at fanfest that never get introduced.
THAT IS CALLED LIEING. Maybe in Iceland thats the norm.
I didn't write this post for your specific little special feelings, it was written in the hope that someone in your pathetic organisation can actually get a grip without having your hands held by a bunch of brown nosing CSM.
You'll be pleased to know that alot of your customers are trying/looking at other games that your competitors are developing, maybe thats the only way that you clowns will up your game.
Blue
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
1753
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 17:16:16 -
[127] - Quote
Quote:You can't improve a game that is supposed to be based on conflict with a woman at the helm. It's generally accepted that women are far less aggressive than men....so why appoint a woman to run a game based on aggression and conflict......now that was a stupid decision. Replacing a guy who looked stoned all the time with a woman.....really?
I think EVE could stand to lose a few more subscriptions. At least one, anyway.
Hero of the CSM
Alek the Kidnapper
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
|
Morgan Torry
Arma Purgatorium
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 17:17:57 -
[128] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:Donald Trump's Press Secretary remarks...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Just leave, I nearly died from pains in my stomach from laughing so hard.
Arma Purgatorium - What is Podded May Never Die
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26335
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 17:37:47 -
[129] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:=ƒÿ¡=ƒÿ¡=ƒÿ¡=ƒÿ¡ Sod off.
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.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
191
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 17:51:01 -
[130] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:The real problem with eve online now isn't fozzie sov, it's CCP skylark. The fact that the game is bleeding subs is down the her, it's on her watch that this has happened. You can't improve a game that is supposed to be based on conflict with a woman at the helm. It's generally accepted that women are far less aggresive than men....so why appoint a woman to run a game based on aggression and conflict......now that was a stupid decision. Replacing a guy who looked stoned all the time with a woman.....really? Let's have a look at aggressive man's kill board.
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25149
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 17:53:24 -
[131] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:I don't think it's helpful for a CCP employee to be that blunt when addressing the people that pay your wages. Why don't you try a line that involves a $500 pair of jeans instead.
So since being blunt is the new way that CCP commincates, i'll do the same. Being blunt leaves no doubt, it is sometimes required. Many of us like that CCP devs aren't afraid to be blunt on occasion, sometimes they get it wrong as in the case of the $1000 designer jeans, but for the most part it is appreciated.
Quote:This game is bleeding players, everyone can see it, yet you seem incapable of doing anything about it, try playing the game once in a while and you might learn something. PCU is not subs, their relationship is not what you think it is.
Quote: ~ redacted sexist attack on a CCP employee ~ ...now that was a stupid decision. ~ followed by an attack on an ex-CCP employee~ The redacted parts of your post certainly were a stupid decision.
Quote:As an organisation you have become known as a bunch of liars. So many features are shown at fanfest that never get introduced.
THAT IS CALLED LIEING. Maybe in Iceland thats the norm. Oh boy.
Quote:I didn't write this post for your specific little special feelings, it was written in the hope that someone in your pathetic organisation can actually get a grip without having your hands held by a bunch of brown nosing CSM.
You'll be pleased to know that alot of your customers are trying/looking at other games that your competitors are developing, maybe thats the only way that you clowns will up your game.
Blue If they're anywhere near as bigoted and vile as you appear to be, then good riddance. Please feel free to contract me all of your stuff at your earliest convenience.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
624
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 17:58:41 -
[132] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:The only thing I really hate about fozziemechanics is the timezone ****.
I used to reave in one region for 25 and half hours a day for nine days a week.
Now when I get home at odd times, I sometimes end up relegated to strategic ratting duty!
That is the one part that did have me scratching my head. It makes sense for reinforcement timers to have it so a person can set what time zone it comes out of reinforcement. Really basic stuff, in event of a fuel infusion, why can the computer in the pos do that? For entosis, it is something i didn't look enough into. They should always be vulnerable initially.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
6388
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 18:18:12 -
[133] - Quote
Removed some off topic posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Dersen Lowery
Scanners Live in Vain
1760
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 18:18:39 -
[134] - Quote
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.
Let's not think about why. Let's just complain. Because that logic can't possibly be why so much CCP feedback flows through just about every other channel before it reaches this one.
Talk about censorship all you want; the problem is that the official forums are about 5% helpful and 95% toxic.
Change that, and we won't have to ~demand~ that CCP interact with us. They will.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Sarah Flynt
125
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 18:26:57 -
[135] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:Lots of sexist junk and:
As an organisation you have become known as a bunch of liars. So many features are shown at fanfest that never get introduced.
THAT IS CALLED LIEING. Maybe in Iceland thats the norm. Hear hear, a CODE. alt accuses others of lying. YMMD
Use the one of his main instead. Only the finest elite PVP.
Bluespot85 wrote:You'll be pleased to know that alot of your customers are trying/looking at other games that your competitors are developing, maybe thats the only way that you clowns will up your game. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
23077
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 18:41:07 -
[136] - Quote
CCP Manifest wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Confirmed. Ytterbium is not a PR person.
Well he ******* should be. I respect blunt talk like that more than I respect the 'smoke being blown up my ***' that you get from other companies.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Otso Bakarti
Filial Pariahs
305
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 19:17:41 -
[137] - Quote
Once you have the wolf by the ears, it's not wise to let go.
Back from the 90-day suspension for speaking truth to power.
|
Kazini Jax
Starlight Operations
20
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 19:26:26 -
[138] - 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.
"To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog."
You mean you look the desire to NOT lie to people? How sad Yea, that's a real special little feeling only I must desire. That is a **** poor, condescending BS answer!
Here is what I have read:
CCP devs are fine with lying and will use their position as an excuse to not be truthful. All you had to do was say 'we realized we were wrong' instead of pretend. WTF is so bad about just admitting when you were wrong? I would have more respect for you as a company.
Everyone else is just fine with being lied to by corporations. Everyone bitches about corporations lying to them but aren't willing to call them out on it. In fact, quite the opposite. You support them when it serves your desire.
A lot of reductio ad absurdum.
You lost my respect and my money
The rest of your are just making excuse to be apathetic, sad little consumers. Pathetic! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26349
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 19:42:33 -
[139] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:Here is what I have read:
Some CCP devs are fine with lying and will use their position as an excuse to not be truthful. All you had to do was say 'we realized we were wrong' instead of pretend. GǪand the lie isGǪ?
Quote:A lot of reductio ad absurdum. Where?
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17072
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 19:42:54 -
[140] - Quote
"When you realise you've put your foot in your mouth, chew harder!"
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
154
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 20:05:07 -
[141] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:The rest of your are just making excuse to be apathetic, sad little consumers. Pathetic!
How dare we not share your preferences and cynicism! |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
689
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 20:14:05 -
[142] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote: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. "To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog." You mean you lack the desire to not lie to people? How sad Yea, to not be lied to is a real special little feeling only I must desire. That is a **** poor, condescending BS answer! Here is what I have read: Some CCP devs are fine with lying and will use their position as an excuse to not be truthful. All you had to do was say 'we realized we were wrong' instead of pretend. WTF is so bad about just admitting when you were wrong? I would have more respect for you as a company. Everyone else is just fine with being lied to by corporations. Everyone bitches about corporations lying to them but aren't willing to call them out on it. In fact, quite the opposite. You support them when it serves your desire. A lot of reductio ad absurdum. Sorry, I am not going to be such a sad human as to not stand up for what is right. You lost my respect and my money. The rest of your are just making excuse to be apathetic, sad little consumers. Pathetic!
I'll just bring the excavator over so you can dig yourself an even deeper hole....you utter fuckwit.
Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome
|
Memphis Baas
591
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 20:30:28 -
[143] - Quote
NOOOO! Please don't go; your respect, we can't live without it. CCP can't do anything without your respect! And your $15/mo. It's the end of the world for them. |
Kazini Jax
Starlight Operations
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 20:51:07 -
[144] - Quote
4 accounts permanently closed. RIP Eve. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26350
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 20:53:07 -
[145] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:4 accounts permanently closed. =ƒì+=ƒÄë=ƒÄå
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.
|
Arec Bardwin
1863
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 20:54:43 -
[146] - Quote
Hi, is this the thread that ordered the portable gallows?
Kazini Jax wrote:4 accounts permanently closed. RIP Eve. Can I have your stuff? |
Memphis Baas
592
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 20:56:04 -
[147] - Quote
Permanently, or like in 2010, when (looking at your posting history) CCP lost your respect because (looking at your killboard stats) you lost your battlecruiser to a player in wormhole space? |
Marsha Mallow
2552
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 20:59:34 -
[148] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:4 accounts permanently closed. RIP Eve. Hand over the Fedos
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: TO THE PITCHFORKMOBILE!
Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
Jenn aSide wrote: does anyone have any assless chaps I could borrow?
|
Dominous Nolen
Powder and Ball Alchemist Industries
79
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:01:08 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog.
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100622142514/xorviel/images/d/d0/Orson_Welles_Citizen_Kane_clapping_.gif
This is EVE, Not Hello Kitty: Island Adventure
===================================
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25154
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:11:55 -
[150] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:4 accounts permanently closed. RIP Eve. The collective IQ just went up.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
Kazini Jax
Starlight Operations
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:15:49 -
[151] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:NOOOO! Please don't go; your respect, we can't live without it. CCP can't do anything without your respect! And your $15/mo. It's the end of the world for them.
3 years ago they averaged 28,000 years online at any time, now they average 19,000. You can be hyperbolic all you want, but the truth is they are bleeding users and this is one of the reasons. |
Kazini Jax
Starlight Operations
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:23:13 -
[152] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Permanently, or like in 2010, when (looking at your posting history) CCP lost your respect because (looking at your killboard stats) you lost your battlecruiser to a player in wormhole space?
Actually, the two are not connected in any way. I don't have a problem losing ships. Then I left cause of CCPs over use of the word 'sandbox'. It's not a sandbox. But I've also monitored there changing as I am willing to give a second chance if earned. I just returned to give them that chance. They failed. It's permanent this time.
Nice try (not really, it was sad and lame) |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2252
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:24:25 -
[153] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:Memphis Baas wrote:Permanently, or like in 2010, when (looking at your posting history) CCP lost your respect because (looking at your killboard stats) you lost your battlecruiser to a player in wormhole space? Actually, the two are not connected in any way. I don't have a problem losing ships. Then I left cause of CCPs over use of the word 'sandbox'. It's not a sandbox. But I've also monitored there changing as I am willing to give a second chance if earned. I just returned to give them that chance. They failed. It's permanent this time. Nice try (not really, it was sad and lame)
You quit because they overused a word? |
Giaus Felix
Hedion University Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:30:46 -
[154] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:4 accounts permanently closed. RIP Eve. I have no doubt that panda-verse awaits your arrival with bated breath.
Please make sure to biomass each and every one of your characters before you quit, but not before you've given me your stuff.
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
371
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:43:24 -
[155] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:4 accounts permanently closed. RIP Eve.
Kazini Jax wrote:
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
3 years ago you said this. nobody believes you.
biomass and youtube it. all 4 of them or it never happened. just like 3 years ago. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2778
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:48:57 -
[156] - 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.
Wait, you mean why didn't they listen to a bunch of players who's alliances would be negatively impacted by the proposed changes?
Man its such a mystery!
I mean we both know that EVE players would never go out of their way to try and save their own ass right? They were obviously all only acting in the games best interest and not collectively trying to hold on to the pie they'd created right?
Lucia Denniard wrote:We asked for occupancy sov, we didn't ask for EHP-free occupancy sov.
Actually a pretty good portion of the game agree'd that shooting **** that didn't have a player in it and couldn't shoot back was really terrible game play, thanks for being an active part of the community and noticing
Honestly the amount of garbage you've dumped into this thread while sitting in one of the most active regions in the game (a fact that you can thank Aegis Sov for) is simply amazing. Its like you eat paint or something.
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
691
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 22:06:20 -
[157] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:4 accounts permanently closed. RIP Eve.
Good riddance. Please use your abundance of new spare time to do something constructive with your hitherto worthless existance, personally I would recommend some form of education to correct your lack of knowledge and atrocious debating skills. Of course that's doing you the courtesy of assuming you actually did leave this time and are not just carrying on pretending you did because you think it somehow makes your point any less stupid.
Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 22:22:01 -
[158] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:The only thing I really hate about fozziemechanics is the timezone ****.
I used to reave in one region for 25 and half hours a day for nine days a week.
Now when I get home at odd times, I sometimes end up relegated to strategic ratting duty! That is the one part that did have me scratching my head. It makes sense for reinforcement timers to have it so a person can set what time zone it comes out of reinforcement. Really basic stuff, in event of a fuel infusion, why can the computer in the pos do that? For entosis, it is something i didn't look enough into. They should always be vulnerable initially.
Now only POSes are vulnerable at all times. Entosis things are subject to timezone apartheid. I can't quite spend all day dropping and watching SBUs like before, instead I have to play "fun with indexes" during off-times, either ratting, or denying other people the chance to rat, in order to raise and lower indexes to gain entosis advantages during the "prime" time.
I cringe when I hear that they want Citadels to become "weekends online".
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Silence Dubensky
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 23:05:55 -
[159] - Quote
Kazini Jax wrote:Memphis Baas wrote:Permanently, or like in 2010, when (looking at your posting history) CCP lost your respect because (looking at your killboard stats) you lost your battlecruiser to a player in wormhole space? Actually, the two are not connected in any way. I don't have a problem losing ships. Then I left cause of CCPs over use of the word 'sandbox'. It's not a sandbox. But I've also monitored there changing as I am willing to give a second chance if earned. I just returned to give them that chance. They failed. It's permanent this time. Nice try (not really, it was sad and lame)
It appears that you're in a less than satisfactory state of mind. Perhaps if would help if you understood that no one cares in the slightest about one butthurt player with four whole accounts quits (ouch, looks like the end is nigh).
The playercount drop is largely attributed to the ISBoxer changes, and has actually been holding relatively steady recently.
No more tears, only dreams now. |
Memphis Baas
594
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 01:01:30 -
[160] - Quote
So, for how long will your remaining subscription give us the pleasure of hearing the phrase "permanently, this time" being repeated? |
|
sixteen 64
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 01:22:04 -
[161] - Quote
This thread would have generally been locked, but no, CCP calls out a paying customer as a "special snowflake" and the rest of GD trolls and hypocrites come out to give CCP a reach around
GeeGee
******* hilarious |
Orabi Deninard
Virtues Corporation Paragons Of Virtue
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 01:26:20 -
[162] - Quote
BWAAAAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHH
......aaaaaaaaaHhaahahahaahahaahahahaahaahaa
Fuggin REKT son. Rock on CCP. |
Memphis Baas
595
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 01:32:55 -
[163] - Quote
Can you imagine this in a restaurant setting, with Ytterbium as a server and the OP as the ******* customer? Maybe Ytterbium would give a polite response instead of his (now famous) quote, but the guy's 4 accounts would be so messed with back in the kitchen... |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
6390
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 01:41:38 -
[164] - Quote
Quote:Forum rules23. Post constructively.Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting. Due to continually offtopic posting, I'm going to close the thread now. Thank you.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |