|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
13886
   |
Posted - 2016.04.09 02:02:06 -
[1] - Quote
People that know me know I generally oppose things like this. I think there are unintended consequences CCP doesn't take into account, and moves like this take EVE further away from it's core principles and move it more towards the "meh" most of the mmo world is. I'm even generally opposed to small incremental changes like this , even if it isn't earth shattering, it's going in the wrong direction.
I can't work up a whole bunch of hate for this idea though. The SP gain is super small and at least its' not a direct isk/wealth injection (even though skill points do have more value now). It helps people who actually play the game progress a bit faster skillwise without (IMO) going full on "grind for XP" like normal mmos do.
So while I won't be standing on any chairs cheering about this, it could have been worse (it cold have been millions of isk instead of 10k sp) so I can say I'm ok with it.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
13886
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 02:33:04 -
[2] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=Cajun Waffles]No I'm sorry I still disagree. Basically you are stating you are "forced" which is inaccurate.
If the positive side is that it could have been worse, then it's not something you should ever be ok with.
Yet I am ok with it. No one is more skeptical of these kinds of changes than I am (not even you), no one hates the idea of EVe being like other games or CCP selling out than I do.
But as I see it, while it might be not perfectly keeping with what the game is, the amount of gain is so small it's basically inconsequential. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
13886
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 18:27:26 -
[3] - Quote
Kieron VonDeux wrote:Welcome to the End. It was fun while it lasted.
While funny, I'd like to point out how counter productive this is. EVERY time there is a change (good or bad) people start talking about the end of EVE and "minus a million accounts!!" and such. Eventually it has a 'crying wolf' affect on people, especially CCP.
Right now Rise and Co. are probably sitting back thinking "hmm, usual end of the world/game hurf blurf, that must mean the idea is fine". This is why I'm careful to say that a change is bad on it's one merits but it probably won't kill the game, like skill trading (which I continue to oppose).
Anger is natural but it doesn't serve to change the minds of the powers that be. Reason does (sometimes lol).
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
13886
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 18:59:47 -
[4] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Kieron VonDeux wrote:Welcome to the End. It was fun while it lasted. While funny, I'd like to point out how counter productive this is. EVERY time there is a change (good or bad) people start talking about the end of EVE and "minus a million accounts!!" and such. Eventually it has a 'crying wolf' affect on people, especially CCP. Right now Rise and Co. are probably sitting back thinking "hmm, usual end of the world/game hurf blurf, that must mean the idea is fine". This is why I'm careful to say that a change is bad on it's one merits but it probably won't kill the game, like skill trading (which I continue to oppose). Anger is natural but it doesn't serve to change the minds of the powers that be. Reason does (sometimes lol). To be honest I don't think any feed back in this thread will stop this change ccp knows is not going to be what many players want but they also know there is enough of them that will do dailies to achieve the goal
This is probably true.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
13886
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 14:26:25 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
Why Dailies?
So first lets talk a little history. EVE had a daily logon incentive for most of it's existence: the 24 hour skill queue limit. Back in Phoebe, we removed those limitations. Now, at the time, we were of two minds internally. We didn't like the experience around being punished for not logging in to update your queue, but also knew that some of those logins might be leading to meaningful gameplay and we shouldn't lightly let go of them. We leaned to the side of a better experience and removed the limitations, hoping that the logins we were generating were fairly empty, rarely leading to more actual activity in the universe. Well, it turns out we were wrong about that. Now, with before and after data we can see that making it into the client is a huge step towards real activity, even if the reason for logging in in the first place seems artificial. So this leads us to where we are now, attempting to find ways to create more logins that also don't feel like such a punishment as the skill queue limitations did. This may not turn out to be the perfect alternative but that's what we're looking for.
This is the most important thing said here. What CCP had with the old skill que was not that unlike what other businesses do with 'loss leaders'. The actual activity (logging in to change a skill, logging in to kill a rat) isn't that valuable or satisfying in terms of content generation, but it very often leads to other things that are.
I think most of us have done it, logged in for a very simple purpose and ended up playing longer than we planned on (living in null I can't count how many times i got a jabber ping while I was just on to change a skill or move a cyno toon, my 1st Titan kill experience came about from this scenario).
That's why I don't have a problem with this idea, even if it goes against my reputation an an arch-purist when it comes to EVE (a reputation I don't jsut deserve, one that I relish  ). People's concerns are valid, but if the (IMO) much more un-EVE-like inclusion of skill trading didn't hurt us too much (so far....), these dallies won't either. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
13886
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 15:51:27 -
[6] - Quote
The arguments will continue of course, but you should all understand that this is a done deal. There isn't even the kind of mass outrage skill trading had and that still went through. it's your time to waste if that's what you choose, but at this point I've decided that life is too short to get riled up over minor video gamer changes.
CCP Rise wrote:Okay, let's see if I can provide some context for our decision to add daily opportunities to eve and maybe answer some of your bigger questions.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
13892
|
Posted - 2016.04.12 15:27:07 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update:
Thanks to feedback we see that it would improve the experience quite a lot minimize the amount of characters available for this reward so we are going to limit the reward to the first character completing the daily task on each account.
Thanks
Damn, there goes my plan to put all 8 of my alts in confessors, log off in lvl 1 missions and long in long enough to kill one frig and log off again |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
13943
|
Posted - 2016.04.19 18:50:19 -
[8] - Quote
Axhind wrote:
Interesting how numbers war dropping despite all this small gang stuff becoming available and now they are going up that there is a huge ass war between basically everyone. Maybe CCPs vision of TF2 in space is not aligned with the wishes of their players.
Chasing the theme park and small gang crowd is difficult as there are thousands of other games that offer same things only with a lot less grind. The one unique thing about eve is sandbox and huge fights, both of which CCP is actively sabotaging.
I couldn't agree with this more. I'm on record on this very forum as saying that CCP was shooting itself in the foot by imposing a small gang centered sov system on "big fight space" (sov null).
Low sec, NPC null and wormholes already existed for small gang/solo stuff. But there is such a bias against 'blobbing' that we ended up with Aegis sov and many of us who like real fleet fights were left out in the cold. Before this latest war (which has mostly fizzled out), I can only think of 2-3 good fleet fights (like at least 70+ per side) I enjoyed in Aegis sov, and those fights didn't even involve the sov system!
It wasn't a fleet fight a day in Dominion and I agree that Dominion sucked but this wack-a-mole crap sucks worse imo. |
|
|
| |
|