Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lagerstars
Caldari Brains For The Brainless Ltd
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 10:48:00 -
[1]
Just something that keeps bugging me about this game of late is the introduction of some different things, Salvaging, POS in Empire etc, but the initial requirements were fairly high, then because everyone on here whines about it they cave in after days and massively drop the requirements.
Im by far no age old player and am only about 8 months old, so anything new requires considerable skill training for me, but prefer to have somethign to aim toward instead of getting everything given to us on a plate, the original salvage skill requirements werent outrageous but were changed - then came along the Empire POS - based on Corp standings not personal standings which requires a lot of work - I know because ive been running missions night and day for the last 7 weeks to get the standing i wanted - now along comes Launch for Self - which, granted ive not tested yet but seems pretty self explanatory to me.
Why cant they impliment an idea then actually stick to what they put in, instead of caving in to the whiners and giving in and making everything a breeze to do?
May as well just make Capital ship requirements reachable by all after just 1 week skill training.
I'd put more detail and thought in to my opinions on this but as im at work its hard to spend any length of time on here and post but im sure this will cop enough flack anyway so i'm off to find a fire blanket :)
|
Malcanis
Galactech Industries Ltd. Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 11:34:00 -
[2]
Um because maybe they decided that the change was needed?
You only saw the whining and the change.
But we also see a lot of whining that doesn't result in changes.
Whining and changes are only weakly correlated.
The initial skill reqs for salvaging effectively excluded new players - the ones mostly likely to devote time to salvaging. Result: rigs which were intended to be cheap enough to fit to T1 frigates were selling for 300M ISK.
I think rigs are a cool idea, adding lots more variation to ship builds, but they have to be available to be used. The supply obviously needed to be increasing. Decreasing the skill reqs increased the supply as effectively as increasing the drop rates, but by increasing the number of suppliers and thus spreading the wealth, rather than concentrating it in the hands of a few.
|
gurista wreck
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 11:41:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lagerstars Just something that keeps bugging me about this game of late is the introduction of some different things, Salvaging, POS in Empire etc, but the initial requirements were fairly high, then because everyone on here whines about it they cave in after days and massively drop the requirements.
Im by far no age old player and am only about 8 months old, so anything new requires considerable skill training for me, but prefer to have somethign to aim toward instead of getting everything given to us on a plate, the original salvage skill requirements werent outrageous but were changed - then came along the Empire POS - based on Corp standings not personal standings which requires a lot of work - I know because ive been running missions night and day for the last 7 weeks to get the standing i wanted - now along comes Launch for Self - which, granted ive not tested yet but seems pretty self explanatory to me.
Why cant they impliment an idea then actually stick to what they put in, instead of caving in to the whiners and giving in and making everything a breeze to do?
May as well just make Capital ship requirements reachable by all after just 1 week skill training.
I'd put more detail and thought in to my opinions on this but as im at work its hard to spend any length of time on here and post but im sure this will cop enough flack anyway so i'm off to find a fire blanket :)
All I saw was whine... and alot of it.
|
Ladyah Liandri
VMF-214 Blacksheep
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 12:14:00 -
[4]
Originally by: gurista wreck All I saw was whine... and alot of it.
/Signed
|
Sovereign533
Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 12:15:00 -
[5]
uhm... dev's play eve themselves... they don't need us to tell them on the forums if something is broken... or isn't... they can experience that for themselves... signature removed - please email us to find out why - Jacques([email protected]) ='(( they broke my sig... and does this count as a sigjack? |
hotgirl933
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 12:20:00 -
[6]
devs have stated they want a large % of players into new things so ofc if its to hard they will balance
|
|
CCP Wrangler
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 12:27:00 -
[7]
A few years back some things were made too easy, and had to be made harder, which of course causes a lot of complaints. I believe it was decided that when new features were introduced they would be a bit harder than intended, and then balanced to get to a normal level. Obviously new features will require balancing both to make them harder or easier since it's difficult to introduce something new and know exactly how you, the players, will use it. But we are not making things easier simply because people complain, though constructive criticism does have an effect, simply saying "I don't like this" doesn't.
Wrangler Assistant Community Manager EVE Online
Contact Support - Contact Moderators - Report Bug - Submit News Leads - Knowledge Base Player Guide - Policies - Join ISD - Fan Submissions - DevFinder LiteÖ |
|
Ryas Nia
Minmatar Stormriders Fimbulwinter
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 13:07:00 -
[8]
<3 CCP
While others whine, I personally think the game is very balanced and the few issues with mods/ships are ones your well aware of.
Fix Sov and then take off a few weeks :P
|
Lagerstars
Caldari Brains For The Brainless Ltd
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 13:58:00 -
[9]
Thanks for the reply Wrangler
Obviously my opinions will differ from others, but its nice to have new features that are just beyond peoples reach to give them something to aim toward - its what keeps the game interesting i think and keeps hold of people playing - to get toward that goal of what they want to do
|
Lucky Lynn
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 14:14:00 -
[10]
If they hadn't made it easier skill wise, then salvage would been performed by far less players that now. If salvaging is performed far less than it currently is then rig components and rigs would be far fewer and a lot more expensive.
And who would be whining then?
|
|
Ionia
Advanced Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 14:39:00 -
[11]
To the OP:
You are right about salvaging, but I believe the change was needed. There is still T2 rigs for those wanting to participate in a premium market.
As for POS, I dont think they have changed the requirements, you could be thinking of jump clones. Yes they made this easier, but lots of people were simply making alt corps and achieving the same result, so the change just took away a bunch of wasted time.
I do agree that everything should enter the game pre-nerfed. If its not, there will be a small number of players that make an obscene amount of isk between the content or feature's introduction, and the time it is patched. New content is not meant to work like that.
Hovever, I do believe the younger playerbase in eve (im generalizing, I dont mean every one of you!) do tend to whine much more than the older playerbase. Oddly it seems they are trying to turn EVE into the games that they left . In any case, I truly hope CCP stays true to their real desire, which is to make a kick arse game, and not make decisions that satisfy an uninformed mass in the short term, but hurt the game as a whole in the long term.
|
shady trader
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 14:48:00 -
[12]
I believe the express used at the time was pre Nerf'ed so that they would get better and not worse. |
Lagerstars
Caldari Brains For The Brainless Ltd
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 14:54:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Lagerstars on 28/02/2007 14:51:55
Originally by: Lucky Lynn If they hadn't made it easier skill wise, then salvage would been performed by far less players that now. If salvaging is performed far less than it currently is then rig components and rigs would be far fewer and a lot more expensive.
And who would be whining then?
Not necessarily true - it would just mean people will move toward it - if what you said happend, prices would be high initally yes, but they were anyway and to an extent still are, people see this street paved with gold and train toward it, more people move in to market, supply increases, price drops etc etc etc im sure people dont need an economics lesson - The end result tho is the same but means people work toward these goals - Salvaging is probably not the best of examples to be fair as its a fairly basic and boring task but im sure people understand my point?
|
BoBoZoBo
Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 15:21:00 -
[14]
Originally by: shady trader I believe the express used at the time was pre Nerf'ed so that they would get better and not worse.
Yep.. and I for one ams EXTREMELY happy they decided to do that. Much more logical way of solving problems in this particular environment. =========================
Minister of Propaganda - Operator 9 |
Lucky Lynn
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 15:28:00 -
[15]
But it's not about economics it's about getting the content into common use among the players.
|
Hasak Rain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 17:36:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Hasak Rain on 28/02/2007 17:33:51 Whether whining about something on these forums really has an impact is debatable. However, it is pretty obvious that much of the player base believes that if they cry loud enough, they will get what they want.
Look at the recent Mission Runner whine thread for example. There are posters in that thread which admitted that they feel if they "make enough noise" CCP will reconsider moving their isk fountain lvl 4's out to low sec. It doesn't matter to them if it is the right decision and best for the game. The important thing is they don't want it done because they are self serving and lazy gamers so they will whine here on the forums about it.
Like an infant who will hold his breath when his parents tells him it is time to go to bed when he doesn't want to go.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 17:42:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler simply saying "I don't like this" doesn't.
I like this.
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune |
Angellyne
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 17:49:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Hasak Rain Edited by: Hasak Rain on 28/02/2007 17:33:51 Look at the recent Mission Runner whine thread for example. There are posters in that thread which admitted that they feel if they "make enough noise" CCP will reconsider moving their isk fountain lvl 4's out to low sec. It doesn't matter to them if it is the right decision and best for the game. The important thing is they don't want it done because they are self serving and lazy gamers so they will whine here on the forums about it.
Like an infant who will hold his breath when his parents tells him it is time to go to bed when he doesn't want to go.
Of course, you could also argue - more convincingly in fact - that mission changes are coming due to the "whiners" in 0.0 saying mission runners need more risk, and the "whiners" in low-sec wanting more people to gank.
The real irony is, group A whines and (maybe) gets a change made, then group B complains about the change ... and group B is called "whiners". It's almost sad to see how little perspective some forum warriors possess.
|
Hasak Rain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 17:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Angellyne
Originally by: Hasak Rain Edited by: Hasak Rain on 28/02/2007 17:33:51 Look at the recent Mission Runner whine thread for example. There are posters in that thread which admitted that they feel if they "make enough noise" CCP will reconsider moving their isk fountain lvl 4's out to low sec. It doesn't matter to them if it is the right decision and best for the game. The important thing is they don't want it done because they are self serving and lazy gamers so they will whine here on the forums about it.
Like an infant who will hold his breath when his parents tells him it is time to go to bed when he doesn't want to go.
Of course, you could also argue - more convincingly in fact - that mission changes are coming due to the "whiners" in 0.0 saying mission runners need more risk, and the "whiners" in low-sec wanting more people to gank.
The real irony is, group A whines and (maybe) gets a change made, then group B complains about the change ... and group B is called "whiners". It's almost sad to see how little perspective some forum warriors possess.
Why would players in 0.0 care what a bunch of carebears in Empire are doing?
You of course have proof of your claims right? Proof that it was in fact the 0.0 players who pushed for this and ultimately made CCP decide to make these changes?...oh didn't think so.
I have a Dev's blog to back up what I have been saying on this subject. Where is YOUR proof?
|
Badhands
Gallente Badgator Ltd
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 17:58:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Lagerstars now along comes Launch for Self - which, granted ive not tested yet but seems pretty self explanatory to me.
What is this "launch for self" you speak of?
|
|
Angellyne
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 18:02:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Angellyne on 28/02/2007 18:00:18 Edited by: Angellyne on 28/02/2007 17:58:46
Originally by: Hasak Rain
Why would players in 0.0 care what a bunch of carebears in Empire are doing?
Ask them, not me.
Originally by: Hasak Rain
You of course have proof of your claims right? Proof that it was in fact the 0.0 players who pushed for this and ultimately made CCP decide to make these changes?...oh didn't think so.
As is always the case, you "show me proof" guys claim to have ample proof, but never quite get around to offering it. I read that blog, and it said nothing about "self serving lazy gamer infants" or caving in to whiners "making enough noise".
So which of your statements did you prove? As I said, lack of perspective.
[Edit: Oh, and as for proving the "group A, group B" thing - you're my proof, thanks.]
|
Eskona Runningstar
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 18:07:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Lagerstars (...) then came along the Empire POS - based on Corp standings not personal standings which requires a lot of work - I know because ive been running missions night and day for the last 7 weeks to get the standing i wanted - now along comes Launch for Self - which, granted ive not tested yet but seems pretty self explanatory to me. (...)
If people can launch a POS for themselves I would think that their personal standing needs to meet standing requirements - which means nothing will change, as people nowadays just form 1-man corps in which corp standing is identical to personal standing.
Aside from that, do we actually have any confirmation that "Launch for self" on POS that can currently be seen on the test server is an intended feature and not just a bug that slipped in? ---------- These are my views and mine alone. They do not represent the official stance of my corporation or alliance in any way.
Eskona Runningstar Eve University IVY League |
Hasak Rain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 18:07:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Hasak Rain on 28/02/2007 18:04:48
Originally by: Angellyne Edited by: Angellyne on 28/02/2007 18:00:18 Edited by: Angellyne on 28/02/2007 17:58:46
Originally by: Hasak Rain
Why would players in 0.0 care what a bunch of carebears in Empire are doing?
Ask them, not me.
Originally by: Hasak Rain
You of course have proof of your claims right? Proof that it was in fact the 0.0 players who pushed for this and ultimately made CCP decide to make these changes?...oh didn't think so.
As is always the case, you "show me proof" guys claim to have ample proof, but never quite get around to offering it. I read that blog, and it said nothing about "self serving lazy gamer infants" or caving in to whiners "making enough noise".
So which of your statements did you prove? As I said, lack of perspective.
[Edit: Oh, and as for proving the "group A, group B" thing - you're my proof, thanks.]
No. "making enough noise" and "whiners" are my words. Did I say they were in the blog?
However, In the blog the Dev stated that the missions they are moving to low sec never should have been put in Empire in the first place.
Using your "logic," I ask you where in the blog did it say "Due to complaints from 0.0 players, we have decided to move some lvl 4 missions to low sec"
I guess I missed that part.
|
Angellyne
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 18:18:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Angellyne on 28/02/2007 18:15:03
Originally by: Hasak Rain
I guess I missed that part.
You missed the part where I said I had proof. I never said that.
You said the blog supported your statements. I missed the part where you said anything about the missions being in the wrong place.
So the blog really didn't support anything you said. You DO understand what proof is, don't you?
By the way, I'm not arguing about the changes - frankly don't care about them. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy of saying "boo hoo you whiner" only when you disagree with a complaint. Where's your anti-infant wisdom during all the anti-mission-runner diatribe before the changes were announced? I must have missed it.
[Edit: name-calling is childish, but of course I have no physical proof I can offer you, so have at it.]
|
Hasak Rain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 18:45:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Angellyne Edited by: Angellyne on 28/02/2007 18:15:03
Originally by: Hasak Rain
I guess I missed that part.
You missed the part where I said I had proof. I never said that.
You said the blog supported your statements. I missed the part where you said anything about the missions being in the wrong place.
So the blog really didn't support anything you said. You DO understand what proof is, don't you?
By the way, I'm not arguing about the changes - frankly don't care about them. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy of saying "boo hoo you whiner" only when you disagree with a complaint. Where's your anti-infant wisdom during all the anti-mission-runner diatribe before the changes were announced? I must have missed it.
[Edit: name-calling is childish, but of course I have no physical proof I can offer you, so have at it.]
Yes the blog supported the view that those missions they are moving never should have been high sec missions to begin with. Which part of that do you not understand? Or are you saying the Devs do not know their own game?
I don't disagree with complaints from players. If I did, you would see my posts in almost every single thread. I do dislike whining though. Especially self serving whines. I am not afraid to post my displeasure about it either. could you tell?
Name calling is just as childish as your little "Group A, Group B" nonsense so maybe you should stop being a hypocrite before you call me out on that?
|
Angellyne
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 18:53:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Hasak Rain
Yes the blog supported the view that those missions they are moving never should have been high sec missions to begin with. Which part of that do you not understand?
You never said anything to that effect. Thus, you're quoting the blog as "proof" of something you didn't argue. That's the part I don't understand.
Originally by: Hasak Rain
I don't disagree with complaints from players. If I did, you would see my posts in almost every single thread. I do dislike whining though. Especially self serving whines. I am not afraid to post my displeasure about it either. could you tell?
Yes, I could tell. And you can probably tell, if you call the mission runners "whiners", but not the anti-mission-runners, I'm not afraid to pull the hypocrisy rip-cord.
Originally by: Hasak Rain
Name calling is just as childish as your little "Group A, Group B" nonsense so maybe you should stop being a hypocrite before you call me out on that?
The "group-A, group-B" thing is actually true. Anti-mission folks complain, changes are in the works, mission folks complain - and the mission folks get the "whiner" label. Anti-nanophoon folks complain, a change is in the works, nanophoon folks are called whiners. Anti-logoffski folks complain ... anti-gatecamp folks are called whiners. And the list goes on. Pointing out hypocrisy is not the same as name-calling.
|
Hasak Rain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 19:07:00 -
[27]
"You never said anything to that effect. Thus, you're quoting the blog as "proof" of something you didn't argue. That's the part I don't understand."
Uh, I said it three times already. Here I will say it again now read very carefully:
The blog states {in so many words} that they felt that the lvl 4 missions which they are going to move out were never intended to be high sec missions.
Versus
Your ridiculous claim that these changes are due to the 0.0 players whining.
At least I have something stated from a blog, in writing, from an actual Dev to stand by while you are just spouting off some unfounded claim that CCP caved in under pressure from compliants of 0.0 players who want Carebears to suffer. {go read your own post...they are your words kid.}
"Yes, I could tell. And you can probably tell, if you call the mission runners "whiners", but not the anti-mission-runners, I'm not afraid to pull the hypocrisy rip-cord."
You can pull on whatever you like. Really isn't that important to me.
"The "group-A, group-B" thing is actually true. Anti-mission folks complain, changes are in the works, mission folks complain - and the mission folks get the "whiner" label. Anti-nanophoon folks complain, a change is in the works, nanophoon folks are called whiners. Anti-logoffski folks complain ... anti-gatecamp folks are called whiners. And the list goes on. Pointing out hypocrisy is not the same as name-calling."
An insult is an insult in my book. I could argue that you being clueless is actually true but that would just be my opinion like your Group A, Group B is just your opinion which I frankly never cared about.
|
Angellyne
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 19:22:00 -
[28]
'Infant', 'clueless' and 'kid'. You're trying too hard to be insulting, and not hard enough to understand what's actually being said. That is, as you say - "not that important" to you, but it makes this whole back-and-forth with you a waste of time.
You claimed you had "proven" something you didn't actually say until ... read closely: until AFTER claiming you had "proved" it. It's really that simple. And by the way, it's another instance of hypocrisy.
I don't need to prove anything, since - as I said originally - I was simply offering a counterpoint to your "crying infant" argument. Your argument wasn't proven, neither was mine, so this whole "my proof is bigger than yours" sidetrack of yours? Giant waste of time.
And finally, the fact that other opinions don't concern you... well, one might think that was "proved" by your initial post on this thread. Nonetheless, you keep reading and replying to them... so more hypocrisy. It's getting to be a large pile, really.
|
Hasak Rain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 19:35:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Angellyne 'Infant', 'clueless' and 'kid'. You're trying too hard to be insulting, and not hard enough to understand what's actually being said. That is, as you say - "not that important" to you, but it makes this whole back-and-forth with you a waste of time.
You claimed you had "proven" something you didn't actually say until ... read closely: until AFTER claiming you had "proved" it. It's really that simple. And by the way, it's another instance of hypocrisy.
I don't need to prove anything, since - as I said originally - I was simply offering a counterpoint to your "crying infant" argument. Your argument wasn't proven, neither was mine, so this whole "my proof is bigger than yours" sidetrack of yours? Giant waste of time.
And finally, the fact that other opinions don't concern you... well, one might think that was "proved" by your initial post on this thread. Nonetheless, you keep reading and replying to them... so more hypocrisy. It's getting to be a large pile, really.
lol you are just now figuring out that you are wasting your time? I knew I was on your second post but I really wanted to see how you could backup the claim that 0.0 players caused the Missions to be moved.
Of course, you are now backing off saying that it is just a possible counter argument.
You are correct. This was a waste of time because I am arguing with a person who doesn't have an opinion. Someone who doesn't have the guts to "show his/her cards" so to speak.
It is fine though. I am only here to kill a bit of time anyway. Thank you for that.
|
Angellyne
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 19:47:00 -
[30]
Read my first post. I said it was an argument. There you go, no backing down or any of the other nonsense you say.
Read your first post. Then read your second, where you said you "proved" your first. YOU are "showing my cards", friend. I don't need to.
Also, post a link to the dev blog that says "those missions were never supposed to be there in the first place". I just re-read this one, and I didn't find that. I could be wrong, but if your misplaced "proof" argument is based on a dev blog that doesn't say what you think, then... well, redundant use of certain word beginning with H.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |