|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
764
   |
Posted - 2016.12.08 10:51:14 -
[1] - Quote
Thanks for all the responses everyone!
WIthout going into timescales or the nitty gritty details, I can say that we still plan to ensure that new structures (Citadels, Engineering Complexes and beyond) reach full feature parity with POS's and Outposts before we remove either of them.
As the original post mentioned, plans for reimbursement will be announced when we're closer to the time.
Thanks again!
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
764
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 13:49:45 -
[2] - Quote
Acedia wrote:So this means ship insurance is been moved to High Sec and Low Sec only now? Except that:
- Outposts aren't going anywhere in the near future.
- Our plan is to reach feature parity before they are removed.
- NPC Null allows for insurance outside of Empire space.
Tom Stonehoof wrote:At one point we had weekly "expansion patches" until they realized the players didn't want this and it was alienating them by having massive downloads each week. This was never promised or attempted, please don't spread untruths. Monthly patches were promised and continue to be delivered (Though we have tended back towards grouping things together for larger releases and having smaller releases in between)
Tom Stonehoof wrote:There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
765
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:25:40 -
[3] - Quote
Tom Stonehoof wrote:Have you not read this thread? And are you still continuing to insult your playerbase by playing the fool? Welcome to the winter of rage. Good sir, with the utmost respect, have you read this thread?
So far it's had under 40 characters posting, and out of those I count less than 10 responses that could be called negative. Most of those are along the lines of "Please don't remove outposts before you provide new structures with the features they are missing", which as I said above, we've already promised!
Tom Stonehoof wrote:1) Never insult one of your players.
2) Never insult the intelligence of one of your players
3) If you're going to insult one of your players, be prepared for them to fire back with your company's own disclosures from fanfest, fanfest keynotes, all sponsored eve gatherings. I had absolutely no intention of insulting you, I simply pointed out that what you said wasn't factual. On top of that, the quotes you posted corroborated my point precisely!
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! 
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
765
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:47:01 -
[4] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Not related to outpost, but every single feedback thread for Citadels and the manufacturing arrays so far has been filled with complaints that they are not a replacement for small POSGÇÖs in price point, utility, stealth, and mobility for small corps and solo people especially. Groups you keep specifically saying will love these. I would point you to these, but it really is every single thread about them has this discussion. Not only have yaGÇÖll ignored all these concerns you continue to just say GÇÿwill be great for small corps and solo peopleGÇÖ in every public statement about them while the actual community of small entities loudly begs to differ. It's been a bit dismissive and insulting both by CCP and the CSM. I have suggested before that whatGÇÖs need is something like a roundtable with small corps and solo people to actually hear and address these concerns. But you wonGÇÖt even acknowledge these concerns in the feedback threads. This entire thread practically past page 3 is all about wether these new structures can actually be used by small corps and solo people as you keep promising, but none of CCPs replies have anything to do with that. (the most 'liked' post are all about that) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495425&p=4
As I have said, if CCP is going to raise the bar for structure ownership in game fine. But you need to come out and just SAY that. Stop playing this coy game where you just ignore the small entities elephant in the room while saying everything will be the same. Or if you donGÇÖt actually think you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership by small entities as compared to POSGÇÖs then you really do need to engage with that community on some level because that is wildly out of touch. Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
791
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 16:39:21 -
[5] - Quote
Thanks for all the replies here,
I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:
- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances.
- Allow the insurance of ships
- Allow the manufacture of T3 ships
- Allow materials to be harvested from moons
These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.
I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.
Thanks again
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
792
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 17:39:09 -
[6] - Quote
I'll certainly try and make sure we're clear about this in future dev blogs, and I've linked to this on Twitter at least (I know that not exactly full coverage!). For now that will have to do.
Feel free to spread the word in any way you see fit, or link to this post when you see misunderstandings.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
|
|
| |
|