Phaedruss
   |
Posted - 2007.11.03 13:37:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Alowishus
Originally by: Sharupak
Edited by: Sharupak on 03/11/2007 03:43:32
I doubt there is a logical reason, but if I had to take a stab at it it is this.
CCP looks at the game largely from a global perspective (How do we want to implement fleet warfare, How do we want to improve mining etc.etc) Their thinking drills from the top down. For instance, they are Nerfing carriers because they felt saw that players were able to solo many aspects of the game. From a fleet combat perspective, they are a ship that is eliminating the need for many other ships which is unbalanced.
Players see the game from the bottom up. They develop a play style based on the content of the game and what aspect of the game they enjoy being involved in. Nerfing carriers ****s up their rice bowl. To players though the carrier is balanced because other people have carriers and since their perspective is looking from the bottom up, they are using them against other more powerful ships that can defeat them. Which is perfectly sound logic.
In short, it is the way both sides have to view the game that puts them in opposition to each other.
Very excellent analysis.
Well, it's certainly a possibility.
Here's another. A lot of people whine because there are a lot of changes made that people disagree with. From an Amarr perspective I can understand why many might not be happy with Khanid Mk II. Imagine a laser boat pilot with minimal missile skills who is now forced to spend months training up new skills just to make ships already sitting in their hangars viable again. Imagine being an Amarr recon pilot with an already minimal fleet/gang role waking up one morning and finding his Pilgrim is not just nerfed, but almost a different ship with a reduced solo/small gang capability.
Now, the common advice given to these pilots is 'adapt' or 'spend a few more months cross training to another race'. Very amusing but hardly reasonable to expect everyone to simply accept these changes or proposed changes without fighting them. I'm sure many believe, as I do, that after 5 or so years of development, Eve should have evolved away from radical nerfing and started using tweaks and fine tuning to solve perceived problems. Radical changes both invite heavy criticism and whining and result in greater imbalances, which in turn leads to more complaining.
I wasn't brought up to bend over and take it when something happens I don't agree with. Many of us live in societies where it is considered to be a fundamental right to stand up and have your say and where people are admired for fighting for what they believe is right. One might very well ask why there are so many weaklings prepared to bend over or brown nosers who somehow regard CCP as possessing omniscience. Are they the same people who believe their government knows best and aren't to be questioned?
CCP's perspective? Well CCP itself is concerned about money, money and money. It would be fair to assume then that the pursuit of money would preclude them from intentioanlly screwing their own game. Of course, the keyword is 'intentionally' and we all know the business world is neck deep in busniess failures, relatively few of which intentionally screwed themselves.
I don't know how development responsibilities are structured or how development decisions are made in CCP, but my experience after several years of working with developers in other complex game softwares: 1) They are human; 2) They regularly make blunders, probably because a) not only is it very complex and often frustrating work, but also because there is a 'user' side that is also complex and requires a great deal of time and experience to grasp well. Even if they were very familiar with the user side, their perspective has changed from that of the players mentioned above.
Why is there so much whining? Occam's Razor has something to say about that.
|