| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Quelque Chose
New Eden Roller Disco Supply
   |
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:07:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Omanji
Actually, they were rhetorical questions.
Barf.
Quote:
Are you arguing that CCP should make an expansion that is only attractive to a portion of the EVE players?
Are you saying they shouldn't? Or is this another "rhetorical" question/ statement?
Eve already has a ton of features that only appeal to a portion of the playerbase, so what if one of them is large enough to take up an entire expansion?
Quote:
Or that they don't have enough resources to actually make a comprehensive expansion (they are only back up by Viacom)?
Here's what I'm saying: the more features you add, the more stuff there is to go wrong and the better the chance that problem "features" will linger far into the future. Any project has a better chance of getting done right if it limits its initial scope and expands incrementally.
That's what I'm saying. It's doubly true when you consider that CCP has the entire rest of Eve to deal with, which is also in varying states of needing attention -- it hasn't been put on hold for this you know.
Quote:
Once again, bug are a non-issue. They are expected, we deal with them.
No, "we" don't deal with them. "We" throw endless tantrums about them, "CCP" eventually fixes them -- or not. To claim that bugs are "a non- issue" is just about as laughable as it gets.
___________________________________________
|
Trocent
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:11:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Quelque Chose
I'm not talking about gameplay simplicity, I'm talking about technical simplicity. This patch added: new corps, a new quasi- alliance structure that behaves differently from "normal" alliances, new agents, new mission types, a new type of deadspace complex, a new set of objective mechanics and a new region of space. ALL of these are subject to unexpected bugs and exploits which will have to be dealt with; indeed, some of it's shown itself to be bugged already. That stuff represents a bunch of work to be done and as there are only so many hours in a day you've got to draw the line somewhere.
So they go through all that work and they still skimp out on the enrollment into the faction war.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:27:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Trocent
Originally by: MotherMoon
still ignoring what would happen to your war targets in the faction corp I see.
WHY should corp wars overpower faction corp roles when the faction corp is A CORPERATION.
So whats going to happen when two corperations on the same side of the faction war are at war? There needs to be something already implemented to cover that issue.
Originally by: Bel Amar
Your suggestion would let people stay in their alliances without any penalty, and thus still end up dominating FW. That is your very good reason as to why the rules were designed the way they are, whether or not you agree with them
Im not arguing the Alliance point. I do think its a rather poor choice that all the Roleplaying Alliances get the shaft but my problem is with taking the effort to exclude those who are in regular corperations. I am under the impression that CCP didn't want to nerf corperation but thats exactly what they did.
there is is the same system as any two corps in an allaince.
THEY CAN'T. |
Quelque Chose
New Eden Roller Disco Supply
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:35:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Trocent
So they go through all that work and they still skimp out on the enrollment into the faction war.
Pish tosh. It's perfectly possible to enroll in it.  |
Trocent
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:36:00 -
[95]
Originally by: MotherMoon
there is is the same system as any two corps in an allaince.
THEY CAN'T.
You might be onto something there but you'll need to use more words please.
|
Kurt Adams
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:53:00 -
[96]
Saying something is easy. Actually writing the code for it is not.
I know I saw a Dev blog or interview addressing this very issue. He stated that the problem is more fundamental to the game mechanics. The program allows for one corp per character and the Dev stated that there is no way around this currently.
This makes sense if you think about all the things in the game that relate to the corp you are in currently. A lot of code that would have to be changed and there are many potential programming problems that would occur if the game now had to recognize up to two corporations for each member.
|
Trocent
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 07:18:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Kurt Adams
Saying something is easy. Actually writing the code for it is not.
I know I saw a Dev blog or interview addressing this very issue. He stated that the problem is more fundamental to the game mechanics. The program allows for one corp per character and the Dev stated that there is no way around this currently.
This makes sense if you think about all the things in the game that relate to the corp you are in currently. A lot of code that would have to be changed and there are many potential programming problems that would occur if the game now had to recognize up to two corporations for each member.
Actually they could have done it right from the start without too much work. Instead of making NPC corps they could make it more like the bloodlines. Just something extra added to the character sheet and make it so the game checks that information to see if another person is a war target. I mean, the game already has to do various checks to see if you can attack another person without concord intervention.
It is likely that all NPCs are made from one class (or just a small handful). This new check would be very simple to program in. They've programmed in a whole bunch of new screens, new game mechanics, new ways of enteracting with NPCs and their corps. With all that work, adding in a new variable for a character wouldn't be very difficult.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |