EVE Search - proof on how much ccp listens to its customers ....

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

proof on how much ccp listens to its customers ....

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
eliminator2 Gallente Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2008.11.09 09:33:00 - [91] Originally by: Holy Lowlander Edited by: Holy Lowlander on 08/11/2008 20:46:29 over 1500 votes against the nano nerf , 70 page post How can something like this go trough ... ? This post got the most votes ever in a CSM post and greatly outnumbers the amount of whines about the 'overpowered' nano's . This is not a whine about the nano nerf , this is a whine about ccp not listening to their customers at all. All those people have a clear opinion about something , but still the changes are made. cleary ccp did listen to players on some rare ocasions and the csm did acomplish some things. But how can this just be so ignored.... I have come up with a conclusion that CCP have given up on custemers for the simple fact that they read forums see someone whining about something and get alot of feedback saying they agree so they go ahead and change it then they read forums again and see some more people whining saying that this is wrong, i mut admit i have whinned about this my self and i think ccp should be given some credit they have loads of diffrent game plays to think about mining mission rats pvp o.o warefare faction warefare and to make something work for everyone is impossible but at least they tryed am i right?
Gonada Priory Of The Lemon	Posted - 2008.11.09 10:02:00 - [92] Edited by: Gonada on 09/11/2008 10:02:47 I have come to the conclusion that CCP has done the right thing: ie: not listen to exploiting whiney little babies. Please, jump into traffic
Kalica Kahn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.09 10:27:00 - [93] At first I was against the changes, thought they were too heavy handed. But now I can't wait for the changes. Partially because all the "omg they're destroying the game" tears are absolutely delicious, but mostly because there should be more fighting, and less running away. And this is coming from someone who can fly a pretty quick vaga/rapier. Originally by: Le Skunk 2)Whats a pubbie? SKUNK It's you, you're the pubbie. I mean seriously, why do you sign your posts? Everyone can see who wrote it, and if they're stupid enough not to look to the left of your post where you name is, by the time the read it at the end, it's too late to ignore your post anyways.
ShardowRhino Caldari Legion 0f The Damned	Posted - 2008.11.09 12:46:00 - [94] yeah well remember how many votes could be 1 person. 2 or 3 accounts = 9 votes. lets round that off to 10 votes per person. do some math and the votes dont equal much. also its ccp running the game , not some nanonoob looking for an Iwin button.
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2008.11.09 12:55:00 - [95] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Dibsi Dei I like nano-nerf. But the sad thing is more and more unconsensual pvp is removed from the game. How is reducing the ability for one side to break away and run a step toward consensual pvp? Need for scram fits and slower ships reduces the ability to disrupt someone when warping to a belt or a gate. Gate reapproaching easier with new webs. Also quantum rise brings some seriously huge stargates which probably drop you like 40km off the center of the gate.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.11.09 12:57:00 - [96] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 09/11/2008 12:57:56 Originally by: Dibsi Dei Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Dibsi Dei I like nano-nerf. But the sad thing is more and more unconsensual pvp is removed from the game. How is reducing the ability for one side to break away and run a step toward consensual pvp? Need for scram fits and slower ships reduces the ability to disrupt someone when warping to a belt or a gate. Gate reapproaching easier with new webs. Also quantum rise brings some seriously huge stargates which probably drop you like 40km off the center of the gate. Yes and no. The stargates will hopefully still drop people off roughly 12-17km from the center of the gate, as they do now. While webs reduce speed to a lesser degree, the targets will be slower too. Also they won't be able to use a MWD if you have a 7.5km scram fitted and can get to activation range from them before they hit jumping range.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.11.10 06:03:00 - [97] Originally by: Kalica Kahn It's you, you're the pubbie. I mean seriously, why do you sign your posts? Everyone can see who wrote it, and if they're stupid enough not to look to the left of your post where you name is, by the time the read it at the end, it's too late to ignore your post anyways. You spelt pubby wrong. But your right people are in danger of not knowing who writes my posts, I can soon fix that though. SKUNK Originally by: CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order
Keflin Geard Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.11.10 06:28:00 - [98] Edited by: Keflin Geard on 10/11/2008 06:33:50 Most of the people here seem to be under the impression that CCP have simply done what most people thought needed doing - fixing ultra fast HACs - Things like Ishtars and Zealots going 5000ms - If that is the case - I urge you to get on SISI and see for yourself. The changes go way beyond fixing the polycarbon/gang bonus/implant balancing issue. Very few ships will be set up and flown the same way after this patch. This applies to both PvE and PvP - The general trend with the exception of AFs is that ships are all less capeable - there ability to do what they did before has ben reduced - Some of you who havent been paying attention are in for a shock. A simple question - besides AFs and ships with a warp scram bonus - what combat ship has improved with this patch -
Holy Lowlander Comply Or Die G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.11.10 06:36:00 - [99] CCP fixed a problem allmoast non existant. Their main argument was the ridicusly high speed one could reach. But to get your vagabond to wtfomg speeds you need to spend about 5-8 billion on it ..... and it will still get fried by a rapier + zealot. And now they fixed that . You need that 8 billion to get a speed that was now about normal. Siriously the only benifit nano had was that you could pick your fights so you where not forced to fight that 60 man gang that formed up to get you. Now speeds are going down like this ... Nano isn't viable anymore ... not because combat changed that much .. but because that 60 man blob is going to get you bubbled / scrammed/ webbed and fried ..,... Wich comes to the next thing : Blobbing-online wich will let alot of nanoers go and afk cloaking-*** in force recons in 0.0 station systems .. until the blobbers whine about that ofc...
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.11.10 06:40:00 - [100] Originally by: Holy Lowlander Their main argument was the ridicusly high speed one could reach. Actually the argument was speed that most nanos were going was problematic. Stuff seriously was broken at faster speeds, but even at slower speeds it was an issue. Originally by: Holy Lowlander you could pick your fights so you where not forced to fight Which was why so many were flying nanos. CCP decided to boost non consensual pvp.
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.10 06:53:00 - [101] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Kalica Kahn It's you, you're the pubbie. I mean seriously, why do you sign your posts? Everyone can see who wrote it, and if they're stupid enough not to look to the left of your post where you name is, by the time the read it at the end, it's too late to ignore your post anyways. You spelt pubby wrong. But your right people are in danger of not knowing who writes my posts, I can soon fix that though. SKUNK It's freaking internet slang, you don't decide how it's spelled. Now stfu you're being a ******. It's about time I put something sensible in here, but I couldn't really come up with something so you'l have to do with this. Are you like really bored, or did you not notice this is my sig?
Loki Farseer Live and Let Die Unlimited	Posted - 2008.11.10 15:14:00 - [102] Originally by: Keflin Geard Edited by: Keflin Geard on 10/11/2008 06:33:50 Most of the people here seem to be under the impression that CCP have simply done what most people thought needed doing - fixing ultra fast HACs - Things like Ishtars and Zealots going 5000ms - If that is the case - I urge you to get on SISI and see for yourself. The changes go way beyond fixing the polycarbon/gang bonus/implant balancing issue. Very few ships will be set up and flown the same way after this patch. This applies to both PvE and PvP - The general trend with the exception of AFs is that ships are all less capeable - there ability to do what they did before has ben reduced - Some of you who havent been paying attention are in for a shock. A simple question - besides AFs and ships with a warp scram bonus - what combat ship has improved with this patch - TBH.... This about sums it up. So few get on SISI to actually test and check stuff it's sad. So yes when this "Patch, Update, Expansion" whatever PR/Slant CCP wants to give it goes live tomorrow, people are really in for some suprise-butts3cks . I don't think any patch could help out the gate-campers more other then repealing the Warp to 0 change... Honestly I don't give a Sh!t at this point. I've posted and said enough about this. I've cross-trained into other areas that are getting nerfed less to limit the annoyance. Long Live Gatecamp/Blob-Online No you can't have my stuff, cause I'm not leaving
Mica Swanhaven	Posted - 2008.11.10 15:19:00 - [103] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Kalica Kahn It's you, you're the pubbie. I mean seriously, why do you sign your posts? Everyone can see who wrote it, and if they're stupid enough not to look to the left of your post where you name is, by the time the read it at the end, it's too late to ignore your post anyways. You spelt pubby wrong. But your right people are in danger of not knowing who writes my posts, I can soon fix that though. SKUNK Agreed, now you've even more of one.
Titus Gallant	Posted - 2008.11.10 15:50:00 - [104] Whenever a iWin mechanic is removed from a game all those that use it as an alternative to a strategic, more risky and (frankly) honorable approach, are gonna stand up and cry about it. You call your own ability, honor and judgment into question by even starting another one of these pathetic threads. If you really wanna cry about things, this is probably to mature a game for you and you should look for something targeting children.
Dizeezer Velar Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees	Posted - 2008.11.10 15:51:00 - [105] Originally by: MotherMoon to bad everyone here seems to like it. I know I do, makes small ships way more powerful. I don't get all the love for small ships, I can see n00bs being happy about it because it doesn't take much dedicated training. Personally, i think a big badass battleship is much cooler. This patch makes eve n00bonline in my opinion, boosting those crappy little ships.
Slade Trillgon Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.11.10 15:51:00 - [106] Originally by: Holy Lowlander Originally by: Miss CJB because the nano nerf is a good thing? I can think of 1500 ~~people~~ who dissagree ;) 1500 characters for sure Slade Originally by: Crumplecorn NerfBat is now known as the WaveMachine. ≡v≡
Dizeezer Velar Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees	Posted - 2008.11.10 15:56:00 - [107] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 09/11/2008 12:57:56 Originally by: Dibsi Dei Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Dibsi Dei I like nano-nerf. But the sad thing is more and more unconsensual pvp is removed from the game. How is reducing the ability for one side to break away and run a step toward consensual pvp? Need for scram fits and slower ships reduces the ability to disrupt someone when warping to a belt or a gate. Gate reapproaching easier with new webs. Also quantum rise brings some seriously huge stargates which probably drop you like 40km off the center of the gate. Yes and no. The stargates will hopefully still drop people off roughly 12-17km from the center of the gate, as they do now. While webs reduce speed to a lesser degree, the targets will be slower too. Also they won't be able to use a MWD if you have a 7.5km scram fitted and can get to activation range from them before they hit jumping range. Who the ** is going to use a 7.5km scram in a small gatecamp? Might as well use nothing at all as your target is just going to warp the ** away as they decloak 12km from the gate and you wont be able to get in range in time to stop him.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.11.10 16:07:00 - [108] Originally by: Dizeezer Velar I don't get all the love for small ships, I can see n00bs being happy about it because it doesn't take much dedicated training. Personally, i think a big badass battleship is much cooler. The issue was that Eve had devolved so all you needed were nanos for roaming and battleships for large ops. Dedicated training is for specializing in a specific role. Instead we had required training for general purpose nanos and battleships. Originally by: Dizeezer Velar Who the **** is going to use a 7.5km scram in a small gatecamp? The 9km t2 scram is likely to be used in replacement of a web. So 24km disrupter + 9km scram. A few ceptors placed evenly around a 0.0 gate camp. Now you've got something.
Haakelen Gallente Fire Mandrill	Posted - 2008.11.10 16:08:00 - [109] Originally by: Crackzilla Originally by: Dizeezer Velar Who the **** is going to use a 7.5km scram in a small gatecamp? The 9km t2 scram is likely to be used in replacement of a web. So 24km disrupter + 9km scram. A few ceptors placed evenly around a 0.0 gate camp. Now you've got something. And for lowsec, a Lachesis with a Guardian/Scimitar.
Faife Noctiscion	Posted - 2008.11.10 16:10:00 - [110] Originally by: Le Skunk But your right lrn2english -- Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Thea Arsoniztik Red Tides Viewer Discretion Advised	Posted - 2008.11.10 16:12:00 - [111] Originally by: Holy Lowlander Originally by: Miss CJB because the nano nerf is a good thing? I can think of 1500 people who dissagree ;) Name them.
Reven Cordelle Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.11.10 16:18:00 - [112] Originally by: Kalica Kahn Originally by: Le Skunk 2)Whats a pubbie? SKUNK It's you, you're the pubbie. I mean seriously, why do you sign your posts? Everyone can see who wrote it, and if they're stupid enough not to look to the left of your post where you name is, by the time the read it at the end, it's too late to ignore your post anyways. THIS POST JUST STEPPED INTO THE OWN-ZONE. YEAH.
Dizeezer Velar Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees	Posted - 2008.11.10 16:21:00 - [113] Originally by: Crackzilla Originally by: Dizeezer Velar I don't get all the love for small ships, I can see n00bs being happy about it because it doesn't take much dedicated training. Personally, i think a big badass battleship is much cooler. The issue was that Eve had devolved so all you needed were nanos for roaming and battleships for large ops. Dedicated training is for specializing in a specific role. Instead we had required training for general purpose nanos and battleships. Originally by: Dizeezer Velar Who the **** is going to use a 7.5km scram in a small gatecamp? The 9km t2 scram is likely to be used in replacement of a web. So 24km disrupter + 9km scram. A few ceptors placed evenly around a 0.0 gate camp. Now you've got something. Cool, now i just have to buy 3-5 accounts to do something i used to be able to do solo :)
Holy Lowlander Comply Or Die G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.11.10 19:09:00 - [114] Originally by: Dizeezer Velar Originally by: Crackzilla Originally by: Dizeezer Velar I don't get all the love for small ships, I can see n00bs being happy about it because it doesn't take much dedicated training. Personally, i think a big badass battleship is much cooler. The issue was that Eve had devolved so all you needed were nanos for roaming and battleships for large ops. Dedicated training is for specializing in a specific role. Instead we had required training for general purpose nanos and battleships. Originally by: Dizeezer Velar Who the **** is going to use a 7.5km scram in a small gatecamp? The 9km t2 scram is likely to be used in replacement of a web. So 24km disrupter + 9km scram. A few ceptors placed evenly around a 0.0 gate camp. Now you've got something. Cool, now i just have to buy 3-5 accounts to do something i used to be able to do solo :) you forgot the scouts and spying alts tbh.
Stitcher Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2008.11.10 19:20:00 - [115] Originally by: Holy Lowlander Edited by: Holy Lowlander on 08/11/2008 20:46:29 over 1500 votes against the nano nerf , 70 page post How can something like this go trough ... ? Well, if for example five thousand people had voted FOR it, then that would be democracy in action. failing that, it could just be that CCP know how to make a game better than those 1500 people all of whom, presumably, are suddenly going to find themselves NOT having a 100% gravy and cream PvP experience and are therefore biased. Games companies are under no obligation whatsoever to listen to their players all the time. Hell, Sega did and look what happened to Sonic Unleashed as a result. - Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain.
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.11.10 19:21:00 - [116] dont forget another falcon alt to jam their falcon alt Quote: It's not a good idea to place a Exotic Dancers in a Giant Secure Container. The Exotic Dancers will not survive intact, if transported in such a container.
Khamal Jolstien Caldari Product Number 3	Posted - 2008.11.10 19:40:00 - [117] Originally by: Stitcher Originally by: Holy Lowlander Edited by: Holy Lowlander on 08/11/2008 20:46:29 over 1500 votes against the nano nerf , 70 page post How can something like this go trough ... ? Well, if for example five thousand people had voted FOR it, then that would be democracy in action. failing that, it could just be that CCP know how to make a game better than those 1500 people all of whom, presumably, are suddenly going to find themselves NOT having a 100% gravy and cream PvP experience and are therefore biased. Games companies are under no obligation whatsoever to listen to their players all the time. Hell, Sega did and look what happened to Sonic Unleashed as a result. Yeah, and players are under no obligation to keep paying for companies who screw up. Many people just assumed that the patch is good without testing it. Hell, I just assumed they would make a good adjustment and was all for the nano nerf. Then I went and tested in on SiSi, and realized just how far off the mark they have gone. I'm a missile user, and I feel completely shafted by this patch. An interesting side effect may be many more ECM pilots, as Caldari try and find a way to be effective.
Dizeezer Velar Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees	Posted - 2008.11.10 19:44:00 - [118] Originally by: Khamal Jolstien Originally by: Stitcher Originally by: Holy Lowlander Edited by: Holy Lowlander on 08/11/2008 20:46:29 over 1500 votes against the nano nerf , 70 page post How can something like this go trough ... ? Well, if for example five thousand people had voted FOR it, then that would be democracy in action. failing that, it could just be that CCP know how to make a game better than those 1500 people all of whom, presumably, are suddenly going to find themselves NOT having a 100% gravy and cream PvP experience and are therefore biased. Games companies are under no obligation whatsoever to listen to their players all the time. Hell, Sega did and look what happened to Sonic Unleashed as a result. Yeah, and players are under no obligation to keep paying for companies who screw up. Many people just assumed that the patch is good without testing it. Hell, I just assumed they would make a good adjustment and was all for the nano nerf. Then I went and tested in on SiSi, and realized just how far off the mark they have gone. I'm a missile user, and I feel completely shafted by this patch. An interesting side effect may be many more ECM pilots, as Caldari try and find a way to be effective. That'd be awesome, having two opposing fleets mixed together both unable to target anything. Future of EVE pvp brah! wooooo so sweet.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.11.10 20:01:00 - [119] Originally by: sg3s Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Kalica Kahn It's you, you're the pubbie. I mean seriously, why do you sign your posts? Everyone can see who wrote it, and if they're stupid enough not to look to the left of your post where you name is, by the time the read it at the end, it's too late to ignore your post anyways. You spelt pubby wrong. But your right people are in danger of not knowing who writes my posts, I can soon fix that though. SKUNK It's freaking internet slang, you don't decide how it's spelled. Now stfu you're being a ****. LOL a goon who dosent know how to spell pubby. Fail! SKUNK Originally by:** CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order
Rhaegor Stormborn Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.11.10 20:18:00 - [120] The nano nerf was way overdue. Rigs, Boosters, Heat, and other game changes all contributed to the cluster ^%^% that was ludicris speed.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.