These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

1 year release cycles

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#21 - 2015-08-18 05:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
OP not understanding the point of the new release schedule.

To be quite frank: Neither does CCP. We were told that this new cycle would end the rush jobs of the past, that devs had more time to polish and finalize features because they were not forced to meet the big deadline any longer, among other things. Has it happened? That is very debatable. New features are still buggy, new features are still released in half-finished form and are not maintained properly. The new release cycle has done little more than to introduce a "Works well enough? Let's throw it out" mentality for CCP. I have yet to see any benefits over the old 6 months cycle with unnamed point releases.

The argument that smaller features do not need to idle for 6 months any more is moot with CCP's introduction of point releases in 2014. But I guess, some devs' ego isn't satisfied if their features is only released in a numbered patch and not a named patch. Roll

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#22 - 2015-08-18 07:21:02 UTC
I think many of you need to get your heads out of the clouds or your ***, which ever place it is as.

SOV changes are not finished, capital ships are still to be reworked. This is 5.0 SOV, 5.1 will be a few weeks/months away. Then we will finally have like 5.6.

5.0 in of itself sucks, it really does, but it works. Take what has been giving to us, use and and learn how to abuse it. If enough people abuse the system, CCP will have to get their own heads out of their backsides and push fixes.

- Now on the OP side of things, I would prefer 8 week cycles.
- then again, what players need to demand is that all features for game play need to spend at least a release cycle on the test servers before being pushed.

The release cycle timing isn't bad, it is the fact they don't put stuff on the test server tell a week or two before hand. That isn't enough time.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#23 - 2015-08-18 08:14:21 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
SOV changes are not finished, capital ships are still to be reworked. This is 5.0 SOV, 5.1 will be a few weeks/months away. Then we will finally have like 5.6.

Sure, we can all look forward to SOV 5.6 in 3-4 years time... Roll

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2015-08-18 08:27:23 UTC
So you want to chase trollceptors for 11 months more? We get it.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-08-18 09:18:52 UTC
I have no problem with the 6 week release cycle as it shouldn't actually have a bearing on each project if it is managed properly. You can still have a year long project, the release cycle just gives you a target for deployment alongside other changes.

What really does need to happen though is what we are seeing with the structure changes. We are being given blogs detailing the current state and design ideas way up front to allow us to comment on it. The amount of early warning given to players to allow feedback would be longer depending on the size of the change of course (skins can be done within a 6 week cycle, the entosis changes should have been pushed out to us at design stage for comment).

Now it really needs CCP to listen to the player feedback and weave that into the design. Get that right and the changes could be very good indeed, stick with the current iteration that a large % of the player base seem unhappy with and it won't go well.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2015-08-18 09:50:32 UTC
My Lap wrote:
then shuffling to save horrid game play you're shoving down our throats.


That's quite an opinion you have there... I cannot disagree more.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#27 - 2015-08-18 10:23:11 UTC
My Lap wrote:
I have an idea. You should go back to 1 year release cycles. It seems this was a better option in the past. I've seen many years where the plan releases had a chance to take shape with player feedback instead of just releasing new features all willynilly then shuffling to save horrid game play you're shoving down our throats.

Every few month is not enough time to make decisions or give players enough time to enjoy the new changes.


I agree for the most part that 6-7 releases a year is to frequent and should be reduce so that players can adjust to the changes. But once a year is not enough, more like 3 times a year would be more appropriate.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#28 - 2015-08-18 10:26:48 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
My Lap wrote:
then shuffling to save horrid game play you're shoving down our throats.


That's quite an opinion you have there... I cannot disagree more.


It seems like the only time you post anything in the forums is to disagree with something. Why don't you at least TRY to be a little more constructive and at least state WHY you disagree. Or maybe you just have a rejection fetish or some such.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#29 - 2015-08-18 11:00:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Zan Shiro wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Having the current release cycle doesn't mean that larger features aren't receiving proper development time - it just means that a lot of the smaller features don't have to idly queue for 6+ months.



Some of them have needed to sit idly though.


T3D + oversized prop mod may have been found while still on sisi under the longer scheme. Its dropped on sisi with nowhere near the test time in the past, , not (ab)used heavily, makes it into production. then nerfed in another 6 week patch cycle. Going a bit back...it was longer cycles that had AF get an AB bonus killed while still on sisi. For the same damn thing....people running oversized prop mods. Longer cycle...people spammed 10mn AB AF hard and CCP took notice eventually.


Or the always loved Ishtar. Its like they copy and paste Ishtar related stuff of late. Longer cycle would give CCP a chance to get better at playing darts. As it seems to be how they pick what to fix on it.

Or the new missile mods could have if longer tested come out to a grander opening imo. I really wanted them to come out stronger. But not OP ofc. Short ass test cycle, knee jerk adjustments, rush to the printing press kind of ruined this release for me. Longer cycle and that knee jerk adjustment could have been done a bit better with more tweaks to reach a happier median


Now op's idea of year...bit extreme. I'd be more partial to 12 weeks. Not a fan of the 6 week I will freely admit. 3 month cycle a decent middle of the road meet up.

Its not the 6 month wait. For the new stuff faster people they make out better than before. And for the 6 weeks is just too damn short to test some stuff on sisi...its more time for that.

But to be honest....I am not a fan of the agile development kick CCP is on. As well...I am not a fan of agile development in general. Comes off to me as half assed slapped together work more often than not. Throw it on a wall and see what sticks just not my preference really.




Great Post Zan, you bring up a lot of good points that I wasn't aware of. And now I'm even more convinced that this 6 weeks release cycle is gonna cause a train wreck at CCP headquarters some time in the near future unless they readjust this schedule. Not to mention the bad code that's been creeping in from time to time and causing greatly extended downtimes. I'd proposed a 16 week update release schedule but a 12 week is still a hella lot better than the current 6 week rushy release cycle.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-08-18 11:37:52 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
...
But to be honest....I am not a fan of the agile development kick CCP is on. As well...I am not a fan of agile development in general. Comes off to me as half assed slapped together work more often than not. Throw it on a wall and see what sticks just not my preference really.




Absolutely agree here, especially when the front-end work is developed as Agile but is tied to a large database back-end. Infrastructure changes just can't be done piece-meal in many cases, and the whole idea starts to crumble when the changes to the backend are required before the development cycle can begin. For a small frontend with minimal data sure, I can see it working very well. For anything with a realistic amount of persisted information it hasn't worked well so far in any organization I've worked for.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#31 - 2015-08-18 12:17:30 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
OP not understanding the point of the new release schedule.

To be quite frank: Neither does CCP. We were told that this new cycle would end the rush jobs of the past, that devs had more time to polish and finalize features because they were not forced to meet the big deadline any longer, among other things. Has it happened? That is very debatable. New features are still buggy, new features are still released in half-finished form and are not maintained properly. The new release cycle has done little more than to introduce a "Works well enough? Let's throw it out" mentality for CCP. I have yet to see any benefits over the old 6 months cycle with unnamed point releases.

The argument that smaller features do not need to idle for 6 months any more is moot with CCP's introduction of point releases in 2014. But I guess, some devs' ego isn't satisfied if their features is only released in a numbered patch and not a named patch. Roll


Most of what you have said is just purely conjecture.

I'm not here to defend CCP infact I'm very close to unsubbing and taking a break. That being said I disagree with your assertions in the same way that I disagree with most of the sabre rattling in the MGC and jackdaw threads. What we are witnessing here in the software world would never work anywhere else. Like trying to refit a submarine under water to be updated to the current model.

To perform the degree of qa/qc everyone assumes is so easy would probably require the servers to be taken offline just to catch up with all thr technical debt accumulated over 15 years of development.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2015-08-18 13:26:25 UTC
Speaking of longer testing, I may agree. But we don't need longer release cycle for that, you can always release stuff on test servers that isn't going to make it to TQ during nearest update. You can still release previously announced stuff every 6 weeks or so if you feel it's ready to be implemented.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#33 - 2015-08-18 13:47:00 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Speaking of longer testing, I may agree. But we don't need longer release cycle for that, you can always release stuff on test servers that isn't going to make it to TQ during nearest update. You can still release previously announced stuff every 6 weeks or so if you feel it's ready to be implemented.


Yes, sometimes you can, but not all the time.
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#34 - 2015-08-18 14:39:30 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Speaking of longer testing, I may agree. But we don't need longer release cycle for that, you can always release stuff on test servers that isn't going to make it to TQ during nearest update. You can still release previously announced stuff every 6 weeks or so if you feel it's ready to be implemented.


Yes, sometimes you can, but not all the time.


Actually, you can. What the switch to shorter dev cycles has shown is that the length of the dev cycles is not important, the problem is saying "Every X weeks/months/years we are releasing a major update" and pushing out unfinished products to meet an arbitrary schedule.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
Ben Ishikela
#35 - 2015-08-18 15:38:24 UTC
Every patch needs iteration. If you have a big project but then fail to look at what impact it has before moving to the next iteration then you most robably loose your playerbase. This has happened before. Therefore the shorter cadence. Now CCP can make small tweeks and look how its working out.
However, i want more tweaks.

Example: Removal of Teams. reduction of Svipul hardpoints. Silent Drifter development.

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#36 - 2015-08-18 16:36:21 UTC
Quote:

Forum rules

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.



Closed.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Previous page12