These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

The PR is getting old

First post First post First post
Author
Kazini Jax
Starlight Operations
#1 - 2015-09-23 22:31:14 UTC
"Long story short, we have had long meetings about the structure attack system, and came to the conclusion that, while Entosis Links do indeed achieve our design goals for the Citadels, they are not actually delivering an experience we are satisfied to provide."


CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. It was the user base that doesn't like the stale mechanics of Entosis links. Call it what it is and quit trying to mislead us. This tactic is getting real, REAL old and I am sure it plays a role in your bleeding of users. I know, cause I am ready to permanently close my 3+ accounts over it.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#2 - 2015-09-23 22:36:24 UTC
K bye.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3 - 2015-09-23 22:39:19 UTC
You would rather

''CCP admits they released a failed design and are now scrambling to fix a system players don't want''

pasted all over the gaming press.... That will do wonders for attracting new players. Roll


Sometimes PR spin is for a good reason. The role of PR is to make outsiders / potential new players believe the game is going well and new and exciting features are planned. Not to talk about the problems and mistakes devs inevitably make in a game world as complicated as EvE...


EvE is a business.... not your local church... grow up.

"...ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new.... thats where eve is placed... not in cave."  | zoonr-Korsairs |

Meanwhile Citadel release issues: "tried to bug report this and the bug report is bugged as well" | Rafeau |

Marsha Mallow
#4 - 2015-09-23 22:41:02 UTC
Pretty sure they just tweaked the Citadels to shut the space coffin 'I need to grind to feel alive' crybabbies up. There's some nice backdoors in the design though. They're going to die gruesome deaths.

The sov rework is more about waking up 1000s of scrub ratters/Dota players and forcing them to log in and undock, rather than smack badly on forums.

Funny how the failures are racking up.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#5 - 2015-09-23 22:47:36 UTC
< Stuff <

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#6 - 2015-09-23 22:48:38 UTC
can I have your stuff?

and given citadels aren't even in game yet, I'm sure they are still having meetings about them, and probably will for a while. hell, they will probably have meetings about citadels after they come out

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Dradis Aulmais
Serious Non-stop Espionage and Kidnapping
#7 - 2015-09-23 23:03:44 UTC
the system is still being deployed and you expect perfection.

htfu
ibtl

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-09-23 23:25:09 UTC
Kazini Jax wrote:
CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it.
That seems totally backwards to me unless you are in the business of wasting time. Why would you continue long discussions about something unless you found it in some way lacking?
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#9 - 2015-09-23 23:29:27 UTC
god you are an idiot.


They took feed back into account. But also when they sat down and looked at caps they most likly went 'uh oh... these things need a role.. hmm... crap' so modified the structures accordingly.

For the record.. 99% of all players are ******* stupid. CCP has way more information then most players do, and they make changes for reasons, sometimes reasons people don;t have info on or can;t understand fully.

also a lot of eve players are whining babies.

This is how business works. you make an idea, show your client and they can go 'erm no thats not gonna work and heres why' which after a few times thinking it over and looking at your plan you can go 'oh... yea thats not going to work, crap' and fix it.

Welcome tot he world of software design.

HTFU and stop your bitchen

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2015-09-23 23:34:36 UTC
Bye bye. I am sure that valuable feedback will help them improve.

How was CCP supposed to know eve players still wouldnt put up a gf to defend?

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#11 - 2015-09-23 23:53:28 UTC
CCP should have had the foresight to understand that even though they made the sov system better, people are apprehensive to any kind of change.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#12 - 2015-09-24 00:52:27 UTC
Kazini Jax wrote:
"Long story short, we have had long meetings about the structure attack system, and came to the conclusion that, while Entosis Links do indeed achieve our design goals for the Citadels, they are not actually delivering an experience we are satisfied to provide."


CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. It was the user base that doesn't like the stale mechanics of Entosis links. Call it what it is and quit trying to mislead us. This tactic is getting real, REAL old and I am sure it plays a role in your bleeding of users. I know, cause I am ready to permanently close my 3+ accounts over it.


To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures.

That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? Sad

I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve.

To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours.

We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option.

Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose.


Thank you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#13 - 2015-09-24 00:56:59 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog.

💕
Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-09-24 00:57:23 UTC
*mic drop*
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#15 - 2015-09-24 00:59:31 UTC
daaammmnnnn

WORLD STAR BABY!

WORLD STAR!
Fadiyah Zamayid
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2015-09-24 01:06:49 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Kazini Jax wrote:
"Long story short, we have had long meetings about the structure attack system, and came to the conclusion that, while Entosis Links do indeed achieve our design goals for the Citadels, they are not actually delivering an experience we are satisfied to provide."


CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. It was the user base that doesn't like the stale mechanics of Entosis links. Call it what it is and quit trying to mislead us. This tactic is getting real, REAL old and I am sure it plays a role in your bleeding of users. I know, cause I am ready to permanently close my 3+ accounts over it.


To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures.

That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? Sad

I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve.

To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours.

We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option.

Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose.


Thank you.


Well done. I'm a software engineer so I live this reality also.. Don't let the immature ones get under your skin.. just keep on doing the right thing.. many out here in customer-land appreciate the work you are doing.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#17 - 2015-09-24 01:15:01 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures.

That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? Sad

I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve.

To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours.

We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option.

Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose.

Thank you.

As happy or unhappy as I am with any particular change, here's a Thank You for actually taking the time to have considered meetings regarding our feedback, and be willing to adapt plans.
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#18 - 2015-09-24 01:23:32 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Pretty sure they just tweaked the Citadels to shut the space coffin 'I need to grind to feel alive' crybabbies up. There's some nice backdoors in the design though. They're going to die gruesome deaths.

The sov rework is more about waking up 1000s of scrub ratters/Dota players and forcing them to log in and undock, rather than smack badly on forums.

Funny how the failures are racking up.



Oh F***, I just liked a Marsha Mallow post...

/me jumps in the tub for a wash.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-09-24 01:27:07 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


TL:DR

We do love our players <3

Thank you.


Of all the PR things a game company can do, that is absolutely wonderful to hear. I work in industrial development myself and know how much feedback can both boost and dishearten.

If it means anything, I was getting pretty inactive with eve. The changes and announcement really showed me a great deal and got me heavily enthused for eve online again. Knowing that you take feedback seriously and are working with the player base with your post really has me even more enthusiastic for the next coming years.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Raffael Ramirez
Alcohol Fuelled
#20 - 2015-09-24 01:47:46 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Kazini Jax wrote:
"Long story short, we have had long meetings about the structure attack system, and came to the conclusion that, while Entosis Links do indeed achieve our design goals for the Citadels, they are not actually delivering an experience we are satisfied to provide."


CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. It was the user base that doesn't like the stale mechanics of Entosis links. Call it what it is and quit trying to mislead us. This tactic is getting real, REAL old and I am sure it plays a role in your bleeding of users. I know, cause I am ready to permanently close my 3+ accounts over it.


To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures.

That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? Sad

I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve.

To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours.

We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option.

Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose.


Thank you.


Thank you !

Also, I don't know why Reddit is the communication tool of choice at the moment , but could someone link the relevant information to this forum ? The information might reach more people and lets them see how much work the DEVs put in and how feedback gets incorporated and hopefully stop at least some of the negativity.


123Next pageLast page