These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The PR is getting old

First post First post First post
Author
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#81 - 2015-09-24 11:51:47 UTC
...and by the way, I really like the way CCP is handling this so far. Some really good ideas in those citadel dev blogs. Seems pretty professional and responsive to their customer base as far as I can tell!...

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson

Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#82 - 2015-09-24 11:56:24 UTC
OP is a ******, he got ****** hard in the ass.
Outlawd
Asset Seizure and Reclaimation
#83 - 2015-09-24 11:56:54 UTC
Oh my. I've never seen a case of OP "getting rekt" so hard.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2015-09-24 12:08:06 UTC

Lucas Kell wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
Out of curiosity, if you don't like getting bad feedback (who does?) why don't you listen to the constructive feedback that is given before you make design decisions that annoy people. Most of the problems occurring with the sov system were predicted quite publicly long before the system was introduced.


Occupancy based SOV is what the blocs told CCP they wanted, and this is what CCP provided.

The problem with player feedback in a game like EVE is that a lot of it is given in the interest of an alliance and not in the better interest of the game. CCP has to keep the metagaming at arm's length, which means a lot of good advice can get thrown out. The perfect feedback system doesn't exist because EVE players have historically been terrible at maintaining their own objectivity.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Lucia Denniard
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#85 - 2015-09-24 12:16:34 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:


Occupancy based SOV is what the blocs told CCP they wanted, and this is what CCP provided.



We asked for occupancy sov, we didn't ask for EHP-free occupancy sov.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2015-09-24 12:18:26 UTC

Because the playerbase in general had a very high opinion about structure grinding, right?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#87 - 2015-09-24 12:21:09 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.


CSM Confirming Yitterbaum and Nulabor are literally BOSS F$#%^&* TIER. The communication from these guys and their team has been nothing short of amazing.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#88 - 2015-09-24 12:25:27 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

Lucas Kell wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
Out of curiosity, if you don't like getting bad feedback (who does?) why don't you listen to the constructive feedback that is given before you make design decisions that annoy people. Most of the problems occurring with the sov system were predicted quite publicly long before the system was introduced.


Occupancy based SOV is what the blocs told CCP they wanted, and this is what CCP provided.

The problem with player feedback in a game like EVE is that a lot of it is given in the interest of an alliance and not in the better interest of the game. CCP has to keep the metagaming at arm's length, which means a lot of good advice can get thrown out. The perfect feedback system doesn't exist because EVE players have historically been terrible at maintaining their own objectivity.



Thing is, the issue of the sov system isn't an issue of bad player feedback, it's an issue of developers making a convoluted system with some goals (some supported by players, others that weren't) that lead to a situation that was unfun for many of us. Even though the system 'works' in a way that makes us in null more comfortable (you'd need a mighty big sledge hammer to get through the bonuses in my ratting system lol), it made some things from the old system worse.

As for 'structure grinding', the most important point is that they took something that was tedious but at least interactive (you at least got to shoot at something) and made it more tedious (whack a mole) and even more boring (instead of shooting, we sat there and watched ONE GUY LASER A THING lol).

I've been talking about sov since 2009, Aegis-Sov is NOT what i asked for.
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#89 - 2015-09-24 12:26:15 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.


You tell em!

Not today spaghetti.

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2015-09-24 12:30:07 UTC

I'm only responding to Lucas's idea about CCP not listening as some kind of active effort on their part because they don't like player feedback.

Many players wanted many things out of SOV, and CCP's implementation has plenty of flaws that have been discussed ad nauseum.

Jenn, if you personally wanted something else, that's fine.. but it's not like you're the only person giving feedback, and it's not like a large group of players rallied behind your ideas in some kind of statement delivered to CCP.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
#91 - 2015-09-24 12:36:56 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
How about, thank you?
Indeed. Thank you Ytterbium!

Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#92 - 2015-09-24 12:42:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Tippia wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Agree 100%.

Information is King and Communication is it's Queen.

The initial release of information regarding new or existing game design should be presented first in the Official Eve Online Forums. After that Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Podcasts, Game news sites, etc can then be used for more exposure and further discussion.

Now look what you made me do: I had to positively quote and like a DMC post. Evil


I pressed the like button on a DeMichael Crimson post and a Lucas Kell post. It was like divding by zero..

But at least something positive can come from all of this, a new corporate motto:

"CCP hf, bringing even mortal enemies together, one disastrous miscommunication at a time" Twisted
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#93 - 2015-09-24 12:50:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Sibyyl wrote:

I'm only responding to Lucas's idea about CCP not listening as some kind of active effort on their part because they don't like player feedback.

Many players wanted many things out of SOV, and CCP's implementation has plenty of flaws that have been discussed ad nauseum.

Jenn, if you personally wanted something else, that's fine.. but it's not like you're the only person giving feedback, and it's not like a large group of players rallied behind your ideas in some kind of statement delivered to CCP.



Well, they don't seem to like player feedback. That is why I had this reaction.

For years they've announced stuff, many of us have posted saying "there is a flaw here, and here's what it is". There seemed to be a 'digging in' by CCP and they stick to their plan. It goes wrong, then they have to spend time and money fixing the thing that many of us told them would be a problem.

In other words, giving feedback to CCP is exactly as effective as giving feedback to my 17 year old daughter lol. Too many times to count, CCP has asked for feedback and then seemed to ignore it, even when that feedback was damn near unanimous. This gives the impressions (real or imagined) that CCP doesn't really want feed back and is just asking for it for "PR" reasons.

You know how much I appreciate and admire CCP, I go to forum war daily in support of their efforts. But they have traditionally had a problem with communication, and have sometimes seemed to make decisions based on some really faulty assumptions which results in them implementing stuff poorly, which is no fun for us, but, more importantly, costs them time and money to fix. Even a "CCP fanboi" like me has to admit this.
Seven Koskanaiken
Guerillas in the Mist
#94 - 2015-09-24 12:57:19 UTC
Lucia Denniard wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:


Occupancy based SOV is what the blocs told CCP they wanted, and this is what CCP provided.



We asked for occupancy sov, we didn't ask for EHP-free occupancy sov.


Before proteus (January) CCP release a survey to gather to player feedback on structure gameplay.

The last section deals with sov structures. The final question is "What is the main problem with Sovereignty structure gameplay today based on your experience?".

In March the devblog is released announced entosis.

Now it could be everyone filled that question out telling ccp how much they love ehp and CCP completely ignored it and decided to spite the players by doing the exact polar opposite.
Or it could be eve players are, in the main, a bunch of impossible to please adult babies who suddenly want the toys back that they previously threw out of the pram...
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#95 - 2015-09-24 13:09:38 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:






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, if we really want to be honest here, regarding player feedback, i must say that this case is the exception and not the rule;

don't get me wrong, i really appreciate your " open approach" and i hope this will be the "new CCP way " but just saying this is how CCP managed always or even most player feedback just is not right;
yes, you guys do a great job with this "citadel 2.0", but there are allot of let's say very bad examples in this last year where CCP ignored player feedback entirely or just used the bits convergent with theyr own views;

one recent example that come to my mind, is last missile rebalance thread, where after asking for feedback, CCP went missing, totally ignoring player feedback:
basic and pertinent questions like, "are this numbers posted for scripted or unscripted mods?" or are the new mods stacking penalized with missile rigs" or "are the missile rigs staking penalized now?" where answered many days latter by a...CSM member, cose no one at CCP could be bothered ; and don't get me started about new map or new icons or new inventory...

so if we are to talk about respect, while you are right to say what you say, that you desrve respect, how about the players that spent hours on test server to test new proposed mechanics and find out that CCP completely ignored they'r effort and dedication; how many bugs made on live server this last year, despite them being reported on test server?

"respect" is a two way street; maybe it's time to take a moment, look around a bit and start using both ways of the street Blink

while this reply was addressed to CCP Ytterbium, by "CCP" i'm not refering to you in particular, but at the entire CCP; like i said, this exception of yours is very nice and probally the only thing that is keeping me into the game, but the fact is, CCP have a problem, and the first thing in resolving a problem is admitting you have one Blink

ps.: and lol at all those eve players jumping into the bandwagon stomping on the op; last week you are all "waaah eve is dyeing" and now you pretend this never occured ...

Utemetsu
#96 - 2015-09-24 13:12:50 UTC
Been playing on and off since 2009, and currently have a total of three accounts subscribed. I've only just recently started flying again, but each time I log in, I find the game better than before.

Keep it up, CCP. You're doing revolutionary work.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#97 - 2015-09-24 13:14:29 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.
Shots fired.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#98 - 2015-09-24 13:20:20 UTC
Sad to see so much hindsight whining. In the end to the current sov, I doubt anybody predicted that inties would become the meta so strongly. Yeah, it is wack a mole and all that means is there is a hole in playstyle. It is adaptable. Why is it if say... 200 ceptors come in cannot the defenders just instaswat them from the skies. Why dont the inties need defenders?

To quote Lfod Shi

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#99 - 2015-09-24 13:25:26 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Occupancy based SOV is what the blocs told CCP they wanted, and this is what CCP provided.
It's what was asked for, but it's not was provided. Occupancy only has one role in sov, raising indices. If occupancy itself was the driver for control in the system, i.e. living in and utilising the space is a key part of deciding ownership, then it would be occupancy sov. As it is, sov is instead controlled by who can get one pilot unmolested for a given amount of time to mine the structure, much like the old system but with less players and less guns. The occupancy part just changes how long that pilot has to mine.

Sibyyl wrote:
The problem with player feedback in a game like EVE is that a lot of it is given in the interest of an alliance and not in the better interest of the game. CCP has to keep the metagaming at arm's length, which means a lot of good advice can get thrown out. The perfect feedback system doesn't exist because EVE players have historically been terrible at maintaining their own objectivity.
Of course they do, but then when people are stating things are going to happen and be bad - like trollceptors - it doesn't take a genius to work out it's probably spot on. And surprise surprise, it is.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Amber Starview
Doomheim
#100 - 2015-09-24 13:37:26 UTC
Lots of people bashing the OP here but he is not the only person to spread misery and salt on these forums , constantly amazed the level of bitterness towards fellow players and ccp

Hopefully this at least stops some of it In the future ,good job Dev good job