These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Team Avatar and the future of our prototype

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#2341 - 2013-10-01 16:16:24 UTC
Arguments, people, this thread bite its tail long ago.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2342 - 2013-10-01 16:46:21 UTC
Post containing sexual accusations has been removed.

Forum rule 6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2343 - 2013-10-01 17:50:29 UTC
Teinyhr wrote:
Do humor me by telling how adding avatar gameplay would alter fundamentals of EVE gameplay in any way


Resources spent on more WiS nonsense are resources that aren't spent on real Eve content.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#2344 - 2013-10-01 17:57:30 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Teinyhr wrote:
Do humor me by telling how adding avatar gameplay would alter fundamentals of EVE gameplay in any way


Resources spent on more WiS nonsense are resources that aren't spent on real Eve content.


Perhaps you should whine more about Dust, Valkyrie and World of Darkness in that case.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2345 - 2013-10-01 18:00:25 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Teinyhr wrote:
Do humor me by telling how adding avatar gameplay would alter fundamentals of EVE gameplay in any way

Resources spent on more WiS nonsense are resources that aren't spent on real Eve content.

Based on how much (new) content has been presented in these last few ~expansions~, it seems not too many resources are being spent on "real Eve content" either...
Crasniya
The Aussienauts
#2346 - 2013-10-01 18:09:12 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Teinyhr wrote:
Do humor me by telling how adding avatar gameplay would alter fundamentals of EVE gameplay in any way

Resources spent on more WiS nonsense are resources that aren't spent on real Eve content.

Based on how much (new) content has been presented in these last few ~expansions~, it seems not too many resources are being spent on "real Eve content" either...


Indeed. Two ships and a few anchorable structures does not an "expansion" make. That's a content patch.

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2347 - 2013-10-01 18:09:14 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Teinyhr wrote:
Do humor me by telling how adding avatar gameplay would alter fundamentals of EVE gameplay in any way


Resources spent on more WiS nonsense are resources that aren't spent on real Eve content.


Perhaps you should whine more about Dust, Valkyrie and World of Darkness in that case.


Dust is a failure that probably won't be around much longer, WoD is vaporware and while I won't play Valkyrie at least it is spaceship related.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2348 - 2013-10-01 18:10:53 UTC
Crasniya wrote:
Indeed. Two ships and a few anchorable structures does not an "expansion" make. That's a content patch.


I like you conveniently leave out the amazing amount of effort put into rebalancing that has happened since Incarna. It's been nice seeing the focus put back into spaceships.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#2349 - 2013-10-01 18:12:17 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Teinyhr wrote:
Do humor me by telling how adding avatar gameplay would alter fundamentals of EVE gameplay in any way

Resources spent on more WiS nonsense are resources that aren't spent on real Eve content.

Based on how much (new) content has been presented in these last few ~expansions~, it seems not too many resources are being spent on "real Eve content" either...


The last expansions were amayzing, the game is in it's best shape ever.

This is not a themepark mmo-rpg, in this game, players are the "content".

The Tears Must Flow
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#2350 - 2013-10-01 18:16:35 UTC
My guess is that making t1 ships viable again was the single biggest source of the post-incarna success, and that's almost solely due to the rebalancing efforts.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#2351 - 2013-10-01 18:32:32 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Rhes wrote:

I like you conveniently leave out the amazing amount of effort put into rebalancing that has happened since Incarna. It's been nice seeing the focus put back into spaceships.


2-3 Devs renaming skill trees and balancing ships/messing around with variables is not an expansion, that's basic game maintenance that should be coming along with actual expansions. What is the rest of the people whose salaries you pay for doing? Developing other games that you don't get to play? Get real man.
You goonsheep whined so much and threatened to unsub permanently upon Incarna release and got a team fired who was actually working on EVE content. Now are quiet and playing ball watching them waste money and resources on side games. Should have done it to Dust/WoD/Valkyrie dev teams not Carbon. Quit being hypocrites thatz bad fo yo health.
Crasniya
The Aussienauts
#2352 - 2013-10-01 18:42:39 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Crasniya wrote:
Indeed. Two ships and a few anchorable structures does not an "expansion" make. That's a content patch.


I like you conveniently leave out the amazing amount of effort put into rebalancing that has happened since Incarna. It's been nice seeing the focus put back into spaceships.


Rebalancing is great. Odyssey 1.1 was a bigger patch than Rubicon 1.0 is. That's the thing. Balancing is patch-level content. It's great, it improves the game, and is PROBABLY largely the reason that EVE is doing well right now. But balancing has nothing to do with WiS, WiS is a completely different type of effort, and would not harm subscriptions, as long as CCP continued to rebalance and iterate spaceship gameplay.

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net
Sir Jack Falstaff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2353 - 2013-10-01 18:59:58 UTC
Kirith Kodachi has an excellent, well-balanced argument for revisiting Walking in Stations. Give Incarna a second chance. It has a good overview of what went wrong with Incarna, and how CCP overreacted to the backlash:

Quote:
Incarna, that is to say walking and interacting in stations, is in of itself not a bad idea; indeed players were clamouring for it after Fanfest 2008. It was just CCP's poor planning and implementation that were bad.

It feels like CCP got their fingers so burnt by the players' ire that they have overreacted and virtually abandoned any Incarna development. I've thought about how to rescue Incarna and the NeX Store before, listing out a fake product backlog of features that could bring gameplay content and interaction into the current structure and got a lot of positive feedback. Players do want walking in stations, they do want customizable avatars, they will accept reasonable microtransactions for cosmetic enhancements, they just do not want it at the cost of all in-space development and feature iteration.

Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2354 - 2013-10-01 19:09:52 UTC
Crasniya wrote:
But balancing has nothing to do with WiS, WiS is a completely different type of effort, and would not harm subscriptions, as long as CCP continued to rebalance and iterate spaceship gameplay.


I don't know how I can make this concept any more simple. If they spend resources on WiS it means they are not spending those resources on real Eve content. Ship balancing is content when it means that hulls that nobody ever flies become viable options again. If you guys could stop obsessing over bathrobes and dance parties you'd see that Eve has been expanding and getting better since Incarna.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Lateris
#2355 - 2013-10-01 19:42:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Lateris
Syds Sinclair wrote:
..I've read some of the Star Citizen devblogs. I gather that they have procured approximately 20m dollars for their game development.

Things are not looking good.

Prediction: SC will fall on its face. 6 months in - become Freemium. 1.5 years in - close the servers and pocket some cash.

Then where will all you Dancing Space Wizzards go?



The beauty of SC is that you can host your own servers. You can mod your own version of the game and host it. Exactly like Freelancer...

As far as avatar content goes or even Dust 514 on the PC, its all vapor ware. I really do appreciate this gaming community over all and some of the most amazing concepts have occurred in this community. Good luck you lovely new eden pilots. I am off to build my own world.

0/
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#2356 - 2013-10-01 19:55:38 UTC
Sir Jack Falstaff wrote:
Kirith Kodachi has an excellent, well-balanced argument for revisiting Walking in Stations. Give Incarna a second chance. It has a good overview of what went wrong with Incarna, and how CCP overreacted to the backlash:

Quote:
Incarna, that is to say walking and interacting in stations, is in of itself not a bad idea; indeed players were clamouring for it after Fanfest 2008. It was just CCP's poor planning and implementation that were bad.

It feels like CCP got their fingers so burnt by the players' ire that they have overreacted and virtually abandoned any Incarna development. I've thought about how to rescue Incarna and the NeX Store before, listing out a fake product backlog of features that could bring gameplay content and interaction into the current structure and got a lot of positive feedback. Players do want walking in stations, they do want customizable avatars, they will accept reasonable microtransactions for cosmetic enhancements, they just do not want it at the cost of all in-space development and feature iteration.


My only "but" would be reminding that Incarna was not just about Wis; it was the impelmentation of the Carbon frame on which everything since has been built.

Also, albeit Incarnageddon was a disaster, 2011 was CCP's best year in terms of increased revenue and comprehensive income.

We're talking about a company that spent half of 2011 struggling for its life. Which means that the boost in income and profits was from the road leading to Incarna.

Or, put in other terms:

Incursion + Incarna = +5.9 million USD in revenues, +3.5 million comprehensive income
Crucible + Inferno = +1.1 million USD in revenues , +0.1 million comprehensive income (after accounting for increased development costs)

Looks like appealing to WiS-bashers isn't making much money to CCP, specially as their marketing expense keeps inflating and October 2013 becomes "operation money grab".

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Souxie Alduin
Anarchy in the Eve
#2357 - 2013-10-01 19:59:38 UTC
Lipbite wrote:
Syds Sinclair wrote:
..I've read some of the Star Citizen devblogs. I gather that they have procured approximately 20m dollars for their game development.

Things are not looking good.

Prediction: SC will fall on its face. 6 months in - become Freemium. 1.5 years in - close the servers and pocket some cash.

Then where will all you Dancing Space Wizzards go?


1) almost all "sandboxy" space games during last decade gathered ~85% "very interesting" ratings (EVE has 84%) including X-series, Space Rangers, people still play Freelancer (by Chris Roberts / SC author) 10 years after its release - it's impossible to create boring space sandbox game;

2) there will be 4 more sandbox releases - Elite Dangerous, Repopulation, Everquest Next, Camelot Unchained - 3 of them are being created by very reputable devs, so this is the last year when EVE doesn't have any interesting sandbox competitors and in a year there won't be any problems to find alternative sandbox game for any taste and all of them will have avatar gameplay. Unlike EVE.


And Pathfinder Online. Don't forget Pathfinder! They even have some old Eve devs I think. Looks like it will basically be Eve in a fantasy setting.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#2358 - 2013-10-01 20:02:27 UTC
Lateris wrote:
Syds Sinclair wrote:
..I've read some of the Star Citizen devblogs. I gather that they have procured approximately 20m dollars for their game development.

Things are not looking good.

Prediction: SC will fall on its face. 6 months in - become Freemium. 1.5 years in - close the servers and pocket some cash.

Then where will all you Dancing Space Wizzards go?



The beauty of SC is that you can host your own servers. You can mod your own version of the game and host it. Exactly like Freelancer...(...)


Private servers with custom mods and rulesets are SC's killer deal. If players need to *buy* something from RSI to keep using their private servers, Roberts it's going to make a trizillion dollars from ancillary sells... Pirate

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#2359 - 2013-10-01 20:03:39 UTC
raven666wings wrote:
You goonsheep whined so much and threatened to unsub permanently upon Incarna release and got a team fired who was actually working on EVE content. Now are quiet and playing ball watching them waste money and resources on side games. Should have done it to Dust/WoD/Valkyrie dev teams not Carbon. Quit being hypocrites thatz bad fo yo health.


Speaking of hypocrisy, a lot more players than just some goons quit (not threatened to quit), enough that it caused CCP to reassess it's financial outlook and staffing levels. But please, do go on with your goonspiracies and chewing your tinfoil, goons only make-up approx 2-3% of players today, less back then. If the estimated loss of players was 10%, that's 4 times as many goons then there are now. To quote Jesse Pinkman: "There ain't that many smurfs in the world."

As has been explained to you and others several times, players threatening to quit are irrelevant, players who actually do quit, are the ones speaking in terms that CCP notices and acts upon. You want CCP to take notice of you, stop giving them money and plexing your account.

The man at the top even told you so: "we will watch what they do, not what they say...."

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Crasniya
The Aussienauts
#2360 - 2013-10-01 20:09:57 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Crasniya wrote:
But balancing has nothing to do with WiS, WiS is a completely different type of effort, and would not harm subscriptions, as long as CCP continued to rebalance and iterate spaceship gameplay.


I don't know how I can make this concept any more simple. If they spend resources on WiS it means they are not spending those resources on real Eve content. Ship balancing is content when it means that hulls that nobody ever flies become viable options again. If you guys could stop obsessing over bathrobes and dance parties you'd see that Eve has been expanding and getting better since Incarna.


The clear point you're missing, is that they obviously aren't spending those resources on "real EVE content", as Rubicon has no content. Odyssey had a nifty hacking mini-game, and that was it.

I support ship balancing. Ship balancing requires one guy. How many devs does CCP have?

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net