These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: From Two Expansions To Ten Releases!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Battlestar
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
#41 - 2014-05-13 03:58:14 UTC
I like this change, while I will miss the older expansion model I think it is better as it will allow for a more flexible timing of content. I would see them more like mini expansions than releases anyhow. Besides at least we aren't getting charged for each one unlike certain MMOs lol.

Keep on truckin CCP

I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#42 - 2014-05-13 04:16:11 UTC
Caroline Grace wrote:
3) No. The reason I want the old model is because I prefer it. Why I prefer it? Because I love expansions-model in games as they add huge new content I can explore for weeks and it revives my interest for the game. Cut this into 10 pieces per year and the excitement is melted into small pieces and my level of satisfaction is stable, but low all over the year.

I prefer to be satisfied by one big juicy stuff, rather than be continuously "bribed" by small things without a climax. So you can keep your opinion about this. But this is my opinion.

Well, my opinion is that, while that model may work for things like Call of Duty or World of Warcraft, where they spend a year or two, and 10's of millions of dollars, building up to a big release, it doesn't work for a sand-box MMO, where long-term (reasonable) stability is fairly important.

In this game, players benefit from long-term planning, not the huge peaks and troughs associated with a theme-park MMO, wherein players will use up this new content within a month or two after release, then complain about the lack of content. They're constantly hanging out for the "next big thing", instead of enjoying what's already there. Considering that the players generate the content of this game, if the content of EVE is ever used up, the game is pretty much dead.

I think the mindset of the sort of player you want in EVE is the one who sees a mature, relatively stable game, with a relatively stable market and mechanics, that's constantly iterated upon, that they feel they can build up their little "empire" with, rather than someone who just wants the shinies and complains on the forums whenever they don't get them.

But this is just my opinion.

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.
Isa Kasai
Broziki
#43 - 2014-05-13 04:21:35 UTC
A word search did not yield 'Agile' being mentioned a single time :(
Flamespar
WarRavens
#44 - 2014-05-13 04:21:42 UTC
So breaking up avatar gameplay into small pieces that can be introduced piece by piece (or in a large chunk) whilst not holding up other changes to EVE is now a possibility.
ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#45 - 2014-05-13 04:26:20 UTC
okst666 wrote:
the most important question to me as a graphics *****... will every release have its own awesome CG-Trailer as the past two anual releases had?

If not - I would be very dissappointed :(

While I'd love this (in fact, a trailer every week would be nice Big smile), perhaps an alternative idea would be to release story-line trailers (similar to the last two), that actually relate to a number of releases (whether an introduction to an upcoming common theme of those releases, or a conclusion to the last few releases).

And perhaps a "feature" trailer, that ties up a number of related features (that may not be related to the storyline), such as the upcoming industry one, even though it may take several releases to fully implement it.

Admittedly, there is sometimes an overlap between features and storyline, such as player-made stargates, but that just means they'll have to make a feature-length trailer of awesome, right? Big smile

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#46 - 2014-05-13 04:52:26 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Batolemaeus wrote:
Yes, I lifted this from Cryptonomicon.


Have a like for that, sir.


I read the book at the cottage one summer.
Idiotic ending.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#47 - 2014-05-13 06:04:25 UTC
Wow.

CCP, I applaud you for having the balls (cured in lactic acid) to make a change like this. I predict many growing pains to endure and long term awesomeness to relish.

Overhaul Dscan!
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything.
#48 - 2014-05-13 06:11:53 UTC
Caroline Grace wrote:
I don't agree with this change and I'm heavily concerned about this brutal change to EVE Online development.

This change will kill the natural "buzz" about EVE Online in the press, media and around the playerbase as there will be now no expansion-big content to be looking for. Expansions create excitement, they force many people to come back -- for good reasons. They create the buzz between players. They create the notion the game is getting updated and that something big new is added to the game's universe. People like to see their game is getting updated. People like to see their game is receiving not only patches and regular small content, but also big, vision-like upgrades. Patches with fancy names will remain just patches, no matter how hard you will try to convince players otherwise.

There is a reason why any gaming company doesn't do just patches, but also expansions. Every gaming company knows why.

You will be not doing 10 expansions per year -- you will be doing 10 (fancy named) patches and that will basically kill the flow of returning/leaving players from the last 10 years which worked just fine for EVE. Although I understand some of the reasons why you want this titanic change to EVE development, it sounds more like "we want to make things easier for us at the cost of giving players something big regularly every year".

As a paying customer for an entertaiment service, I don't quite frankly give a flying unicorn about what is easier for developers of the game I play. That is not my concern. But if the cost for giving developers easier life is to burn the classic model of expansions, I'm in a shock.

If you were smart, you would care very much about the developers of your game using a more convenient development model. Less burnout, less time wasted, less risk-aversion, less deadline crunches leading to unwanted compromises, all directly translate to a better game even if you never see the direct effects.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#49 - 2014-05-13 06:17:49 UTC
I think it would be good to have some leading theme for bigger releases, let's say 12 months, like industry for Kronos. In meantime, something don't connect to theme could be released, like balancing, improving graphics, small projects etc.

It would cause some predictability for players, like what to expect in near future, while there would be still room for not so tight to 6 months expansions releases.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Gargep Farrow
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2014-05-13 06:33:24 UTC
I have had very little good to say regarding all the upcoming changes. Sorry I see more bad than good.

This Blog along with "Delivering the Industry New Eden deserves" changes that dramatically. Changing the release schedule in the manner proposed therefore allowing the industry changes to get pushed back a month shows sound thinking on the part of CCP Devs. I give the new release method two HUGE thumbs up.
Octoven
Stellar Production
#51 - 2014-05-13 07:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Octoven
As has been pointed out, this gives developers a bit more flexibility, if something goes horribly wrong in a release *cough cough Incarna* they can react much faster to resolve an issue without too much of an impact in the next release. However, as was pointed out during the keynote, this does have a bit of an issue. If you miss a window for features you wanted to push in a release that was built upon features in the proceeding release you get a cascading delay.

Also, another danger I can see is taking on a much more heavy workload. You will only get about what...6-8 weeks to work on features to push out. The two big releases a year is already a pretty big cycle especially compared to other companies that go annually one release or even bi-annually. So 6 weeks even on smaller features is a pretty massive undertaking. Of course my concern here is QA and testing. You would essentially only get about 3-4 weeks of testing, assuming the work is finished on time or early. The other pitfall of this I can see is just simply losing focus. If you are focusing on short term small features every 6 weeks and long term bigger features over many releases, its pretty easy to get caught up in the smaller feature focusing and give the larger features the proverbial shoulder. If nothing else, what could result is instead of getting a pretty big feature released in a semi-annual expansion you could possibly end up waiting up to a year to get that same feature because it is getting much less work done, but over a longer period.

I would add to this that some stuff is already being pushed back, case in point: industry changes being moved to July instead of June.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2014-05-13 08:59:39 UTC
Octoven wrote:
As has been pointed out, this gives developers a bit more flexibility, if something goes horribly wrong in a release *cough cough Incarna* they can react much faster to resolve an issue without too much of an impact in the next release. However, as was pointed out during the keynote, this does have a bit of an issue. If you miss a window for features you wanted to push in a release that was built upon features in the proceeding release you get a cascading delay.

Also, another danger I can see is taking on a much more heavy workload. You will only get about what...6-8 weeks to work on features to push out. The two big releases a year is already a pretty big cycle especially compared to other companies that go annually one release or even bi-annually. So 6 weeks even on smaller features is a pretty massive undertaking. Of course my concern here is QA and testing. You would essentially only get about 3-4 weeks of testing, assuming the work is finished on time or early. The other pitfall of this I can see is just simply losing focus. If you are focusing on short term small features every 6 weeks and long term bigger features over many releases, its pretty easy to get caught up in the smaller feature focusing and give the larger features the proverbial shoulder. If nothing else, what could result is instead of getting a pretty big feature released in a semi-annual expansion you could possibly end up waiting up to a year to get that same feature because it is getting much less work done, but over a longer period.

I would add to this that some stuff is already being pushed back, case in point: industry changes being moved to July instead of June.


6 week cycles doesn't mean you're limited to spending just one cycle, it simply means 'every six weeks we gather up all the finished parts that can be released as is, and we release them'

yes code with dependencies on unfinished sections gets postponed until those sections are done, but those features can't be called finished at that stage can they? :) - good design consideration will mitigate this.

another advantage of the time spans is 'teams can allocate time better' and can then start to multiplex tasks to put work into components that're needing more help to get them released sooner, or to start up new tasks that could be finished, allows the teams to work together or independently in a way that's much more fitting to agile methodology.

TL:DR:

this system compared to the old one is much better at re-allocating developer workload on an as needed basis, meaning more changes can be made by a greater number of teams at once, whenever they need to be made.
Eurynome Mangeiri
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2014-05-13 09:10:20 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Katrina Bekers wrote:
I'm a die-hard fan of open source mantra "release early, release often", and I really hope this concept sinks into corporate CCP.

On one hand, iteration on code most likely will be improved. Instead of waiting six months to fix something half broken in a previous expansion, they have more flexibility to quickly correct the most blatantly unbalanced first implementations of a feature. Mind goes to the various iterations in areas such as incursions and FW, when they were reworked from scratch but still missing their balance.

OTOH, I know from first hand experience that devs can and will delay releases, asking for "just one more polish pass", thrown on project and development manager desks. The release managers need to start cracking some whips, or no new code will ever see the light of day again.

A whip cracking Seagull is now my favorite dream! <3



LOL they already do point releases and ***** still broken 6 months after its released. Most of the broken is discovered in the much too short SISI tests that CCP routinely ignores.

Its ok you can still be excited, but try not to ignore the facts.

except that now, we probably won't see them on SISI before release, because of the short timeframe between two release.

meaning all the bugs will hit TQ.

also one thing i noticed with agile scrum + short schedule: bug number literally skyrockets (mostly due to the QA being massively reduced).

now, knowing CCP's attitude when it comes to bug solving, this is not good at all.......

pretty sure that we will see more and more unsolved bugs in the next year, and the current situation is already not good....Sad
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2014-05-13 09:30:43 UTC
Eurynome Mangeiri wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Katrina Bekers wrote:
I'm a die-hard fan of open source mantra "release early, release often", and I really hope this concept sinks into corporate CCP.

On one hand, iteration on code most likely will be improved. Instead of waiting six months to fix something half broken in a previous expansion, they have more flexibility to quickly correct the most blatantly unbalanced first implementations of a feature. Mind goes to the various iterations in areas such as incursions and FW, when they were reworked from scratch but still missing their balance.

OTOH, I know from first hand experience that devs can and will delay releases, asking for "just one more polish pass", thrown on project and development manager desks. The release managers need to start cracking some whips, or no new code will ever see the light of day again.

A whip cracking Seagull is now my favorite dream! <3



LOL they already do point releases and ***** still broken 6 months after its released. Most of the broken is discovered in the much too short SISI tests that CCP routinely ignores.

Its ok you can still be excited, but try not to ignore the facts.

except that now, we probably won't see them on SISI before release, because of the short timeframe between two release.

meaning all the bugs will hit TQ.

also one thing i noticed with agile scrum + short schedule: bug number literally skyrockets (mostly due to the QA being massively reduced).

now, knowing CCP's attitude when it comes to bug solving, this is not good at all.......

pretty sure that we will see more and more unsolved bugs in the next year, and the current situation is already not good....Sad


not if the system is used properly, example: 5 cycles (30 weeks) development -> 1-2 cycles test release (singularity) 2 cycles feedback -> cycles required to alter/debug sit here, and change as needed -> then release -> then check again/during/after 8-12 weeks
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#55 - 2014-05-13 10:08:58 UTC
How does CCPgames intends to market these 10 release points per year to raise awareness to the gaming media and / or the broader gaming community ?

Regards, a Freelancer

PS: As a capsuleer in New Eden I do like the idea to give the development of eve online a bit more breathing room with follow up deadlines, CCPgames resources are scarce.

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#56 - 2014-05-13 10:40:41 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Batolemaeus wrote:
Yes, I lifted this from Cryptonomicon.


Have a like for that, sir.


I read the book at the cottage one summer.
Idiotic ending.


I read it few years ago so I don't exactly remember ending but even if it was idiotic whole book was excellent. At least I enjoyed it very much but I love everything that Neal Stephenson releases so I might be biased.

Invalid signature format
Katrina Bekers
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#57 - 2014-05-13 12:25:19 UTC
Freelancer117 wrote:
How does CCPgames intends to market these 10 release points per year to raise awareness to the gaming media and / or the broader gaming community ?


Why market the releases created by CCP, when you can prepare videos (like the B-R5 one shown at Fanfest), and market the events created by players?

In the recent years, all the mainstream media attention was sky high for things like Caldari Prime, Asakai, 6VDT, B-R5, 49-U, etc. and much, much, much less about Odyssey or Rubicon.

<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>
Katrina Bekers
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#58 - 2014-05-13 12:31:46 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
LOL they already do point releases and ***** still broken 6 months after its released. Most of the broken is discovered in the much too short SISI tests that CCP routinely ignores.

Its ok you can still be excited, but try not to ignore the facts.


A good place to start is to keep SISI continuously updated with repository exports or checkouts, which should be far more frequent under the new development model.

But yes, you can bring a horse to the river (or code to SISI), but can't force it to drink (or to use the feedback to tweak features and balance).

I guess it costs nothing to be positive. The "still broken 6 months after its release" is exactly the point, and why they're changing the release model, so to avoid exactly that in the future.
___

Also, can anyone please stop thinking that now they have only 6 weeks to work on features? That's the release frequency, and not anywhere near the time window to work on something. For all we know, they may work 18 months on something and just release that at the 78th or 84th week after they start.

<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>
Caroline Grace
Retrostellar Boulevard
#59 - 2014-05-13 12:41:30 UTC
ihcn wrote:

If you were smart, you would care very much about the developers of your game using a more convenient development model. Less burnout, less time wasted, less risk-aversion, less deadline crunches leading to unwanted compromises, all directly translate to a better game even if you never see the direct effects.


If you were smart, you would actually understand the sentence. I said I don't care about that in general (meaning I can be both happy and upset about it, more likely happy logically), however if they decide to make their lifes better at cost of a development style I prefer, I'm indeed upset.

I'm Caroline Grace, and this is my favorite musical on the Citadel.
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#60 - 2014-05-13 13:04:10 UTC
poppeteer wrote:
'About' 10 releases, every 6 weeks .. does not compute. Subtract ~8 weeks leave per year .. computes less. Blink
We are starting with 6 weeks in between releases, will be looking at if we can reduce that to 5 or even 4 weeks. But there will be 6 weeks in between the December and January release due to Christmas and New Year's holidays, and then probably 10 weeks between the June and August releases due to summer vacation.

As we enter this new model we will figure out what makes sense in terms of the length of the period in between releases, what is the best balance, and we will learn a lot from trying it out that we will apply to future development and scheduling.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer