EVE General Discussion

All changes, even relatively minor ones, attract pages of commentary, often negative, and alternative suggestions in the forums. It's part of the job of the developers to sift through this and try to assess whether it indicates a real problem with a plan. In other words, I think the developers' standard for "overwhelming" might just differ from yours.

Just because a dev does;t change something based on what a bunch of people are, for lack of a better term, crying over doesn;t mean its ignored. Often times, the end user has less information then the devs do. for example, the phoebe jump nerf, if the devs had listened to everyone complaining (there was a lot) it never would of happen. But after it being here for a several months now, it seems to have the effect CCP wants. 9 times out of 10, one change is part of a larger picture, and we as users don;t have the picture. Feedback is good, but as darwin says, the devs have crunched numbers, data and other information that we just don;t have. So often times they go through with the plan, because a lot of times the info players are saying, the devs have already tried and disagree with. Though there are plenty of times where ideas were modified because of feed back (freighters getting low slots as opposed to rigs is one example) and other times where feed back was ignored for a more 'see what happens' type of thing (loot spew being one) Feedback is good, but always remember, the devs ALWAYS have more information then you and tend to always have a bigger picture or plan that you don't. They can chose to not do your changes, for whatever reason, but ti doesn't mean its ignored.

Yes, please open a bug report if you're reporting a bug, and post in the forums if you have a suggestion or feedback. Neither can really be handled by our customer support department. That was my point, sorry if I was unclear. While our GMs do sometimes pass along feedback that they hear frequently while servicing players' tickets, it is not an effective channel for developer feedback.

I agree, it just seems like some devs are better at their jobs than others. Greyscale will be missed.

CCP Rise was extremely accommodating during the redesign of the Tech 1 haulers, listening to the feedback that simply changing existing stats around was not interesting gameplay, and we got a newly diverse set of T1 haulers, as a result.

CCP Rise was at first reluctant, but did adopt suggestions that the Bowhead get an HP buff and agility bonus, compared to the original proposal.

The initial proposal to add capital rigs to freighters was met with tons of feedback, and the whole concept changed to giving them much more affordable low slot modules. (A side effect of nerfs to base stats, so that adding low slot modules wouldn't buff them over what they could do before - resulted in several players observing "be careful what you wish for.") I don't want to start a freighter complaint thread - this is just another example of feedback affecting the outcome.

I don't see a "Paint my kitchen" link.

Not really. The goal of that whole change was to make Gallente not the obvious choice to train. Given Gallente got pretty much all of the variety and still had a really good max end hauler, gallente is still the obvious and only real choice to train.



HP wasn't the problem with the bowhead. Its expensive for what it does and can't carry all that much and is slower than freighters.

The bowhead was a solution to a problem created by rigs. In my opinion Repacking ships with rigs would have been a much better solution as it would have allowed us to use ships we already had. On top of this he didn't listen to the fact that the ship didn't need another one off skill like every other ORE ship has. Its quit ridiculous.



The lows might be more affordable but it was still in general a nerf to freighters where one wasn't needed. The feedback he ignored was that freighters didn't need slots to begin with. On top of that it hit shield freighters harder than armor ones since low slots exist for armor freighters that allow them to put up better tank. In general that change was a big cluster f@#$ that should have never gone through, but that feedback was ignored.

And on top of that you miss the numerous threads where he rammed changes through, like the RML changes or anything else he's worked on.

Nobody gets everything they want. The point of my message was to show specific examples where player feedback *has* influenced the outcome.

Rigs are a mechanic, not a problem.

Role based ship functions is what this game is all about. There is no one size fit all like you seem to looking for.

Edit: the only repackaging related "problem" was ship skins, which CCP is fixing. Rigs are exactly how they should be.

Semantics. Industrails already served the purpose of hauling things. The only reason bowheads are necessary is because of the expense in losing rigs if ships were repacked. A simpler solution would be to allow the "repacking" of ships without losing the rigs.