These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Aegis release - General feedback

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Panterata
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2015-07-08 19:46:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Panterata
There is a bug/misunderstanding or no desire for understanding from your side as per our old feedbacks.

Old icons missing again in this patch. Please fix it as per player request since 4 week ago!

- Option to use old icons for PVP and PVE or customize - shiny square for ALL ship classes and shiny cross for ALL NPC ship classes.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#62 - 2015-07-08 19:51:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
ISD Decoy wrote:
Please be respectful at all times. Disagreeing on philosophy or direction is OK if you frame your arguments constructively and provide viable alternatives or solutions. Ranting or rambling is not OK.

You mean respectful like completely ignoring and disregarding any and all feedback to proposed changes? Or respectful like completely ignoring and disregarding and any all feedback and bug reporting from testing? (because from the initial issues from the Aegis release, it's fairly obvious most if not all of the bugs that were reported on SiSi were completely ignored). Or did you mean respectful like sneaking in some last-minute changes that were never hinted at, discussed or even formalized?

It doesn't really matter anymore. There's such an abyss between what the developers and operators of this game think is happening between what players know what is actually happening that I'd seriously be surprised if CCP survives long enough to actually take possession of their new lease space. I truly feel sorry for the developers and designers that actually care, because they're being lumped in with the ones that are completely out of touch with reality.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#63 - 2015-07-08 20:43:30 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
ISD Decoy wrote:
Please be respectful at all times. Disagreeing on philosophy or direction is OK if you frame your arguments constructively and provide viable alternatives or solutions. Ranting or rambling is not OK.

You mean respectful like completely ignoring and disregarding any and all feedback to proposed changes? Or respectful like completely ignoring and disregarding and any all feedback and bug reporting from testing? (because from the initial issues from the Aegis release, it's fairly obvious most if not all of the bugs that were reported on SiSi were completely ignored). Or did you mean respectful like sneaking in some last-minute changes that were never hinted at, discussed or even formalized?

It doesn't really matter anymore. There's such an abyss between what the developers and operators of this game think is happening between what players know what is actually happening that I'd seriously be surprised if CCP survives long enough to actually take possession of their new lease space. I truly feel sorry for the developers and designers that actually care, because they're being lumped in with the ones that are completely out of touch with reality.


In the many years that I have been playing this game, I dont think that I have ever seen the level of dissatisfaction with CCP both in game and on the forums as exists currently. Even after walking-in-station things weren't this toxic. After WIS players felt that they could shake things up; that CCP had lost its way but could be brought back to the right path. Now it seems to me that the general consensus is that CCP doesnt give two figs for what the players think and that there is a huge amount of CCP fatigue. Consequently, rather then sticking about, folk are just voting with their feet, which is why just about every day, log in numbers seem to be getting lower and lower. For me, I just log in now, spin ships a little, see that no one else is logged in, and then log out to watch TV or play something else. Didnt used to be this way.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#64 - 2015-07-08 21:03:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Topic: UI

Houm... so now the CONCORD ships are clearly, noticeably teal on the overview... but I still can't tell where's my next warp gate without squinting and occasionally clicking the wrong (extremely faint yellow, almost gray) gate.

*resigned sigh*

Constructive postscript: make "yellow" marked objects more clearly marked. Maybe as yellow as the forum emotes.... something that can not, in no way, be mistaken for white/gray.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2015-07-08 21:07:57 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Even after walking-in-station things weren't this toxic. After WIS players felt that they could shake things up; that CCP had lost its way but could be brought back to the right path.
We must not forget that it took 4 to 5 months after Incarna deployment for CCP to get back on track. CCP Hellmar's apology and most of the related fixes did not happen until 5 months later. Only because the update pace has increased tremendously does not mean response times in such a large scale are bound to happen faster as well.
On the contrary, I think the increased update schedule with less content per patch is going more the route of slow but steady fallout instead of massive dissatisfaction from multiple sides. Then again, by now the aftermaths should be a lot clearer...
croakroach
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2015-07-08 23:54:30 UTC
Quote:
Friendly NPC now have a blue tint


How are these NPC's "Friendly" to me?: http://puu.sh/iSbSI/7eeb8ed9e7.jpg

I can barely tell a difference between this "blue tint" and other NPCs also, the tint is far too light to make a difference unless I look real close. Please give us the option to change the color of icons ourselves just like we can change their background (and can now barely see thanks to the new icons).
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#67 - 2015-07-09 00:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyranis Marcus
Wouldn't it be better to give the missile tracking modules their own market groups instead of combining them with the gunnery ones?

Also, what the 3%!#$^*$#!!^!#$(!@#@#$ with the new icon for ballistic controls, etc? The old one was nice. The new one looks like...nothing. Nothing recognizable. Well, maybe a cardboard box, so it might be a good icon for a new packaged module fresh from Amarrazon.com that hasn't been opened and fitted to a ship. But please get it off my HUD!

Some of those new skins look really nice. Are there any plans for Minmatar skins with more dramatic color changes?

Do not run. We are your friends.
Eraza
Fuzzyness Enterprizes
#68 - 2015-07-09 02:51:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Eraza
Natya Mebelle wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Even after walking-in-station things weren't this toxic. After WIS players felt that they could shake things up; that CCP had lost its way but could be brought back to the right path.
We must not forget that it took 4 to 5 months after Incarna deployment for CCP to get back on track. CCP Hellmar's apology and most of the related fixes did not happen until 5 months later. Only because the update pace has increased tremendously does not mean response times in such a large scale are bound to happen faster as well.
On the contrary, I think the increased update schedule with less content per patch is going more the route of slow but steady fallout instead of massive dissatisfaction from multiple sides. Then again, by now the aftermaths should be a lot clearer...


I have been losing hope for this to improve, it dosn't feel like anyone is reading this, and it very much feels like noone is reading the bug reports, some very simple bugs slipped in that really really should not have.

On top of all the seeding faults, I find this in the attributes tab of all of the new missle modules.
Example(missile guidance computer I):
[no messageID: 309768] 4.5%
I mean, every one of the new modules have an unexplained attribute, seriously?


The Ishtar nerf feels like it very much missed the mark, and looks like a shot in the dark from someone not familiar with the ship.
It's too popular, so, remove a med slot, add a low?
Remove it's flexibility, cram it into a role?
I mean, was removing the ships flexibility the best way of nerfing it?
how about a reduction in bonuses?(which it still has a TON of) just let the others overshadow it in pure DPS and tracking, and watch it slowly drift down from it's throne, and no need to mess with it's core function, which again, people find very annoying.

Reading the dev comments on the Ishtar nerf also makes me feel that this was a shot in the dark nerf.
Personally, I would have counted it's DPS potential up, compared with it's tanking potential, to see if it really WAS overpowered, or if it was just a long standing flavor of the month ship, added to some fleet doctrine.
Some ship will always be most popular, you cant prevent that.
What matters here, is WHY was it the most popular?
Reading this post:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=431058&find=unread&_ga=1.60277613.132482622.1432232922
makes it rather apparent that CCP noticed that it was dominant, and decided to make it less dominant, with random changes, without actually bothering to ask WHY it was dominant?


Another issue with this patch, this change makes me worried:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=432590&find=unread
I dont know what experience CCP has from other MMO tech support, but I very much find that ingame tech support, is leaps and bounds ahead of any website, no matter how good, in how comfortable it makes me feel with the game and it's customer support.
Second to that is tech support by the company itself, on the company's own servers.
Tech support that leads to a different website, not owned by the company in question?
That STRONGLY discourages me from trusting it with anything, and makes it very hard to feel confident and happy with.
I have to say I suspect that this is more because outsourced email tech support is cheaper to run than in-house tech support.

When I needed to talk to support a few years ago, I used a button inside the game, and in just a few minutes, a GM contacted me ingame.
at first glance, it seems that your new system is email only, and I'm NOT optimistic on you keeping those response times up.


The new missile modules have rather small bonuses, which now have a stacking nerf they didnt used to have?
I will admit that I have not flown a missile ship for months now, but I'm just not feeling excitement for 4.5%-6% bonuses WITH a fresh stacking penalty added.
Was this pre-nerf really needed?
The stacking penalty to already existing rigs, makes me glad I don't use missiles, rather than curious about the potential of the new modules, there was a BIG missed opportunity for patch excitement missed here.


And last but not least, the icon changes this were a big step in the right direction, in making this functional,
not quite all the way there yet, but that part is good work at least.
The solid blocks are much more comfortable to read than hollow ones, at least for npcs, and I notice some of the sillier icons I disliked are gone, plus I no longer confuse drones and ships at a glance, and I no longer confuse wrecks and player ships, at a glance.
But did it really need to have a 111 page threadnaught of fury to point that out, when most if not all of the issues were already pointed out by people on the test server, LONG before this went live?


What happened CCP? I used to applaud you as one of the best, most communicative and friendly companies in gaming.
What I see now, makes me very much question, "did I ever REALLY say that?"
Reading http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility (the accounts logged in chart)shows that I'm not the only one having a problem here.
You guys are approaching a loss of 25% of your customer base WITHIN two months?
Do I even need to comment at this point?
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2015-07-09 04:27:06 UTC
When you look at the Missile Guidance Computer and Enhancer icons in large icon mode, they both read "Missile Guidance".

This is a quality of life degradation as I have to hover over them to see which is which, which is hella annoying when I have 20 of each floating around. And with the **** poor job at coming up with distinct enough icons, now three modules look all the same - thank goodness I'm not inventing the BCS too..

Please fix if you can. Change the name a bit or something so we can make the two distinct...
John Lawyer
Doomheim
#70 - 2015-07-09 11:38:15 UTC
New BCU (and stuff) looks completely out of style comparing to other icons.

Also, actual image of this ... radar? is BIGGER, comparing to other icons (design fail?)

It looks like graphic artist is newbie OR he had to do it in a fast-track mode for like 30mins.

I even imagine this situation:
"Ummm... Yeah... Whats happening, Jon?
We have an incoming patch today.
If you could go ahead and draw us something cool within the next hour that would be terrific, m'kay?
Thanks..."
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#71 - 2015-07-09 13:28:49 UTC
Just wanted to say that the icons are still terrible. All of the issues that existed at release of the icons still exist today.

1) There are too many icons. There is simply no need for many of the icons such as rookie ship, mining frigs, individual drones etc... The only thing that is necessary is identifying the relative sizes of the ships on grid since that dictates how you are going to approach combat. (The idea that the new icons are better because now you can tell a frig from a desy is just preposterous. Before the change you could tell a frig from the desy by looking at the types column. Now you still need to look at the type column because you still need to know what type of ship you are facing e.g algos v. catalyst. Thus, the icons didnt change the way players approached the analyzing the grid at all).
2) The difference between many of the icons is too inconsequential to render the icons readily distinguishable at a glance - squashed half circle v. slightly smaller squashed half circle; triangle v. slightly smaller triangle. Some of the changes might be ok with the extra large super-duper monitors that the devs have for instance Triangle with a line vs. triangle with no line, but on a normal player monitor they are simply not visible since they are two small and indistinguishable. The sun is a perfect example - those tiny rays are just not visible if i sit more then a foot away from my monitor rendering the sun indistinguishable from the planets.
3) Many of the icons such as the new mobile depot and the empty wreck icon are almost invisible as they are too small and insubstantial.
4) Identifying other players is the single most important feature that is required of the overview and icons - yet having players as off grey open wire frames insures that they frequently blend into the background so they are not visible at all.

In short, the new icons did not improve the old system but instead created a more complex opaque system that obscures needed tactical and strategic detail by overwhelming users in a sea of incomprehensible meaningless informational overload. Oh, and they also make the grid look like crap - since they are better suited to an old 80's videogame.

IMO there is no fixing the icons. The icons should be removed from the game and replaced with the old icons. Short of that, a kill switch should be added to allow folk the option to play the game in the manner in which they like. Sure this will render the icons being placed in cq hell, but that is where they belong.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Eraza
Fuzzyness Enterprizes
#72 - 2015-07-09 13:56:02 UTC
John Lawyer wrote:
New BCU (and stuff) looks completely out of style comparing to other icons.

Also, actual image of this ... radar? is BIGGER, comparing to other icons (design fail?)

It looks like graphic artist is newbie OR he had to do it in a fast-track mode for like 30mins.

I even imagine this situation:
"Ummm... Yeah... Whats happening, Jon?
We have an incoming patch today.
If you could go ahead and draw us something cool within the next hour that would be terrific, m'kay?
Thanks..."


That's something I had NOT noticed.. and, uh.. yeah
That icon looks VERY out of place, and... why was the old icon bad?
CCP, please stop fixing things that are not broken..
perhaps I should put that line in my sig..
Those last two patches largely should not have happened, it's all fixing stuff that didn't need any fixing..
Eraza
Fuzzyness Enterprizes
#73 - 2015-07-09 13:59:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Eraza
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Just wanted to say that the icons are still terrible. All of the issues that existed at release of the icons still exist today.

1) There are too many icons. There is simply no need for many of the icons such as rookie ship, mining frigs, individual drones etc... The only thing that is necessary is identifying the relative sizes of the ships on grid since that dictates how you are going to approach combat. (The idea that the new icons are better because now you can tell a frig from a desy is just preposterous. Before the change you could tell a frig from the desy by looking at the types column. Now you still need to look at the type column because you still need to know what type of ship you are facing e.g algos v. catalyst. Thus, the icons didnt change the way players approached the analyzing the grid at all).
2) The difference between many of the icons is too inconsequential to render the icons readily distinguishable at a glance - squashed half circle v. slightly smaller squashed half circle; triangle v. slightly smaller triangle. Some of the changes might be ok with the extra large super-duper monitors that the devs have for instance Triangle with a line vs. triangle with no line, but on a normal player monitor they are simply not visible since they are two small and indistinguishable. The sun is a perfect example - those tiny rays are just not visible if i sit more then a foot away from my monitor rendering the sun indistinguishable from the planets.
3) Many of the icons such as the new mobile depot and the empty wreck icon are almost invisible as they are too small and insubstantial.
4) Identifying other players is the single most important feature that is required of the overview and icons - yet having players as off grey open wire frames insures that they frequently blend into the background so they are not visible at all.

In short, the new icons did not improve the old system but instead created a more complex opaque system that obscures needed tactical and strategic detail by overwhelming users in a sea of incomprehensible meaningless informational overload. Oh, and they also make the grid look like crap - since they are better suited to an old 80's videogame.

IMO there is no fixing the icons. The icons should be removed from the game and replaced with the old icons. Short of that, a kill switch should be added to allow folk the option to play the game in the manner in which they like. Sure this will render the icons being placed in cq hell, but that is where they belong.



I dont have any problems seeing the new icons for the new mobile depot, and that's on 100% scaling, 22 inch monitor, 1920x1080,
last months icon just annoyed me, it looked like a fluffy bear or something, which was just out of place

The new wreck icon, well, I was having serious problems confusing player frigs and destroyers with wrecks, it was very annoying, so that part is an improvement of sorts.

What this system did not deliver, is one issue in PVP, a cruiser is still a cruiser
if the icons cant tell me the difference between a thorax and a phobos, at a glance, they make little difference in PVP, over the old good bracket icons, that were more focused, and to the point
And if you add NEW icons for T2 of everything, including letting me tell a phobos from a deimos, and a thorax, just.. and then there will be too many ship icons, and it would always be confusing.
No matter what, I will still need the type column, which makes this icon change useless, except perhaps for carebear PVE play, but you dont really get away with that forever in eve :)

in the end, I do agree with you, the new icon mess has been repaired slightly, but it still should not have happened..
CCP, you really need a "if it's not broken, dont fix it" sign..
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#74 - 2015-07-09 15:23:48 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
this patch was teribad; but well, looks like no one from ccp really care, they are all hyped up with this new walking in stations thin... i mean this new sov mecanics thing...

tldr: i've seen this level of arrogance in ccp before, nothing good came from it, nothing good will come again...
like before, they are frustrating the player for no reason, how they can't learn from the past is well beyond me, but to be honest i don't care anymore;

p.s: ccp, wtf is with the new bcu(ballistic control unit- just in case-) icon? like really, what was wrong with the old one? and if really change was necessary, who thought the picture of a squashed carton box will be a good choice???
Joe Gormley
Nemo Modicus Group
#75 - 2015-07-09 17:50:02 UTC
After 12 months of, at best, mediocre upgrades to the game, and putting stuff on TQ that should still be going though development on SISI, i.e. ICONS, I believe for the sake of the game, the Seagull should fly off to new waters...

Never, in the time I've played the game, have I seen so much half cooked stuff being released on TQ as now....

Miss the DEV team that took the time to listen and fix the issues...

Quality over Quantity every time..

Remove the Icons as no fit for purpose!!
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2015-07-09 18:30:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Natya Mebelle
Dear CCP could you please reduce the size of the new Missile module icon to make them a bit more in line with the rest? It is simply too big compared to other icons on the fitting slots.

Thank you for keeping the old style of icon. I feared every new icon will look as flat and boring as the new Damage Control module. But why get RID of the old Ballistic control module icon? Why not ADD the new icon you made for the two missile enhancing modules? Why are you removing visual distinctions? Apparently, visual overload is totally okay *looks at the overview*

Patch notes wrote:
The Hecate can now be insured.
The "Flight Time Bonus" attribute appears now correctly in the module attributes.
Market groups for new Missile Guidance modules have been fixed.
The market group icons for Weapon Upgrades, Ballistic Control Systems, Missile Guidance Computers and Missile Guidance Enhancers have been updated.
There was a time, years ago, when Eve online hotfixes after a content patch consisted of ... well... BUGfixes only. This went on for a few days, and then things have been silent again for weeks until the next patch because the delivered product was solid.

Nowadays? Crucial things that wouldn't have been missing are being hotfixed, and fixes continue to trickle in even shortly before a new content update arrives.
This is another indicator of the rapid patch schedule not doing you well. Sloppy is not a trait a company wants to have painted all over their name. It feels like there is a lot of pressure in the office, and eventually a valve will break. I hope this valve breaks sooner than later, in order to get things back on track again.

But back to more important bits: The market groups for missile guidance system have not been PROPERLY fixed.
What you should have done is:

First, not show off your fancy new module design by pushing it as the new default icon for "Weapon Upgrades." There are far more weapon upgrades using the turret based symbol. Get back to this.
Next, move the "Weapon Upgrades" one step up to make it no longer a sub-category tree of "Turrets and bays" but it's own category, nesting between "Turrets and Bays" and "Drone Upgrades." Stuff gets convoluted and messy. Oh and while you are at it... either rename "Bays" to "Launchers" or make an own category for Launchers. If you do the latter, then you can put the related "turret upgrades" and "Launcher upgrades" sub-categories back in there. Because it would make sense, right? Like... having everything put nice and tidy where it should belong without mixing things together?


Patch Notes wrote:
The overview and bracket icons for friendly NPCs are now teal colored

This is NOT teal. Not even CLOSE. Seriously, who can't distinguish teal from sky blue? I don't need to cite established standards here to know that nobody really would associate teal (which is a medium / dark blue-green) with this light blue.


Eraza wrote:
*wrote good stuff as usual, plus: *

Another issue with this patch, this change makes me worried:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=432590&find=unread
I dont know what experience CCP has from other MMO tech support, but I very much find that ingame tech support, is leaps and bounds ahead of any website, no matter how good, in how comfortable it makes me feel with the game and it's customer support.
WHAT?! They did... what... I don't even...
Up until now I had no idea they did that. I thought the zendesk was only going to be for technical stuff?
Cutting off ingame support is a MASSIVE mistake. It was nice to know when I got response to a ticket because the GAME told me and my Neocom blinky-blinked. Zendesk is not hip, it is not trendy, and you don't get any gold stars for using it. Zendesk is a platform to have a framework for a customer service for companies who do not want to deal with their own support system. But you HAVE a support system. I mean, had. You even had a rating system in your old ticket system... why do you promote Zendesk rating system as an advantage over your old system when it already had such a system? Do you even use your own services, CCP? *is reminded about that 3rd party feedback for corporation interface which told CCP things they didn't even know any more* oh wait... nevermind.

And are we still playing Eve online or do we play "Eve Alt-tabbed and outsourced" ? To exaggerate the matter:

NPE: " Just effin google it ."
Starmap: "dotlan & eveeye > all"
Support: " Zendesk is cool, let's use it. Let's not care about being at the mercy of third party services."
CREST: " There was a reason I wanted to log in again... but what was it? "
Skillplans: " Evemon plans > ingame skill queue system"
Ship fits: " I'm running a simulator to check if I can fit that stuff. Outside of eve. "
Item databases: " I can access every item outside of the game faster than inside. Wait, what?"

The moment you allow access to the chat system of Eve from OUTSIDE, like pidgin inclusion, your concurrent players will drop so hard, it won't be funny any more.


Joe Gormley wrote:
After 12 months of, at best, mediocre upgrades to the game, and putting stuff on TQ that should still be going though development on SISI, i.e. ICONS, I believe for the sake of the game, the Seagull should fly off to new waters...

Never, in the time I've played the game, have I seen so much half cooked stuff being released on TQ as now....
It sounds like I wasn't all that wrong with my history lesson.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2015-07-09 18:30:51 UTC
Joe Gormley wrote:
After 12 months of, at best, mediocre upgrades to the game, and putting stuff on TQ that should still be going though development on SISI, i.e. ICONS, I believe for the sake of the game, the Seagull should fly off to new waters...

Never, in the time I've played the game, have I seen so much half cooked stuff being released on TQ as now....


Yeah.. this rapid development cycle is pushing through a lot of nice things, but it is also perhaps pushing people to find things to do to push through to seem like they're doing something. Like maps, overview icons, monochromaic neocom, and all that.
D'Lest De'Kranken
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#78 - 2015-07-09 19:31:46 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Lest De'Kranken
Welcome to AGILE project management/software development. It's software development for children or programmers with ADD.

"We'll just keep iterating till we get it the way WE want it...customers don't matter to us.. "

These are people who have rejected the project management strategies that brought us the AS400 and Hoover Dam....and every other successful project on the Planet.

AGILE is for people who can't be bothered with developing customer requirements, customer feedback, proper project management methodologies, development methodologies.....it's just.....

"Hey... let's do some software!!!!""

"We'll let our customers Beta test it for us and since nobody holds us accountable...we don't care if they like it or not..!!! "

"We're developing software!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Joe Gormley
Nemo Modicus Group
#79 - 2015-07-09 20:04:35 UTC
The poor choice of colour Teal / light blue for neutral (friendly) NPC ships was highlighted before it was changed on SISI, a good few weeks ago... Sadly that thread has now been deleted... One wonders why??

As the change has now taken place in the latest patch you can see how selective the DEVs are to feedback... Basically they don't listen as they appear to be on their own personal crusade.

The DEVs justification for changing ICONs just don't stack up other than to tie them into other stuff that the majority of players don't use...

It really is time for a change in approach from CCP, I prefer quality over quantity every time... and what we are getting at the moment certainly isn't quality...

Time for the Seagull to fly south.....

Miss the DEV team that took the time to listen and fix the issues...

Quality over Quantity every time..

Remove the Icons as no fit for purpose!!
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#80 - 2015-07-09 20:53:06 UTC
Well one good thing - given how bad the last couple of updates have been expectations for CCP's success with Fozziesov couldn't be lower. Just about everybody I know expects it to be a clusterfcuk, so even if it's just "meh" it should look brilliant in comparison to everything else.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.