These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-09-24 02:06:21 UTC
OP.. please biomass.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-09-24 02:08:00 UTC
i know for a fact from personal experience that direct user feedback does have an influence on game design decisions.

i once told CCP greyscale that some modules (like cloaks, probe launchers, interdiction nullifiers and others) should have longer production times than simple 150mm railguns. he agreed and changed their ranks.

this change, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem boosted my confidence in CCP a lot. They do listen. and they do act.
CCP Manifest
CCP Retirement Home
#23 - 2015-09-24 02:22:22 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
I am a senior game designer, not a PR person.


Confirmed. Ytterbium is not a PR person.Pirate

======== o7 _CCP Manifest | Public Relations and Social Media | @ccp_manifest_

Raffael Ramirez
Alcohol Fuelled
#24 - 2015-09-24 02:25:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Raffael Ramirez
CCP Manifest wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
I am a senior game designer, not a PR person.


Confirmed. Ytterbium is not a PR person.Pirate


Maybe that is a good thing :)

Edit:

Meaning , when I hear Buzzwords I instantly distrust the content - I am not commenting on CCP Ytterbiums suitability for a PR role.

Edit 2 - I can't spell..
Kibitt Kallinikov
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#25 - 2015-09-24 02:34:16 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
K bye.


It gets better when you look at OP's 17 post history. This is the first time that account has spoken on the forums in 3 years.

The last statement before then was this monstrosity.
Zifrian
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#26 - 2015-09-24 02:42:20 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.

Well said. I think it's actually amazing how much effort you all put into communicating and listening to players. I've been frustrated at times and probably made a few whiney crap posts myself, but once you realize how much feedback CCP gets and how many decisions they have to make, it becomes real clear fast the effort they are all putting in.

So thank you CCP. It's appreciated.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Silence Dubensky
Doomheim
#27 - 2015-09-24 03:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Silence Dubensky
My input on this matter is: you unsubscribe your 3+ accounts, OP, cause you obviously have NO clue how much work goes into even little changes, let alone a change such as reworking an entire mechanism in a way that keeps it balanced. CCP do this to keep their customers happy, not ungrateful sods like you. I don't think any of us will miss you.

To the CCP employees reading this: there are still a lot of us who appreciate what you guys do, as I think the responses in this thread proves. There may be matters you don't agree with the community on but just the fact that you even bother listening to us says you're willing to put the effort in. There's been plenty of drama since I made my first account in 2009 but you've still got a playerbase and you're still going strong, so just keep on keeping on.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#28 - 2015-09-24 03:15:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
nvm everything's been said already.
Zarek RedHill
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2015-09-24 03:16:21 UTC
Bravo!

Know that 99.9% of your userbase appreciates your work and understands that individually we may not agree or like everything that CCP decides on for the game -- and that's okay. Don't the loudmouth 0.1% get you down -- they aren't worth you having a lousy day.

In real life anytime I deal with a crappy user (I'm a software engineer w/ 10 years of experience) or co-worker I just keep telling myself, "at least he is not dating my sister", and that puts me back in an okay mood. :)

-Z
Dan Seavey Allier
Seavy Acquisitions
#30 - 2015-09-24 03:28:20 UTC


Thank you, Yitters for the heartfelt post.


There is a lot of frustration in the community, both from those who are unhappy with the results of change and those who are acting out in fear of ultimately loosing a game which we are invested in so many ways.


It's easy to loose perspective and start grabbing torches and pitchforks in an nonconstructive festival of **** posting.

Thank you for being honest, blunt, and sincere in your reply.


I don't post very much, but I truly believe that your efforts and the efforts of your teams will end up delivering a renaissance era that we are all hoping for.

Thank You for enduring some very harsh criticism, and Thank You for putting forth your best efforts in making this a better game for everyone.

Time will prove the merit of your designs.

Dan

Honey Never Sleeps. - John Russell

Whipple Shai
God is great Beer is good People are crazy
#31 - 2015-09-24 03:35:00 UTC
CCP Dudes and Dude'ttes:

I shall now endeavor to take the following as much out of context as possible: "...we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so."

Feedback huh?
I'm 53 and the first computer game I played was in 4th grade where a computer tried to guess a number from 1 to 20 randomly chosen by the student. I started playing this one almost three years ago and have 10 accounts. Why? Because your game rocks.

Eventually it may shut down, I sure hope not. But if if does, I know what I'm doing about 30 seconds before the final downtime. I'll be pointing each characters ship towards the second star to the right and flying straight on till morning. As the screen fades to black; I know my time in Neverland will be over and it'll be time to grow up.

Whipple
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2015-09-24 03:42:05 UTC
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.


Don't make idle threats, cancel you accounts you little ninny.

I'm sure somebody in EVE would miss you though off the top of my head i can't really imagine anybody who'd give a damn

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#33 - 2015-09-24 03:42:47 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Pretty sure they just tweaked the Citadels to shut the space coffin 'I need to grind to feel alive' crybabbies up. There's some nice backdoors in the design though. They're going to die gruesome deaths.

The sov rework is more about waking up 1000s of scrub ratters/Dota players and forcing them to log in and undock, rather than smack badly on forums.

Funny how the failures are racking up.


pwnd them hard
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-09-24 03:53:30 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.

Epic post, but I had some trouble understanding you accent.Lol

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

NinjaTurtle
THIGH GUYS
#35 - 2015-09-24 04:07:54 UTC
threatening to unsub your accounts hasn't been a threat since ever
long live ytterbium
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#36 - 2015-09-24 04:08:45 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.


Since we are being Blunt here, I should not have to Sign up for Reddit, join slack or other social media that you guys are more active on Compared to your own Official Forums. It's amazing how much more communicative you are outside of your own forums compared to on here.

Is it because we are actually able to talk without Censor from your own community Moderators, or do you feel being more active on other sources is better then being as active on here? I am often amazed how much more active you guys are on Slack or on Reddit that I have to log into another companies website to join in on conversations concerning a game that your own company hosts forums for.

Maybe instead of having these forums, you should just direct every Eve Player over to the other Social Media sites you are more actively discussing with those communities upcoming changes, then this one.

Just me being blunt here. Don't get me wrong, I love how you guys work with us and the lengths you go for the community. No matter how much Shyt heads we can be. But it irks me when Pilots link me upcoming changes or discussions that CCP is doing on other sites When I check Dev Posts on here daily and barely see anything. Other players might see more of whats going on if you guys were as active here on the Official forums as you are on Reddit or Slack. It might help rebuild that bond the EVE-O forum users had Compared to the tight bond you hold over at Reddit Vs here.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2015-09-24 04:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
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.


Since we are being Blunt here, I should not have to Sign up for Reddit, join slack or other social media that you guys are more active on Compared to your own Official Forums. It's amazing how much more communicative you are outside of your own forums compared to on here.

Is it because we are actually able to talk without Censor from your own community Moderators, or do you feel being more active on other sources is better then being as active on here? I am often amazed how much more active you guys are on Slack or on Reddit that I have to log into another companies website to join in on conversations concerning a game that your own company hosts forums for.

Maybe instead of having these forums, you should just direct every Eve Player over to the other Social Media sites you are more actively discussing with those communities upcoming changes, then this one.

Just me being blunt here. Don't get me wrong, I love how you guys work with us and the lengths you go for the community. No matter how much Shyt heads we can be. But it irks me when Pilots link me upcoming changes or discussions that CCP is doing on other sites When I check Dev Posts on here daily and barely see anything. Other players might see more of whats going on if you guys were as active here on the Official forums as you are on Reddit or Slack. It might help rebuild that bond the EVE-O forum users had Compared to the tight bond you hold over at Reddit Vs here.


We are in fact more moderated here, its a requirement of the front facing nature of the EVE Official forums.

Should a new potential player swing by to see 'what EVE is about', these forums are what they see first.


CCP protects that area with a relatively iron clad fist, as they should.


However not long after its creation, players gave themselves the vent they needed in some of the various foums found online, anything from Failheap, to Kugu, to SA, to Reddit, there have always been places where the devs can interact with us while not bound to what must be a strick code of conduct for a companies public forums.

I'm not sure why it irks you so much to click a link but i mean, you should just be happy we get this much face time with ANY devs, much less all of them constantly like they currently are on reddit. No other game has quite the relationship with its playerbase that CCP does, you shouldn't care where the hell you have to go to get that kind of relationship, you should just be thankful that you're getting it.


I mean hell, Imagine if you'd given CCP a portion of 60+ million dollars for a game that still had no release and ships were selling for hundreds of actual dollars.

Life could be a lot worse.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Thoric Frosthammer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-09-24 04:47:18 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


Confirmed. The structures team has been by far the most communicative and generally transparent team during my term as CSM. I think you can get the impression from my various communications I'm rather sparing with praise when it comes to CCP. What I'm saying is, don't rain crap on the people who least deserve it~
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#39 - 2015-09-24 04:48:45 UTC
The OP raises some interesting questions. First and foremost among which is, 'Why do we not have a dislike button?'

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Darth Terona
Fancypants Inc
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2015-09-24 04:53:42 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.


Be careful. I've seen other devs go down this road. Once you start playing the forum trolls game, you've already lost.

Don't let one guy, who may be 12 for all we know, ruin your day brother. Keep up the good work