EVE General Discussion

I agree a resource thread in the test server forum would be the best place to list changes - in that forum . The old keep it simple stupid approach of centralized communications.

The time-stamps on edits should show lesser changes have happened, with a title change with clear/replace when a major change occurs. Such will keep the changes info in the same forum as feedback from the community.

The less places you have "non-team members" hunting around for what should and shouldn't be done, the less screw ups and missed testing you'll run across. I just don't think an actual changes log is needed. Some of the internal junk that gets fixed isn't obvious and some probably shouldn't be published in such a fashion at all (such as anti-bot updates and such).

The focus being on what is desired to have tested.

---

As to the OP: It kind of sucks going to sisi to "mess around" sometimes. I find myself testing stuff just visiting there at times.

Latest example: Destroyers had that 1.25 ROF fix implemented. Interdictors still have that 1.25 ROF in place. I checked with a Thrasher vs a Sabre - the Sabre fires the same gun 25% slower.

It's a hidden attribute of the Interdictors that was there before but never really published, though I do vaguely recall it being discussed when the destroyer changes were on sisi. As such, a dictor will do less DPS than the T1 version of that hull. I'd thought that had been fixed/removed at some point but it hasn't. A "wait and see" but not a major issue really.

Such "I wonder" stuff crops up and gets tested here or there, even when not directly applicable to a current testing situation.

The obvious plus to maintaing an in-progress features dev blog would be exposure. Especially when they are seen on the launcher or the character screen, dev blogs are read by more EVE players than the Sisi forums. Since getting more people interested and generating constructive feedback is beneficial, I think its at least worth trying.

But when I look at the Sisi forums atm, what I see is a lot of discussion but very little summation. If CCP aknowledges a player concern on page 66 of a 136 page forum topic, players (except for die-hard, speed-reading mutants) might miss that info. I suspect few people would be willing to read a 136 page forum topic when their limited volunteer time would be better spent testing features on Sisi anyway. There are features posts listing what to expect in the next expansion, but no sort of feedback summation post to aknowledge issues collectively raised.

So I think it would beneficial to use a two-fold strategy here. If proposals are included in an in-progress, updated dev blog that is disseminated to the masses and successfully generates interest in Sisi testing and new features, then once players get to the Sisi forums, there should probably be a sticky, running post of known issues with the next expansion (similar to "little things") or at least an aknowledgement of their mention. In fact, if this issue compilation gets posted by the new CCLs, it would make their function largely transparent. Letting people know you're aware of an issue, and as was stated earlier, telling them why or why not a thing can't be done, will proactively defuse a ton of negativity.

The noise issue is problematic in any data mining endeavor and is largely unavoidable. All you can strive for is to be as clear and concise as possible and to make relevant info easily located. Filtering that info on the Sisi forums themselves, not only for the benefit of the devs, but also for the casual reader, would be largely beneficial. Because at the moment, devs respond to so many topics on that forum that nearly every one has a dev tag and tbh they all look the same.

IMO, the definition of good public relations is "effective two-way communication." And I see communication on the Sisi forums, its just the effective, two-way part that needs a little tweaking. Dev responses are buried in the middle of lengthy topics and a summation of that feedback somewhere more readily accessible should be an asset to players and devs alike.


Yonis Kador

This sounds a bit nuts. I don't have any obligation to CCP to help them test anything. OP makes this sound like some kind of religious revelation. CCP needs to develop a track record of actually using the player feedback that it does get from SiSi. The current inventory system is a good example - CCP was warned by lots of posts that the new system was not ready for use, this from players who did go to SiSi and try it out. The responsibility to make this system work is on CCP. If they need a crop of testers, they need to figure out how to recruit them.

Why the sneering attitude about the way players choose to use SiSi? I would think that getting players onto SiSi for any reason would be good for CCP, but OP implies that we are all doing it wrong, which is decidedly odd.

I wonder. Is it feasible to maybe detect when people do things that would involve them bumping into a new feature, (you altered shiptype X, someone is fitting it or activating it, poof, a script fires) and evemail them right inside the Sisi client for feedback with a link for an external survey form? If you want it to be gaming-immune, it can be made single-use and unique.

Good post but often the mirroring quit a ways behind TQ and I can't test the ships I just trained up for.

No one has any kind of obligation thats why CCP should make it as simple a easy possible for the player to help them otherwise they will just say "fuckit"