These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Capital reps and Armor Links (Confirmed Stealth Nerf)

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Angsty Teenager
Broski North
#161 - 2012-12-04 20:03:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Ding Ding Ding

That's what the defect report started as, then it got merged into an older defect report with incorrect information.

We do want to make things like this work consistently, but we're not really interested in buffing local capital tanks that much. So we're going to be looking at this again. I can't promise the changes will be ones most people like but they will be more complete and thought out.


Interested in why you think buffing capital local tanks is a bad idea. As it stands right now, it seems to me that triage carriers and seiged dreads could use more local tank.
Cid Tazer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#162 - 2012-12-04 20:06:50 UTC
Angsty Teenager wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Ding Ding Ding

That's what the defect report started as, then it got merged into an older defect report with incorrect information.

We do want to make things like this work consistently, but we're not really interested in buffing local capital tanks that much. So we're going to be looking at this again. I can't promise the changes will be ones most people like but they will be more complete and thought out.


Interested in why you think buffing capital local tanks is a bad idea. As it stands right now, it seems to me that triage carriers and seiged dreads could use more local tank.


May be off topic of the thread, but why do you think that carriers and dreads need more tank? (I'm not for or against the idea but would like to know your reasoning as well)
Alua Oresson
Aegis Ascending
Solyaris Chtonium
#163 - 2012-12-04 20:19:27 UTC
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:
Alua Oresson wrote:
Cyaron wars wrote:
Abusive post that reveals he didn't read the whole thread.


Another who hasn't even trained reading, much less reading comprehension. CCP Fozzie made a mistake, it is being fixed. Being abusive for one mistake isn't going to get you any brownie points.



I take this from Fozzie serious:

Quote:
We do want to make things like this work consistently, but we're not really interested in buffing local capital tanks that much. So we're going to be looking at this again. I can't promise the changes will be ones most people like but they will be more complete and thought out.


Cyaron wars is right about the rage.


Actually, he isn't. This is the time to give feedback on what, if any issues are involved in capital remote and local repair modules. Raging just because he said you might not like it is neither mature or rational.

http://pvpwannabe.blogspot.com/
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#164 - 2012-12-04 20:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Cura Ursus
Dude, u have test servers for feedback. You do not go live with such **** without even telling playerbase.


Edited per forum rules:
29. Personal attacks and abuse of CCP staff.
There has been a worrying trend of increased personal attacks on developers on our own forums as of late, this will not be tolerated. Our forums are an area for players to exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who abuse staff will receive a permanent forum ban across all of their accounts which will not be subject to review at any time.

-- ISD Cura Ursus
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#165 - 2012-12-04 20:29:30 UTC
Cyaron wars wrote:
Personaly I fired people for less incompetence.


Sounds like you're a cool guy Roll
Cid Tazer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#166 - 2012-12-04 20:32:23 UTC
Cyaron wars wrote:
Dude, u have test servers for feedback. You do not go live with such **** without even telling playerbase.
If guy is incompetent in writing damn patchnote and state "Gang links will nto affect capital remoet reps" how the hell can he write damn code? Personaly I fired people for less incompetence.


Test server yes. But how closely are people really watching every detail on Bucky? How often do people triage their carriers on Bucky? Bucky is great for doing some theory crafting and making sure obvious things don't explode, but Bucky is no subsitute for real use on TQ.

Unless they have unlimited time allocated for testing, QA groups will try to hit the areas that have the most bang for the buck. A minor defect (which is what the original badly written original defect was written as), will get very little time in testing. Crimewatch on the other hand probably had hundreds if not thousands of hours dedicated to it because it's a very high visibility system.
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#167 - 2012-12-04 20:44:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyaron wars
Cid Tazer wrote:
Cyaron wars wrote:
Dude, u have test servers for feedback. You do not go live with such **** without even telling playerbase.
If guy is incompetent in writing damn patchnote and state "Gang links will nto affect capital remoet reps" how the hell can he write damn code? Personaly I fired people for less incompetence.


Test server yes. But how closely are people really watching every detail on Bucky? How often do people triage their carriers on Bucky? Bucky is great for doing some theory crafting and making sure obvious things don't explode, but Bucky is no subsitute for real use on TQ.

Unless they have unlimited time allocated for testing, QA groups will try to hit the areas that have the most bang for the buck. A minor defect (which is what the original badly written original defect was written as), will get very little time in testing. Crimewatch on the other hand probably had hundreds if not thousands of hours dedicated to it because it's a very high visibility system.


CCP always makes Mass test stuff. Every time they nerf something they ask for mass tests. I've participated in many. Remember T2 Triage and Siege modules? There was mass test for those. Supercaps also had tests. And this change was discovereb by guy on TEST server and after patch on TQ. So CCP did nerf modules without telling that to people or not telling it in proper way. That is why I am upset. This is not some sort of bug that you have to report - this is damn nerf that went silently until OP found it and posted here.

I assume bugged wardeck system was also tested many times, but even in new expansion it is not fixed.
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
Stealth Alliance
#168 - 2012-12-04 20:47:41 UTC
Cid Tazer wrote:
Test server yes. But how closely are people really watching every detail on Bucky? How often do people triage their carriers on Bucky? Bucky is great for doing some theory crafting and making sure obvious things don't explode, but Bucky is no subsitute for real use on TQ.

Actually we noticed this and bug reported it weeks ago, they said it was intentional. They knew all along, they intentionally didn't tell anyone.

Damn nature, you scary!
Cid Tazer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#169 - 2012-12-04 21:01:50 UTC
DelBoy Trades wrote:
Cid Tazer wrote:
Test server yes. But how closely are people really watching every detail on Bucky? How often do people triage their carriers on Bucky? Bucky is great for doing some theory crafting and making sure obvious things don't explode, but Bucky is no subsitute for real use on TQ.

Actually we noticed this and bug reported it weeks ago, they said it was intentional. They knew all along, they intentionally didn't tell anyone.


After reading the original post again, this is my opinion of the timeline of how things went:

-> Someone wrote a defect about gang links and implants effecting only armor versions of reps (this was badly written so it got categorized with capital remote reps instead of with local reps)
-> Programmer got assigned defect did some magic and fixed what the defect implied.
-> SW was run on the test server.
-> Bug reports were generated about this.
-> GM/scrum master looked at bug report and found it was related to original defect but took everything the defect said as fact without checking it and reported it back as intentional.
-> Retribution is released.
-> Angry threads about nerf were posted.
-> Fozzie finds angry threads.
-> Fozzie took an inital look at defect thought all was good and wrote first response.
-> Fozzie then for whatever reason dug a little deeper.
-> Fozzie then finds that the initial information on the defect was wrong.
-> Fozzie apologizes, reverts settings, and will have another look at it.

The only bad thing that I can see that happened is that the original information on the defect wasn't fully verified. The GMs or scrum master who was responding to the bug reports did what they could with the knowledge they had. Could they have reported back to team leads that the players were reporting this and it related to this defect, sure.
Alua Oresson
Aegis Ascending
Solyaris Chtonium
#170 - 2012-12-04 21:29:02 UTC
Cid Tazer wrote:
DelBoy Trades wrote:
Cid Tazer wrote:
Test server yes. But how closely are people really watching every detail on Bucky? How often do people triage their carriers on Bucky? Bucky is great for doing some theory crafting and making sure obvious things don't explode, but Bucky is no subsitute for real use on TQ.

Actually we noticed this and bug reported it weeks ago, they said it was intentional. They knew all along, they intentionally didn't tell anyone.


After reading the original post again, this is my opinion of the timeline of how things went:

-> Someone wrote a defect about gang links and implants effecting only armor versions of reps (this was badly written so it got categorized with capital remote reps instead of with local reps)
-> Programmer got assigned defect did some magic and fixed what the defect implied.
-> SW was run on the test server.
-> Bug reports were generated about this.
-> GM/scrum master looked at bug report and found it was related to original defect but took everything the defect said as fact without checking it and reported it back as intentional.
-> Retribution is released.
-> Angry threads about nerf were posted.
-> Fozzie finds angry threads.
-> Fozzie took an inital look at defect thought all was good and wrote first response.
-> Fozzie then for whatever reason dug a little deeper.
-> Fozzie then finds that the initial information on the defect was wrong.
-> Fozzie apologizes, reverts settings, and will have another look at it.

The only bad thing that I can see that happened is that the original information on the defect wasn't fully verified. The GMs or scrum master who was responding to the bug reports did what they could with the knowledge they had. Could they have reported back to team leads that the players were reporting this and it related to this defect, sure.


Basically this. I work with people that don't give very good reports on what a problem is. Sometimes the report is so confused that I go ahead and fix what they say the problem is and get a flurry or vituperation that I broke something else. These things happen in real life. If you are going to fire someone over a mistake like this, I'm glad that I don't work for you.

http://pvpwannabe.blogspot.com/
Akyla Dey
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2012-12-04 22:23:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Yup the implications of the change were not spelled out very clearly, we should have put a lot more explanation into the note.


That's my big issue about this. Not that mistakes were made, not that changes were made, but that none of this was explained clearly and explicitly before it happened, when CCP knew good and well what the effect would be. This goes all the way back to Hilmar's apology to the playerbase and the promise of better communication (which in all fairness has been better, if very on-again off-again by CCP). Had you guys been up front about what was happening in a way that players could understand, you would have had plenty of feedback about it and the error would have been caught before committing time and resources to it.

Fozzie, you of all people as a recent hire from the playerbase should understand the need for good communication on things like this. Obscuring game changing issues behind a blanket of code and databases benefits no one, and this is a perfect example. You guys write silly little devblogs about the color of ships and tiny changes to the market interface, but can't be bothered to explain something as large as this. Please, please, please keep us players in mind next time you decide to implement something of this magnitude.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#172 - 2012-12-04 23:39:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So here's the deal.

Firstly. I have confirmed that I stated incorrect information in my earlier forum post. I apologize for the mistake and want to clearly state that those of you arguing that the links all affected shield transporters were and are correct and I was wrong.
What happened was I accepted incorrect information at face value, information that I should have known was wrong and information that I should have personally confirmed before making any statements. Many of you know me well enough to know that this kind of mistake is not the kind of thing I want to be allowing myself to make, and frankly there's egg on my face.

The change was made as a defect response to a defect that contained incorrect information, and although I brought up some concerns when it was initially reported (as did the CSM, most notably Two Step), I did not dig deep enough and we let an imbalanced change hit TQ.

So what we're going to do is roll back this whole change as the first available patch opportunity and then go back to the drawing board to create a more complete plan to both make capital effects more understandable and ensure that the mechanics stay balanced and that we don't crush capital pilots.

We'll keep you updated, and once again I'm very sorry.


whoa now don't blame my bug report

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tomytronic
Perkone
Caldari State
#173 - 2012-12-04 23:44:22 UTC
Andski wrote:

whoa now don't blame my bug report

stop ruining EVE andski
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#174 - 2012-12-04 23:49:19 UTC
Shame that you are retracting it, all nerfs to capitals are good nerfs and seeing all the titan bridging blobbers crying about their much loved triage carriers was fun.
Hilfe
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#175 - 2012-12-05 00:19:56 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Shame that you are retracting it, all nerfs to capitals are good nerfs and seeing all the titan bridging blobbers crying about their much loved triage carriers was fun.




Its not like you can bridge carriers onto the field ( shame that was fixed never had a titan to try it with befor it was fixed ).

There are penalties for jumping any capital ship and ways for your own side to find out who triage pilots are and combat them.

Realy sounds like you do not like capital ships can I drop one on you and ruin your day or maybe get something you realy love nerfed ??

Personaly I love tanking small gangs while I call for backup just like I know they are doing...

That makes intresting fights.
Lotty Granat
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2012-12-05 00:23:43 UTC
Needmore Longcat wrote:
But this thread was delicious!

Seriously, though, it's neat to see you guys listen to the playerbase.


Even if the posters of all 120 posts were unique then it's hardly 'the playerbase'

Only people with a vested interest and had this linked have even found this post so far so chill for a few days, leave the carrier docked and fly some new destroyers for kicks.

Also guys - leave the Dev alone - you ***** that they don't read the forums, then you get personal about his responses in it - no wonder they ignore you.

This thread is already TLDR - point made - I'm sure we'll see a reversal soon....
Whiny McEmokid
Reclaimer Corp
#177 - 2012-12-05 00:38:06 UTC
Cyaron wars wrote:
Aspergers


shut up
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2012-12-05 02:34:20 UTC
TLDR......CCP Fozzie "I got high...mistakes were made"

On a side note, buffing capitol local reps certainly isn't a bad thing in these days of 16k dps moros', triage has a hard time not just dying all the time. If it's rr slow cat blobs you want to nerf, then make rr mods take stacking nerfs, problem solved.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Mayfair Boozie
Hammer Holding
Wardec Mechanics
#179 - 2012-12-05 02:36:58 UTC
Kari Juptris wrote:
Mayfair Boozie wrote:
This nerf is awesome!! Long live cruiser reps, and down with the "I win" archon.



You should read up on the part where the change is going to be reverted as soon as reasonably possible. Roll



Yea!! Back to Archon training
Tetania
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#180 - 2012-12-05 09:39:38 UTC
Mistakes were made etc.

Thank's for the speedy investigation.