EVE General Discussion

Just spent 45 minutes on a pointed rebutle. EVE Forums decided to eat it rather than post it. Unfortunately, I'm not going to re-write it.

"…aside from the simple and public fact that WiS does not, and never has, had anything to do with the UE3 engine used for Dust and Legion."

CQ consists of 3D Geometry.

Shaders.

Textures.

VERY few scripted objects.

Most of which can very easily be ported to another engine. The shader they use already came from other tech they licensed and was leveraged into carbon.

"Couldn't make it work" can just as easily apply to conceptual game design and mechanics as it can to technical limitations. Please cite your sources.

"very clearly not aimed at any specific problem"

Fact: Players often struggling with EVE due to the steep learning curve and being lost and confused.

Fact: Tooltips are aimed to, in part, remedy this.

Outcomes don't ret-con initial intentions. This is referred to as an impossibility.

"The tech demo failed spectacularly;" Please cite yoru source

We've seen evidence that Carbon works in a basic sense. (CQ)

We've seen evidence it renders multiple avatars (Leaked screenshots)

We've seen evidence that avatars can intereact with each other. (Leaked screenshots)

We've seen evidence that the tech worked enough for CCP employees to put in enough play time to suceed in 3,000+ kills (2013 fanfest video)

We know they effectively started over on game play and conceptual design more than once. (I forget where this was stated, If someone has the source for this could you please help me out?)

All of the evidence I've seen lends more credence to a hypothesis that the failures were conceptual and game mechanic based than it does that it was due to technical limitations.

It is not my intention to argue that WoD was cancelled due to X. It is merely to remind you that we don't have the enough evidence to "know" one way or the other. To concede that we "know" when we don't is to be delusional.

Please forgive the lack of quote boxes. The EVE Forums apparently has a limit and this post apparently exceeded that limit.

Tippia: "Yeah, see… if you're going to say these things, don't get up other people's noses about unfounded speculation. No matter how much you'd prefer to trivialize the matter, the simple fact remains: WiS does not have, and never has had, anything to do with the UE3 engine used for Legion and Dust. Slapping a completely new engine into a game is an awful lot of work — especially if it has no clear purpose."

You're the only person talking about putting UE3 into EVE.

Tippia: "Fact: tool tips are clearly not aimed at any specific problem due to how they have been needlessly applied to everything, whether it needs one or not, and with little to no concern for usability or informative value. Moving the goal-posts does not change this fact."

Again, Poor initial implementation in no way modify's the intentions of the project. This is simple. How are you so incapable of understanding something so simple?

Tippia: "Hilmar's apology note."

If you're referring to this one from 2011 He states that the tech is sound and they needed to scale down the scope to meet the deadline. In no way do they state or even imply that they were incapable of expanding it into the intended goals through future iteration.

If you're reffering to this one here

"I am truly sorry that we could not deliver the experience that we aspired to make. We dreamed of a game that would transport you completely into the sweeping fantasy of World of Darkness, but had to admit that our efforts were falling regretfully short."

In no way does it even remotely imply that it has anything to do with technical limitations. It's very specifically and intentionally vague. There is no way to make any meaningful deductions from this statement in regards to the specific reasons they weren't able to deliver "The experience that transports you completely".

Here's another article in where he talks about the situation.

"We’ve made many scoping [changes], changed direction and all that through the year, and the core experience has suffered for it, in a way. And it still had a relatively long way to go"

"And even though it is extremely difficult because the idea and the concept are terribly inspirational and powerful, we really had to be honest with ourselves. This is not trending towards what we were hoping or planning for in the beginning, and it’s better to stop now than to continue at this rate, at this pace, or making yet another change to the premise,"

"So, even though it was extremely difficult, this was the time where it’s OK, we have given it all we’ve got for now. Better to stop it, and company to go focus on the EVE universe."

"Right now, the strategy of the company has been simplified by a lot. We are now the Eve Universe company, everything that CCP does, every CCP employee, is working on the EVE Universe,"

All of the available evidence I've seen (Still waiting on your sources that you refuse to cite) point's to a general failure to achieve the overall game play vision they had. No where do they even hint at it being based in technological limitations. More significantly, it expresses a desire to focus on one set of IP across multiple products that can synergize with each other rather than continue developing a second completely opposite IP that in no significant way would benefit the first.

Tippia: "We've seen no evidence that Carbon Ambulation works beyond an failed tech-demo."

CQ is functional. While small in scope. Everything works.

Tippia:"We've seen no evidence that it supports any of the things it has to support, in particular as far as multiplayer and performance aspects go, to actually provide any kind of MMO gameplay."

We have more evidence that it works, than we do that it doesn't. Screenshots show multiple avatars. Screenshots show HUD Elements. Screenshots show Environments. Playtest statistics show capacity to engage with and kill other players more than 3,000 times. From a technical standpoint, we have almost all the evidence we need to conclude that it's "Functional". As for stability and performance, we don't have any evidence one way or the other. Neither side is effectively arguable.

Tippia: "All we've seen Ambulation do is fail to live up to the hype"

No one is arguing this.

Tippia: "it does not even work in a basic sense"

I can go to, walk around in, and interact with the existing content in the CQ. The fact that I can do this, makes it functional. It's lack of scope isn't in any way preventing it from being functional.

Tippia: "Hell, some of the accompanying code (NeX) was released in an alpha-state and was left to rot,"

Not in any way relevant.

Tippia: "Overstating the evidence based on a couple of information-free screen shots is delusional;"

The screenshots definitively depict avatars interacting with other avatars in a 3d rendered environment with HUD elements.

Continues in next post....

I think it's hilarious how when presented with concrete evidence (WoD running on carbon) how anti-WiS players then latch onto the next point of uncertainty (ah but can it run mmo levels of players). Should evidence surface that it can I'm sure they'd find the next point of uncertainty.

They seem to presume that CCP is staffed entirely by idiots who are unable to achieve what even the smallest independent MMO company can do, which is have player characters represented by bipedal avatars in an MMO.

I think using WoW is a bad example for your argument. Any success in pointing out what you perceive as shortcomings in WoW's design only strengthens the argument that those shortcomings aren't significant. WoW is immensely successful. This is immutable.

…except that I'm not talking about that either. I'm saying that, if they want to gain anything from Legion, EVE's ambulation engine will have to be significantly reworked, since WiS has nothing to do with UE3.

How are you so incapable of understanding the difference between what they said they were going to do with what they have done? Again: it is abundantly clear that they have not been aimed at any specific problem short of covering up as much of the UI as possible with lint (which isn't a problem to begin with). The NPE-targeting tool tips have actually been in the game for quite some time now and isn't anything new. If they revisit that in the future using this updated framework, then great, but that's not what the framework is used for.

…should have been presented as what it was: a prototype, a preview to sell the concept, and that it failed to do so. Its subsequent abandonment just makes the failure complete. By the way, you already have all the sources. You just need to take your defensive blinders off and look at what's actually in them.

CQ is a poorly implemented tech demo with lacking, half-finished features, zero content, and no polish. Everything else we've seen has offered no indication that it can perform any of the things it needs to perform (no, bopping NPCs on the head does not count). From a technical standpoint, the only evidence we have is something that has no useful functionality.

Yes you are, since you somewhat paradoxically keep referring to Carbon as if we have only seen it working on a small scale. We see it run on a massive scale every day, except for one part: ambulation. Curiously enough, the game that drove ambulation is also the one that has been shut down, and a proven engine has been licensed for all future efforts…

Perhaps you missed the two year old mega-thread on exploring derelicts with your avatar.

You were the one that mentioned WoW, not me.

You appear to still be arguing under the premise that for WiS content to exist, the only way for that to happen would be for it to e inside the EVE client and be a specific extentsion of what exists currently as the Captains Quarters.



I'll wait for you to put together a reasonable argument before responding to this again.



I'm still waiting on your sources that support your argument that you continually evade providing.

The reasons for the abandonment were as follows, in order of significance:

As we've already covered, first and foremost a result of an outcry over the complete neglect of internet spaceships while developing WiS content. Not because they were developing WiS content.

Followed by the leak of the "Greed is Good" internal memo

and thirdly and least significantly was in comparison to the outcry over the first two points the verbal support for the continuation of the project was overshadowed not because people didn't want it, but because not enough people we're willing to fight for it against the hordes of people upset over something else and throwing their emotions onto any topic that came anywhere near what they were actually upset about.



Again, CQ is functional. While small in scope. Everything works.

I'm still waiting on your evidence that there's "No indication that it can perform any of these things". Using a limited scope deployment as your basis for the capabilities of the technology behind it is terrible logic. Please cite your sources demonstrating it's inability. The lack of implemented features in CQ isn't in any way indicative of it's limitations. The only usefull information you can gather from that is that they didn't develop many features. The lack of features in no way is evidence against the possibility of additional features. If you want to talk about what it "can't" do, Bring some supporting evidence that it can't do said thing. Otherwise your argument is baseless and a waste of time for either of us to even discuss.



"I may however, use "Carbon" in short to quickly make reference to pieces of the whole." Reading things is hard for you I guess?

First, Legion is on UE3, and Valkyrie is on UE4. They are two different Engines. One is a future iteration of the first, but still a separate engine.

Please cite your source that states UE will be the engine for "all future efforts".

Your arguments are full of logical fallacies, short shortsightedness, Inability to recognize and or concede immutable facts, inability and or unwillingness to cite your sources, constant wild and baseless speculation. If you wish to continue debating this with me, Please work on these things as your ignorance is becoming exhausting and it's not my responsibility to relieve you of your ignornace.

I've found the sources on the lighting engine used by both UE and CCP. I will put together my evidence for you at a later time i'm currently in the middle of something else. But It's coming.

But this is true. CCP is so far a one-hit-wonder. And that one hit is a hit for only 50k concurrent characters.
WoD fail, DUST fail, did they even make anything else in the past 10 years? 10 years are a lot of time. It takes me 3 years to make a huge MMO. On my own. CCP employs .. I don't know how many programmers? 50? They haven't produced much. They're really unable.

And CCP is a company with high fluctuation. Their working climate isn't good.

Edit: Characters, not players.

Removed an off topic post.