These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Current Feelings on new Release Model
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Serene Repose
#21 - 2014-10-24 21:48:03 UTC
I feel with my hands.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Miyammato Musashi
Freeport Exploration
Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
#22 - 2014-10-24 21:59:10 UTC
I was pretty lukewarm on the idea and had pretty low expectations. Now I think it's working really well. CCP is actually delivering, and players have more influence than they've ever had before over the direction of the game now. Previously, we didn't know anything about the next expansion for most of it's development. By the time we heard about it, there were so many things in it that feedback was diluted, and in like kind CCPs attention to that feedback. Often it was 'too late' to make changes. Now each feature set has the entire communities undivided attention, and the Devs.

Also of note though is what I think has been a big change to CCPs approach to the game as a whole. They aren't just kicking the can down the road anymore. Problems are being addressed. The Devs are taking bold action on things. That has nothing to do with the development model, and I think it's making a hugely positive impact on everything. ...just my 2isk.

tl;dr; I'm pleasantly surprised.

I am a meat popsicle. 
Kousaka Otsu Shigure
#23 - 2014-10-25 10:00:06 UTC
So what do people think of EVE's new release schedule?

Still open, 5 pages. Just sayin'

OnTo: Its great, the guys who adapt survive, ppl who cant die. Survival of the fittest yada yada..

Archiver, Software Developer and Data Slave

Current Project Status: What can I make with these minerals?
Mixu Paatelainen
Eve Refinery
#24 - 2014-10-25 10:10:14 UTC
Level of engagement between devs and community has gone through the roof. This is a good thing.
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#25 - 2014-10-25 11:06:50 UTC
I think it was a double whammy of good stuff.

The release schedule let the developers become more agile and confident in their projects and less pressured to cram **** in even if it doesn't quite fit.

At the same time Seagull appears to have made their lives easier from an administrative, management, and political standpoint. She's giving them more freedom to be creative and has loosened the grip on secrecy so that meaningful feedback can be had at earlier stages.

The Drake is a Lie
Ursula Thrace
Dreamland Augmented Consortium
#26 - 2014-10-25 11:49:51 UTC
i think the new model is a more efficient way of shoring up more of the little things that needed fixing/tweaking. so far, all of these smaller changes have made eve a better game (e.g., unlimited skill queue).

eve online original intro
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#27 - 2014-10-25 14:38:17 UTC
So far so good imo.

JUSTK is recruiting
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#28 - 2014-10-25 16:59:41 UTC
I just find it quick now. Almost too quick really from one to the other. But thats from a players perspective trying to sort through the changes and having a new one already on your lap before youve thought through the first one. Other than that I like it as like others have said your not forced into a timetable for development and can release when its actually ready. That I like a lot.

The new vision CCP has yet remains to be seen whether itll have the umph and staying power to put the game where it needs to be for the long term. And for that I sit and wait and see.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#29 - 2014-10-25 16:59:42 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
I think it was a double whammy of good stuff.

The release schedule let the developers become more agile and confident in their projects and less pressured to cram **** in even if it doesn't quite fit.

At the same time Seagull appears to have made their lives easier from an administrative, management, and political standpoint. She's giving them more freedom to be creative and has loosened the grip on secrecy so that meaningful feedback can be had at earlier stages.



Not wanting to knock CCP Oveur, cause i liked the guy, but the difference in communication styles between hm and Seagull are epic. Oveur was more about being secret and talking for the team. Its one of the things that i like about seagull is that often if you ask her a design question she will quickly say that she is not going to talk for her team, and wants them to have a voice. Thats kinda nice to hear.

and if you ask a direct question, you might get a vague answer, but they seem to be more solid answer then before. For example at the 2007 fan fest i asked about comet mining, and iirc it was vaguely answered with 'we have mining changes in the works, so... soon' But i asked the same question at the design round table at eve Vegas this year and got a 'we have thought about it a lot, and i have even been working on a prototype.. so we will see, but i'm not promising anything' which was surprising to hear.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Foxtrot Ace
Anarchy Lives
#30 - 2014-10-25 17:08:35 UTC
I wish CCP would fix obvious exploits in the game. The changes are nice and all but preventing cheating should be prioritized. Like this little example, this is NC today cyno'ing a fleet inside of a POS, http://puu.sh/cq4vP/d66cf40cbf.jpg

This happens despite the recent changes to Cynos around any POS.

I demand they fix these issues and ban players using the exploits, then work on new changes to the game.
Dave Stark
#31 - 2014-10-25 17:17:39 UTC
now that they've started giving us information on things beyond the next expansion, it's easier to get excited again.

the thing i hated about the new model at first was that we were only being told "you'll get this in 2 weeks" and there was nothing to get excited about or look forward to. (or, enough time to give feedback)
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#32 - 2014-10-25 17:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: DaReaper
Foxtrot Ace wrote:
I wish CCP would fix obvious exploits in the game. The changes are nice and all but preventing cheating should be prioritized. Like this little example, this is NC today cyno'ing a fleet inside of a POS, http://puu.sh/cq4vP/d66cf40cbf.jpg

This happens despite the recent changes to Cynos around any POS.

I demand they fix these issues and ban players using the exploits, then work on new changes to the game.


f12 file a petition and or bug report

except thats not what i see in the picture...

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Doctor Bonn Young
Drunken Reprobates
#33 - 2014-10-26 05:18:20 UTC
I do like the new system to a certain extend. Like intended changes will not lay on the shelf fro 1/2 year but will be injected into the game on a 5-6 week basis. That is cool.

What I do miss is the exitement of going up to the "old" system of the 1/2 year releases. The trailers. The building up of the tension of all the new things to play with and such. Now it is just a series of blogs and done..

Mixed feelings. We need the trailers back if only for attracting new players into Eve. Show them what cool things are happening by releasing trailers of the new features. But overall I like the new release system.

Doc.
Alexa de'Crux
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2014-10-26 06:11:04 UTC
Gosti Kahanid wrote:
With the old System you could say you had six releases per Year (two big ones, and the two point-releases after the big ones).
So technicly, nothing changed that much, it just got a little bit more.

I don´t think they that they need a new SubName every six weeks. I liked it more like Odyssey 1.0, Odyssey 1.1 and Odyssey 1.2. Now we have so many expansion-names that I already don´t remember what was new in the the first one since the change, or what the Name was...


Just a gentle note (and I don't mean to nitpick) but 2 + 2 = 4, not 6 :)

The sub-names are (AFAIK) intended to prevent this cycle's '1.1' from being confused with next cycle's '1.1'. Normally, there wouldn't be a problem, but a new '1.0' every six weeks would quickly get confusing, both for record-keeping and development coordination.
Previous page12