Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 61 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
266
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:06:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: Thanks for actually answering the questions, directly Taking your last paragraph, first. IF they axed assist completely then how would that change the fact that people would still bring drones and field them, still have the lag issues, and the fleet size issues? Would the bandwidth argument others make have an effect on that either?
Kneejerk, all I can say is Correlation does not Imply Causation.
Drones have been under the microscope a lot lately . . .Omnis, shield regen, assist cap. If you step back then this becomes part of a spectrum of change and not a one shot quick fix.
m
Well this is mostly the point I was making. Server load caused by drones is not related to drone assist. It is related to actually deploying drones. One way to reduce this would be to reduce the number of ships that can field drones, another is to change large scale battles to be more encouraged to spread out through various systems. Like B-R was fought with 3-4 different battles going on in various systems.
The bandwidth argument still does not address either issue. The point is that Drone latency is not a symptom of Drone assist, so making changes to drone assist does not actually address that as an issue. Thus there isn't any correlation between drone assist and server lag. Outside of an "Alpha", but you can Alpha drones with or without Drone Assist, so again correlation isn't even existent, outside the fact its called drone assist thats about all the issues have in common.
The problem ultimately comes back to once again the use of drones period.
And I believe drones have been under the microscope, I just don't believe drone assist has been an issue. I can not buy the premise behind it. The issue is drone assist does not actually impact this game at all, outside of a "morale" victory for one entitiy over another.
Personally I think it should be removed, because I think if you are going to play you should play, I also think that other passive things need to be looked at as well.
Most importantly however I think that CCP should be looking at solving the issue that for every major timer battle in nullsec it is just a dog pile. Fix the blob and spread the strain across many nodes (like B-R) and you can have massive battles with 7K+ people. Ultimately the issue is always going to come back to the number of people, and number of objects being tracked by the server. Both of which are completely independent of whether drone assist is or is not a mechanic.
Something that was 10 years old, doesn't magically become and issue, and obviously Rise agrees otherwise he wouldn't keep it in at all. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
94
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:08:00 -
[1262] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Naw, it's generally preferable to knock a couple of easy ones out of the park immediately
not only does it make the game better for everyone who matters basically instantly
but it shows the player base that they are making incremental improvements rather than stagnating with their noses to the grindstone and nothing to show for it The only issue is that this doesn't make the game better for everyone. And contrary to the intent of your statement, everyone matters to some degree. Depending on where you stand the incursion impact may be something individuals see as inconsequential, or if you are bitter enough, beneficial, but it's not a step in a positive direction. Additionally the impact there is arguably greater than the impact to large scale drone conflicts where the argument of 99% of the fleet assisting and walking away becomes 90% doing the same. This assumes that the omni nerf didn't discourage drone fleets on the subcap end enough to initiate some shifts in doctrine already. Having nothing to show but a nuisance neither inspires the idea that the love drones need is incoming, nor makes things better for any group outside of those where the numbers involved can make working around it much less consequential.
You missed the part where he said for everyone that MATTERS. You sir on your Gallente alt are just a puppie who does not matter. How you should have read that MATTERS is Clusterfuck Coalition. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2281
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:11:00 -
[1263] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: Kneejerk, all I can say is Correlation does not Imply Causation.
tl;dr hey guys i know it looks like we're caving to the demands of a portion of the player base instead of actually addressing the overall problem but i swear thats not actually whats happening. "CCP are caving to the demands of a portion of the playerbase by affecting both portions of the playerbase equally, this is blatantly unfair"
http://themittani.com/news/gsf-ceo-update-curse-deployment
I can't hear you over the sound of your leader saying he was going out of his way to break this mechanic on September 29th, even stating at that point that CCP didn't see a problem with it and that you had to 'force them to see it as a problem".
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
822
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:11:00 -
[1264] - Quote
xHxHxAOD wrote: i do have a few questions for u about this if u dont mind answering them. as a bunch of people have said this many times this change does nothing to fix anything, so if this does not fix or change anything to make things better they why do it. to quote rise We feel that drone assist, at a large scale, leads to passive gameplay that most players do not enjoy. GÇó Assist places too much control in the hands of a single person and leaves the majority of the fleet with little to do idk about u but how does ccp know that players not like passive gameplay bc they do for the most part take a look at how many afk ways there are to make isk.
Good start. Well, one would assume that CCP does research into what people like about their game and what makes them stay. They may not get it right for everybody but I am fairly sure they will be chasing the biggest populations of players with that in mind both for retention and new player gains. It just makes business sense, no?
xHxHxAOD wrote: Drones, for the time being, are the most taxing weapon system for our hardware GÇó, which means overall play experience has suffered some because of the popularity of sentry doctrines ok for this if drones are so stressful for the server then why not change the way drones act on the server this changfe does nothing to help how stressed/taxed as it does nothing to change how many drones are on grid or used. just bc a fleet of say 200 domis for dps and now need 20 people to assign drones do does nothing to the fact that i still have the same amount of drone as before.
now for will drone usage change no bc almost every ship in every fleet comp has ships that can drones, so drones will still tax the server bc this change does nothing to change how many drones are use or how taxing they are.now i would like to see the huge spike in drone usage was and was it when the cfc started using them to get them nerfed.
people will still do incursions bc unless its nerfed in to the ground isk wise but it will be more of a pain to do so. that means less people may put the time and effort in to them now so it may affect them which in turn could hurt other areas too.
no **** will not change bc this change does nothing to fix anything drones will still be just as stressfull as before and this change does not make it anymore fun to do
I am not clear on what the second question is.
Oh for the record and to respond to some other posts out there,
1) I am a hisec carebear, most of the time 2) I fly a lot of Gallente ships and mission in a Domi weith sentry drones 3) I fly in incursions for some of my isk (/me waves at Warp to Me and Valhalla Project) 4) Nobody in Null gives me talking points, marching orders, or isk to represent them. 5) There are two distinct wormhole space candidates also on the council who pretty much laugh at null politics
Take from that what you will
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 |
Fix Sov
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:20:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: Kneejerk, all I can say is Correlation does not Imply Causation.
tl;dr hey guys i know it looks like we're caving to the demands of a portion of the player base instead of actually addressing the overall problem but i swear thats not actually whats happening. "CCP are caving to the demands of a portion of the playerbase by affecting both portions of the playerbase equally, this is blatantly unfair" http://themittani.com/news/gsf-ceo-update-curse-deploymentI can't hear you over the sound of your leader saying he was going out of his way to break this mechanic on September 29th, even stating at that point that CCP didn't see a problem with it and that you had to 'force them to see it as a problem". Sounds like you're expecting the CFC to man up and deal with the change, and that this makes this change unfair. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
266
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:22:00 -
[1266] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: Kneejerk, all I can say is Correlation does not Imply Causation.
tl;dr hey guys i know it looks like we're caving to the demands of a portion of the player base instead of actually addressing the overall problem but i swear thats not actually whats happening. "CCP are caving to the demands of a portion of the playerbase by affecting both portions of the playerbase equally, this is blatantly unfair" http://themittani.com/news/gsf-ceo-update-curse-deploymentI can't hear you over the sound of your leader saying he was going out of his way to break this mechanic on September 29th, even stating at that point that CCP didn't see a problem with it and that you had to 'force them to see it as a problem". Sounds like you're expecting the CFC to man up and deal with the change, and that this makes this change unfair.
Or that is just a manufactured issue that actually isn't an issue at all. Which is why CCP Rise won't remove it outright and is only adjusting it to stop the 8 months of bitching from the largest nullbloc in the game. (might be closer to a year now actually.) |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2281
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:24:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: Kneejerk, all I can say is Correlation does not Imply Causation.
tl;dr hey guys i know it looks like we're caving to the demands of a portion of the player base instead of actually addressing the overall problem but i swear thats not actually whats happening. "CCP are caving to the demands of a portion of the playerbase by affecting both portions of the playerbase equally, this is blatantly unfair" http://themittani.com/news/gsf-ceo-update-curse-deploymentI can't hear you over the sound of your leader saying he was going out of his way to break this mechanic on September 29th, even stating at that point that CCP didn't see a problem with it and that you had to 'force them to see it as a problem". Sounds like you're expecting the CFC to man up and deal with the change, and that this makes this change unfair.
No, Im expecting the developers to notice that a sub set of players set out with a specific goal of breaking a part of the game that the developers and other players considered working fine.
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
266
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:28:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
No, Im expecting the developers to notice that a sub set of players set out with a specific goal of breaking a part of the game that the developers and other players considered working fine.
Good luck. If CCP didn't get that from the previous 60 pages, I doubt they will now.
|
Fix Sov
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:29:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:No, Im expecting the developers to notice that a sub set of players set out with a specific goal of breaking a part of the game that the developers and other players considered working fine. Because it's been working just fine with absolutely no changes for 10 years, right? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2281
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:34:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:No, Im expecting the developers to notice that a sub set of players set out with a specific goal of breaking a part of the game that the developers and other players considered working fine. Because it's been working just fine with absolutely no changes for 10 years, right?
I'm sorry, are you denying that you set out with the goal of forcing the developers change their opinion and see it as broken by intentionally going out of your way to be as abusive as possible with the mechanic?
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
The Riot Formation Fatal Ascension
97
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:37:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
No, Im expecting the developers to notice that a sub set of players set out with a specific goal of breaking a part of the game that the developers and other players considered working fine.
Iono, how come your members way back when this thread began including Elise herself had said This was a welcomed change. So far the only Player I see crying foul is you for your base. I can go back and pull Many n3 and PL saying this change was needed. As a matter of fact, I remember flying in S2N and people disliking these fleets also but being forced to fly them. It's rarely ever seen that coalition leadership listens to it's member base. Usually there more famous for exploding on Coms and cursing like maniacs as fleets go on. Hell certain people are famous for exploding on Coms so often there are many Sound clouds of it. It's also amazing that If the CFC was in the end behind the Drone changes, That the game is working correctly. The larger player base is being listened to instead of catering to the smaller players. I also don't see your guys CSM here Screaming as much murder as you are. Amazing the "cfc Csm's" Are active in the forum debates. A large playerbase regardless of size, showed how drone mechanics was game breaking. The Developers reacted to put in "Fixes" that would persuade less drone usage.
I am all for Assist being completely Removed btw. I will also say if drone assist is to stay, a warfare link module Get created for it. It should be done by a booster role since it's mainly Squad commanders doing it. Either a new link to train into directly and new drone/leader skill, or a new warfare link itself, or new ship type since we now have tier 3 Glass cannon battle cruisers... We can turn them into a new form of command ship since drone assist is like a glass cannon and typically goes to hell once the FC's are off the field. We can also add a new Tech 3 Subsystem for it. Since there are also Tech 3's often being turned into the Drone bunnies. This sets the type of ships most used in fleets for boosting being either command or tech 3's. It also keeps any other ship from being the Assist. It adds new mechanics to the game while not outright removing a mechanic. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2282
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:43:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
I am all for Assist being completely Removed btw..
As would I be, if it were part of a larger drone overhaul and not the kneejerk reaction to the cries of a singular faction of EVE who stated their direct intent to abuse a mechanic until CCP's view on it changed.
Thats not good game development, it sets a bad example that shows the CFC that if they don't like a thing, they can simply go out of their way to break it until CCP cave in to their demands, and at that point, whats the point of internal development, why not just ask the CFC what they'd like to have in the game instead of calling it a sand box and allowing players any freedom?
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
The Riot Formation Fatal Ascension
97
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 00:57:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
I am all for Assist being completely Removed btw..
As would I be, if it were part of a larger drone overhaul and not the kneejerk reaction to the cries of a singular faction of EVE who stated their direct intent to abuse a mechanic until CCP's view on it changed. Thats not good game development, it sets a bad example that shows the CFC that if they don't like a thing, they can simply go out of their way to break it until CCP cave in to their demands, and at that point, whats the point of internal development, why not just ask the CFC what they'd like to have in the game instead of calling it a sand box and allowing players any freedom?
I thought that was already the case. I mean I heard those rumors back in 2009 when I first started eve. Still hearing them today. Before that it was a different group doing it. I am sure if the CFC Collapses and some new dog takes over, that group will do the same. The rumors will go on and keep going.
I will NOT deny the fact of the TMC article. But I do agree instead of doing drones in segments, if its that big of an issue we should have a dedicated FULL ON FIX. But CCP tends to like putting things off as long as they can and adding more **** to clutter servers with. I am sure the dozens of MTU's dropped on every fight all fighting over Wrecks, tractoring, and scooping doesn't help the game. I am POSITIVE the player base would not mind an expansion DEDICATED to actually fixing issues that have yet been fixed. I mean drones is an entire weapon system,
We have seen CCP overhaul weapon systems before. Why not just make an entire point release or give the NEXT EXPANSION the drone modifications, flesh out it, make it how they for years keep saying they have ideas for. Hell, I still want to see Drones using racial firing. I want to drop a bunch of amarr drones next to me and watch even more beams of death shoot out or even fighters having better animations. I mean I expect amarr drones should more look like Miner I's firing on a rock. Lasers tearing into a ship. Caldari drones firing rockets, etc etc. But I know that adds more calculations to lag up a server... It's a dream..... Unless you just keep the damages the same and add in the animations... let our pc's handle the new graphics vOv |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
266
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:04:00 -
[1274] - Quote
You are missing the point that nerfing or removing drone assist does not accomplish the goals set out in CCP Rise's OP. Nothing he has presented is going to address the lag issue, and nothing he has presented will make .01% Real time fights fun or enjoyable.
About all he is going to do is make Incursions guys pissy for a few days.
There is no reason to implement his "fix" because it doesn't actually fix anything.
And you are right we should have a comprehensive overhaul of Drones, their mechanics, and the ships using them.
Frigates don't need drones. Neither do cruisers. Neither do destroyers. We don't need drone assist Only Capitals should field sentries, Heavies/Mediums for BS, Mediums in BC's and Lights used for utility against frigs/dessies.
But it still won't matter until CCP makes it worth while for 1500 people to split into 6 fleets across 6 systems instead of blobing into 1 system.
Fix Sov and make it playable without max Tidi, and I bet you have people who would rather play then afk. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
823
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:04:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
We have seen CCP overhaul weapon systems before. Why not just make an entire point release or give the NEXT EXPANSION the drone modifications, flesh out it, make it how they for years keep saying they have ideas for. Hell, I still want to see Drones using racial firing. I want to drop a bunch of amarr drones next to me and watch even more beams of death shoot out or even fighters having better animations. I mean I expect amarr drones should more look like Miner I's firing on a rock. Lasers tearing into a ship. Caldari drones firing rockets, etc etc. But I know that adds more calculations to lag up a server... It's a dream..... Unless you just keep the damages the same and add in the animations... let our pc's handle the new graphics vOv
I agree that it is a dream but it is a damn nice one. Especially the bit about racial guns for the drones.
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 |
Fix Sov
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:05:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Thats not good game development, it sets a bad example that shows the CFC that if they don't like a thing, they can simply go out of their way to break it until CCP cave in to their demands, and at that point, whats the point of internal development, why not just ask the CFC what they'd like to have in the game instead of calling it a sand box and allowing players any freedom? Except it is a sandbox, you just don't like these particular changes. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2282
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:11:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: Except it is a sandbox, you just don't like these particular changes.
The changes could be anything, they're inconsequential in the grand scheme of life, the thing that people don't like is its essentially just the CFC dictating game design and the Developers not having enough spine to tell you to suck it up until they overhaul drones (like they've been doing for people asking for a Drone UI fix for the past 10 years)
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
266
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:12:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Thats not good game development, it sets a bad example that shows the CFC that if they don't like a thing, they can simply go out of their way to break it until CCP cave in to their demands, and at that point, whats the point of internal development, why not just ask the CFC what they'd like to have in the game instead of calling it a sand box and allowing players any freedom? Except it is a sandbox, you just don't like these particular changes.
I don't like that CCP is catering to the loudest 65K people in the game. Frankly I think it looks terrible that CCP is even contemplating a mechanic change because of this. Especially one that has no bearing on the quality of the game in any way what so ever.
There is nothing of merit to this fix, other than appeasing the 8-12 months of CFC bellyaching (I forget when Fountain War started tbh but thats when Domis and Prophecy fleets started getting used, and the whine started.)
If Rise wanted to actually fix this, he would be looking at a way to limit drones load on the server, not who is making them attack, and I think everyone can agree that working to better server stability is a primary concern. |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12207
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:27:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:Xython wrote:Holy christ, every single time this happens, it's always the same pattern.
1. Bad players (BOB's remnants and decendants, usually) find an exploit that gives them supremacy. 2. The saner heads in the group point out it's an exploit or at the very least, overpowered 3. Bad posters and sockpuppets explain how it's totally not an exploit and that the CFC is just bad 4. The CFC either finds a way to defeat the exploit, or starts using it themselves to force CCP to fix it 5. CCP fixes it, usually about 6 months too late 6. 100 page threadnought with all kinds of buttmad sockpuppets, idiots missing the point of the change, people who have obviously never played the game in a PVP situation suggesting asinine mechnics changes to "spite" PVPers, morons who have never been to nullsec, et cetera et cetera.
Every. Single. Time.
But man, it's fun to watch all the buttmad pubbies and N3 sockpuppets in this thread crying. I especially liked the guy bitching that he can't PVP while in another room watching a movie now, that was great. :)
Sky Captain of Your Heart
Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn |
Captain StringfellowHawk
The Riot Formation Fatal Ascension
97
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:28:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Thats not good game development, it sets a bad example that shows the CFC that if they don't like a thing, they can simply go out of their way to break it until CCP cave in to their demands, and at that point, whats the point of internal development, why not just ask the CFC what they'd like to have in the game instead of calling it a sand box and allowing players any freedom? Except it is a sandbox, you just don't like these particular changes. I don't like that CCP is catering to the loudest 65K people in the game. Frankly I think it looks terrible that CCP is even contemplating a mechanic change because of this. Especially one that has no bearing on the quality of the game in any way what so ever. There is nothing of merit to this fix, other than appeasing the 8-12 months of CFC bellyaching (I forget when Fountain War started tbh but thats when Domis and Prophecy fleets started getting used, and the whine started.) If Rise wanted to actually fix this, he would be looking at a way to limit drones load on the server, not who is making them attack, and I think everyone can agree that working to better server stability is a primary concern.
Well, then change that... the way to counter 65,000 players voices... is to rival that with more or equal players countering it. If you don't like it... And this is the greatest thing about EVE... CHANGE IT. Mittani did not get to his high horse on his own. Those 65K voices being loud did not get there by being Quiet. The CSM did not become Null saturated because of the quiet. It got that way because unlike Hi-Sec, Nullsec players band together. We are able to get 65K players to control a game... How... By actually CARING about the game to get highly involved in its META. Imagine and Nullsec should FEAR what could happen to the game if Hi-sec for once Banded together and got vocal like you are. Sure if it does happen being a CFC member it would injure me.. BUT Null Sec does not have to worry about that. Because Even when we fight the living hell out of each other, Thump our chests. It's amazing how quick Nullsec can get into bed with each other. Since we like Posting off TMC so much... here goes PL and CFC in bed PL+ CFC in bed So as PL members and CFC argue on forums. We all band together to complete common goals. Except for Decshield... When is the last time High-Sec got together to scare Marmite off? When in the last time Hi-sec Banned ALL those players together to do a common goal without it a few days later Falling to pieces. THAT is why 65K players voices are listened to. We give a damn about the game compared to the average carebear. You can Count how many hi-sec players and Nullsec players on the forums. I will take a bet theres more Null sec. Somehow Fish out all the Scrub's who are to cowardly to post on there mains, and figure out the actual numbers. |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2282
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:33:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
Well, then change that... the way to counter 65,000 players voices... is to rival that with more or equal players countering it.
This would be fine if the game had an infinite population, however it doesn't which means that one side will eventually dictate the games development direction which is dumb. The developers need to do that in a void without player interruption Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
524
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:33:00 -
[1282] - Quote
All of the CSM posts I have seen in this thread come across as a little condescending, often taking one part of a posters' quote and then using that to reinforce how right and correct the dev decision was, whether in context or not.
I am sure that the dev team and the CSM had protracted and calm discussion on the issue and came to a consensus. However, the tone of communication I am seeing from both the devs and the CSM members is coming across as somewhat defensive, often nitpicking at small holes in the arguments of a selected few posters and not addressing the broad concern presented.
This is counterproductive as it serves to create a gulf of mistrust between 'us' players and 'them' the CSM and the devs. The us/them divide exists because of an unfortunate information asymmetry and the lack of credence given to the many reasonable voices in this forum.
I think we would all welcome a little more humility and a little less hubris from both devs and CSM. We really don't want to create the situation where non-csms start forming a 'player action group' or somesuch and start taking down jita in protest at the non-representation of their interests by the CSM.
I was there when Hillmar publicly apologised for being an arrogant so-and-so and we had 12 months of excellent relations between devs and players. Sadly, that period seems to be ending. Rise and what seem to be his sycophantic followers in the CSM are becoming the new 'Trust me, I know what I am doing' Hillmar.
We all know how that ended.
I write this in the best of faith. I love this game and its ecosystem as much as you do. Enough even to waste my own time appealing to you, Rise and anyone who will listen, to listen with humility to the very many excellent arguments and ideas presented in these forums.
Rejections should come with solid reasons for rejection, stating hard facts. Dev's opinions are only useful when they are backed with hard data. If the data is there, you should make it available so that we too are convinced that you are right.
It's exasperating. CCP seems to have the corporate communications skills of an 18th century labour camp. The world has moved on. Your players and friends are intelligent, educated people. You should treat them that way.
Thanks for listening.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
266
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:39:00 -
[1283] - Quote
I don't think CCP should be doting on any voice...no matter how big or small it is. They should be going by the data. Considering the only abusive history of drone assist exists from summer 2013-Now, in lock step with CFC specifically skewing the data for this reason I would say CCP should stay as far away from touching drone assist as they can from a developer standpoint, until a time they have a concrete solution for the problem that is the entire drone weapon system.
There was no over use of drones prior to CFC announcing **** Drone Assist. Even when N3 was using prophecies the 200-300 man fleets they had put less load on the server than the 1K man Baltec fleets they faced off against. Ultimately the data does not support the position. Even if you simply look at specifically the halloween war, every engagement played out as per normal in Tidi. Except in HED where CFC and RUS willingly tried to jump some 500+ Dreads into a grid with over 3K people on it all ready.
There is no actual evidence that the Drone Assist mechanic causes issue with the game at all, and there hasn't been in 10 years. The only possible link it has to being a game issue is "fun" which is entirely subjective, and hardly an indicator of a balance issue.
Ultimately it just makes CCP look really weak. It is like if CCP limited the amount of people that could be blue to each other, just because N3PL spent 12 months shitting up every forum discussion on EVEO crying about how imbalanced being able to make friends is. |
Fix Sov
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:42:00 -
[1284] - Quote
So one side abusing something is fine, but the other side abusing it at the same time is bad? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
266
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:43:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:So one side abusing something is fine, but the other side abusing it at the same time is bad?
I don't follow. Who said anything about abusing. I didn't mention it anywhere in my post at all that drone use was an abuse. |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12207
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:48:00 -
[1286] - Quote
How does everyone feel about lasers? Sky Captain of Your Heart
Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn |
Fix Sov
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:50:00 -
[1287] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Fix Sov wrote:So one side abusing something is fine, but the other side abusing it at the same time is bad? I don't follow. Who said anything about abusing. I didn't mention it anywhere in my post at all that drone use was an abuse. So one side using drones is just fine because it's the right side using it, the other side using it in the exact same fashion is bad because it's the wrong side using it. Gotcha. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
266
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:51:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:How does everyone feel about lasers?
Beams are ****.
Fix Sov wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Fix Sov wrote:So one side abusing something is fine, but the other side abusing it at the same time is bad? I don't follow. Who said anything about abusing. I didn't mention it anywhere in my post at all that drone use was an abuse. So one side using drones is just fine because it's the right side using it, the other side using it in the exact same fashion is bad because it's the wrong side using it. Gotcha.
I didn't say that either but its interesting that you got that from what I said. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2282
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 01:56:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Fix Sov wrote:So one side abusing something is fine, but the other side abusing it at the same time is bad? I don't follow. Who said anything about abusing. I didn't mention it anywhere in my post at all that drone use was an abuse. So one side using drones is just fine because it's the right side using it, the other side using it in the exact same fashion is bad because it's the wrong side using it. Gotcha.
One side said they were setting out to break it, the other side didn't, hope that helps
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Snow Axe
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1455
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 02:10:00 -
[1290] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:One side said they were setting out to break it, the other side didn't, hope that helps
How did they break it? Serious question, I know they said they would set out to show how broken it is blah blah blah, but what did they actually do aside from use it? "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 61 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |