|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Naglerr
235MeV Waterboard Comedy Tour
10
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 02:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Can some Dev or ISD or someone please provide a timeframe for when to expect an official response from the Devs on the Mass-Based Spawn Distance issue? As many players have written well thought out posts identifying serious flaws in this new addition I feel that a response is warranted. |
Naglerr
235MeV Waterboard Comedy Tour
16
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 16:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Moloney wrote:CCP, I am disgusted with your lack of communication.
It is interesting how little real talk exists on the thread titled by ISD as such. The OP already contains via link all the comments from the player base regarding Hyperion. The only real talk that is lacking at this point is a response from CCP to all the valid concerns and questions raised. I ask again: Is there any sort of estimate of when to expect a response from CCP? |
Naglerr
235MeV Waterboard Comedy Tour
16
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 16:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:There was a town hall, which Fozzie attended, and some posts from Fozzie in the feedback threads. I'm i'm curious as to what comments you want...? I'm all about complaining if i don't like something but i never forget who is being payed to design the game.
You are true that there was some conversation had prior to the release. That was good. But look at the responsiveness of CCP post patch and I think you'll find it quite lacking. The response from the majority of players regarding wormhole changes, post release, ranges from Meh/Ok I guess to OMG, end of the world. Some people took the time to write well reasoned posts about how this change has and will negatively affect their gameplay and the gameplay of the community as a whole. The volume of the responses coupled with the merit of the points raised in these posts seems to justify a response from CCP to address these concerns. Example reponses:
"Yes this is exactly how we intended to have wormholes work now. We understand that this is drastically different than what you are familiar with but we did this for XYZ reason. We do not intend to change the mechanics."
"We intended to change the XYZ aspect of wormhole life but had not considered point ABC mentioned in the forums. With this new information we will reconsider these changes and update the community in 24 hours."
"We did not intend for the effect of changes XYZ to have the impact that it is having on the wormhole community. Based upon gameplay statistics we may re-balance the mechanics in ABC time period, stay tuned."
All of these statements have a key factor: reasons. We did something because of these reasons while considering this data. I really want to understand if the end result is exactly what CCP was hoping. I also want to know why they wanted to make these changes. Adults talk about issues using reasons. There are many reasons that players have mentioned that explain their distaste for this change. I think it's appropriate and needed for CCP to discuss their reasons for the change.
I never forget who is being paid to design the game as long as they don't forget who they are designing the game for. |
Naglerr
235MeV Waterboard Comedy Tour
16
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 17:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Quote:All of these topics are a bunch of crying. The only logic people have put into any of their reasoning is they don't want to put ships at risk.
LOL. I am not a risk averse pilot. I'll put spaceships on the field if there is a reasonable expectation of a good outcome. But why would anyone want to attempt a fight that they have no chance of winning? Reasonable risk is perfectly fine, risk with no reward is simply not intelligent.
Quote: If you don't want to put your assets at risk then don't leave your POS, or better yet find a station, it is much safer.
This is exactly the issue, I WANT to leave the POS in a combat ship and pew pew. I can't do that with 3 or 4 corp members when there are 5 connections to my hole. Most of us have at least 2 or 3 accounts, but if every toon is a scout then who is doing the shooting? This would not be an issue if the number of connections wasn't so large or the holes so difficult/actually impossible to crush.
Quote:Nobody wants to hear CCP's reasoning, all they want to hear is that CCP will do whatever it is you want.
No. Much of the outrage at this point is the how of this release. A discussion was opened by CCP for feedback and then walked away from post release. It's quite rude to solicit feedback on something and then not explain the reasons why the general consensus was not the outcome. So the reasons are just as important as the outcome for me, and many others I suspect.
|
Naglerr
235MeV Waterboard Comedy Tour
16
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 18:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
CivilWars wrote:So wait, you think that suddenly because you have 4-6 connections to your home/static that means everyone is just waiting for you to leave your POS to blob you? In what world does that even remotely make sense. First people complained that they only had one static, so they had to rage roll to find someone because nobody lives in w-space anymore. Now CCP gives you more holes, so more potential pew, and that too is a problem because, well, I am not quite sure why that is a problem.
To me it sounds like "I want to pew, but only on my terms where I know I will win." which is the very definition of risk averse. The first step is admitting you have a problem. I am here to help if any of you need someone to talk to.
CivilWars, I don't assume that each connection to my hole has a fleet waiting to blob me. I'll admit that most holes appear inactive. Were you to enter my hole it would also appear inactive. That's because idling in your pos is silly, idling cloaked somewhere meaningful is more likely whats happening. So if I scout a hole out and don't see anything happening that simply means no one is decloaked, not that no one is there. It certainly could mean that there is a fleet in some/all of them also watching me. This means each hole presents an added risk and added reward.
Scouting 5 holes isn't a bit issue in itself either, it takes effort but so what? Well now after they are scouted I'll want to do something. Due to a limitation of pilots available, only so many holes can be covered at once while doing whatever activity the corp decides to do. We need to adjust the risk/reward to a scale that is appropriate for the number of pilots available. To address that issue we will close the holes where we do not intend to fly into, this eases the burden of scouting so many holes and reduces the likelihood of getting caught in a position I don't want to be caught in. The big problem is that closing holes is now quite a bit more difficult/risky or possibly definite death depending on the situation.
It is somewhat true that I want to pew pew on my terms. I want to pew pew where I have a chance to win. Would you engage a 10 man fleet with 2 T3s? Doubtful. Neither would I. This does not mean risk averse. Risk averse is turning down what appears to be a close/fair fight. This I do not do.
TLDR: More holes is good. More holes I can't close is bad. |
|
|
|