open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Iterative development and what's happening in 2011
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 ... : last (66)

Author Topic

Takseen
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:53:00 - [1051]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Ebisu Kami
Originally by: Rokkit Kween
I'd like to correct someone else from earlier in the thread as well. What we saw of Dust at FF2009 was more than simply a video, we saw it being played live, on stage, by more than one person. The guy on the stage had one controller and he was playing with a whole bunch of people from the Shanghai office who were backstage at the time. We watched Dust being played live on a big screen and I have to say that apart from a few UI elements the game looked pretty complete. I'm guessing that we haven't seen a release yet as its the code that links it to the EVE universe that is the trikckiest to get right, and I hope they do get it right.
That would be me. Do you have any footage of that happening? Never heard of that before and I'd actually prefer to actually have something solid, when thinking about Dust coming soon™ Neutral
Here starting at around 1:06:30.


Any chance you could pull the DUST gameplay section of the presentation out and have it as a seperate video under its own heading? I actually went looking for DUST footage on youtube earlier and all I could find was the 2 minute trailer which didn't really tell me anything about the game or how far along it was.

Josta Webisna
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:54:00 - [1052]
 

Fix The Freakin Broken Stuff already won't ya?

Henri Rearden
Gallente
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:56:00 - [1053]
 

I think maybe people are freaking out a bit. Really, as soon as they fix the lag problem we're back in the black, so to speak. People whine about PI - fine, but you'll notice they've got people working on it for 3 (three!) straight releases. You might not want Incarna because you think you're playing a flight simulator, but it will add a new bit of depth to the Sci-Fi simulator that is EVE. You might not play console games (I only play DDR and Wii Fit anymore) but it is pretty freakin' cool what they're doing with DUST anyway. Even if all the dire predictions about short console lifecycles and short title popularity are true, they'll still more than make their money back - if it looks like DUST was a one-time shot, they'll just dump that money back into EVE... otherwise they'll just keep making new DUST titles so we'll always have mercs to use, play with, manipulate, pay off... Even though they didn't say when they're going to fix rockets, I'm very happy and thankful to see the detail and transparency that CCP is offering us. Like I said before, fix lag and the only people who will be complaining are the select set of vocal forumites who are never happy anyway. Sit back and enjoy the ride! Enjoy the game as it is and look forward to the new releases! I know I'm still having a ball in my little corner of 0.0 doing anomalies (in an upgraded system - implemented in Dominion!) and finishing up training to start on PI... on 5 or 6 planets with one character in 0.0. I've started to play the market, too. I short, I'm having a great time playing my Sci-fi simulator. When you guys get tired of playing your space-sim, come join me. Very Happy

TL;DR - Stop whining. Once they fix lag 0.0 gang and fleet fights will join the rest of EVE in being fun again even with all the issues. Say "thank you" to CCP Zulu for taking the time to tell us stuff we're curious about but have no right to know. Have a little freakin' faith.

TL;DR was TL;DR - You're all spoiled. Cool stuff is coming.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:56:00 - [1054]
 

(continued from first posting)

Here is my argument for why visibly implementing items in the CSM backlog is good business.

1) EVE players can roughly be divided into two groups -- new players that have a high attrition rate, and veterans that stay subscribed practically forever no matter what.

2) Clearly, the optimum strategy is to convert as many new players into veterans as possible. The immersive nature of EVE encourages them to stay around for a long time, even if you don't address their complaints.

3) There are basically two techniques you can use that will increase the number of high lifetime-customer-value veterans. One is to use marketing to increase the new player intake (frequent new feature releases), some of which will become veterans; the other is to polish the game to increase the new player to veteran conversion ratio, which permits organic growth.

4) CCP seems to be leaning heavily towards the first strategy (not just in EVE, but in the development of extensions like Incarna and linkages like DUST). The current players, although most of them don't realize it, are arguing for the latter strategy.

At this point, allow me to concede for the purposes of this argument that the statement from the minutes that "the data does not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features" is entirely correct. I contend that even if this is so, there are compelling business reasons why CCP should devote more resources to polishing the existing game.

5) It is implied in the minutes that DUST and Incarna should be released in about 12-18 months. However, as anyone in the software business knows, schedules have a distressing habit of slipping.

6) If anything should happen to injure the EVE cash cow during the development period, CCP could find itself in serious difficulty. Examples of such risks include another game finally "getting it right" and siphoning off veterans, catastrophic PR failures (or DUST/Incarna delays, which imply even longer waits until player issues are addressed) finally pushing the veterans over the edge, or a failed expansion choking the influx of new players.

7) Similarly, if the new products turn out to be less successful than anticipated, CCP will be back to basically having a single point of failure -- EVE -- and so it would be wise to ensure that it is a cow that can be milked for as long as possible, while you regroup and try something new.

8) Devoting additional resources to polish, if done in the correct way, is a method of buying insurance against the consequences of the risks mentioned above. Some of the benefits include:

* It energizes your existing player base, turning them back into evangelists for your game, which in turn promotes organic growth.

* You can prioritize the polishing process to emphasize items that will impact new player retention (for example, UI improvement) while still providing benefits for the veterans. The CSM can help with prioritization and quick iteration of proposals into forms that get the most bang per developer-buck.

* There is significant PR value in the very fact that you are spending time and effort to make EVE more "noob-friendly". It gives potential customers a reason to take a second look.

* It may actually turn out to be a more profitable strategy than the current one, but even if not, the cost of the insurance is low.

It is for these, and many other reasons, that I believe you should re-assess your development priorities with respect to EVE.

Sincerely,
Robert Woodhead,
CSM5 Delegate

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:58:00 - [1055]
 

Originally by: Cergorach

No, I'm not trying to 'fool' anyone, but what you (and others) experience as being 'EVE' doesn't mean that everyone does.

By your reasoning Wormholes wasn't developing EVE, as that was not yet in the game at the time. How about PI? It's now part of EVE, but still a lot of folks see it as a subgame that is a pain in the butt.

For me, I do little to no combat PVP. I do encounter it on a regular basis in low sec, I generally evade it (cloaking) or just scare it off (a couple of extra battleships show up). So 0.0 warfare isn't part of my 'EVE' experience, does that mean I think it shouldn't be there or be developed? Of course it should be there, there are folks that enjoy that, I might even enjoy that in the future.

Folks like you are trying to make 'EVE' in their vision of what 'EVE' should be, but the folks behind CCP had a vision for EVE, one that includes walking on station and walking/combat on planets. They couldn't do that when they started with EVE Online, but now the can and they want to further develop their vision. That that vision doesn't equal your vision, is a whole different matter.

There have been complaints about other expansions, because the folks that complained felt that CCP didn't add to 'their' part of EVE. Be that 0.0, mining, manufacturing, research, PvP, PvE, etc.
The thing is, PvP is a large part of Eve, the main part in FW and 0.0 and most of losec. You, by your own admission, don't play that game. So why do you continually attempt to speak for those of us who do? Honestly, give it a rest. Go mine a rock or something. There's no lag there.

Ebisu Kami
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:03:00 - [1056]
 

Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 19/07/2010 22:03:49
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Post 1: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1354510&page=35#1050
Post 2: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1354510&page=36#1054


/me signs these words!

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.19 22:04:00 - [1057]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
We actually do constant maintenance of the game. All our developers working on future features have a certain % of their time allocated to fixing existing bugs. These requirements are pretty much constant, so you'll have a flow of fixes coming into the game. This is usually communicated through the patch notes, where a lot of the fixes are mentioned. They are ongoing all year though, so every release you'll get a load of fixes we have accumulated.
Out of curiosity, are bugs part of the backlog, or does the backlog consist just of potential changes?
The backlog are potential changes, new features and big re-factoring tasks, in particular if those re-factoring tasks involve changed game design or re-balancing. Bugs are tracked outside the backlog in a specialised issue tracking system.

Major Rocks
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:11:00 - [1058]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
We actually do constant maintenance of the game. All our developers working on future features have a certain % of their time allocated to fixing existing bugs. These requirements are pretty much constant, so you'll have a flow of fixes coming into the game. This is usually communicated through the patch notes, where a lot of the fixes are mentioned. They are ongoing all year though, so every release you'll get a load of fixes we have accumulated.
Out of curiosity, are bugs part of the backlog, or does the backlog consist just of potential changes?
The backlog are potential changes, new features and big re-factoring tasks, in particular if those re-factoring tasks involve changed game design or re-balancing. Bugs are tracked outside the backlog in a specialised issue tracking system.


You know, sure, more technical distraction but this at least serves a reason since it involves the CSM. But, could you not have picked a few more of her and other CSM questions which deal with where the bottlenecks are on the CCP side (as highlighted by Zulupark's statement) while the CSM has demonstrated workflow, but to make some progress it's a case of sticking some heads together to figure these things out on a technical level for the sake of not falling prey to the usual communication or perspective / language difference problems?

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:13:00 - [1059]
 

Originally by: Henri Rearden
I think maybe people are freaking out a bit. Really, as soon as they fix the lag problem we're back in the black, so to speak. People whine about PI - fine, but you'll notice they've got people working on it for 3 (three!) straight releases. You might not want Incarna because you think you're playing a flight simulator, but it will add a new bit of depth to the Sci-Fi simulator that is EVE. You might not play console games (I only play DDR and Wii Fit anymore) but it is pretty freakin' cool what they're doing with DUST anyway. Even if all the dire predictions about short console lifecycles and short title popularity are true, they'll still more than make their money back - if it looks like DUST was a one-time shot, they'll just dump that money back into EVE... otherwise they'll just keep making new DUST titles so we'll always have mercs to use, play with, manipulate, pay off... Even though they didn't say when they're going to fix rockets, I'm very happy and thankful to see the detail and transparency that CCP is offering us. Like I said before, fix lag and the only people who will be complaining are the select set of vocal forumites who are never happy anyway. Sit back and enjoy the ride! Enjoy the game as it is and look forward to the new releases! I know I'm still having a ball in my little corner of 0.0 doing anomalies (in an upgraded system - implemented in Dominion!) and finishing up training to start on PI... on 5 or 6 planets with one character in 0.0. I've started to play the market, too. I short, I'm having a great time playing my Sci-fi simulator. When you guys get tired of playing your space-sim, come join me. Very Happy

TL;DR - Stop whining. Once they fix lag 0.0 gang and fleet fights will join the rest of EVE in being fun again even with all the issues. Say "thank you" to CCP Zulu for taking the time to tell us stuff we're curious about but have no right to know. Have a little freakin' faith.

TL;DR was TL;DR - You're all spoiled. Cool stuff is coming.


so what about the scenario where they finally fix the gamebreaking faults in their coding and people can once again pvp... only to have it last a couple weeks/months until they release something else, break it all again and take another year to even acknowledge/begin to fix

it's the complete lack of faith that CCP has any know-how left or that they really care about the stability of the game.

the game spends more time broken than it does working correctly, so why should anyone give them the benefit of the doubt on anything... eve or any other future product??

their track record is a long list of incompetence.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:15:00 - [1060]
 

I'd highly recommend devs read a relatively troll-free thread here that has some pretty good thoughts. Only three pages, generally flame-free (shock) and insightful (awe).

To sum up the points though:

* We're not going to get you to stop Incarna and/or Dust. It would be arrogant of us to ask that, and suicide from a business perspective - not only that, it will spread the EVE eggs out amongst several baskets and help ensure a future... if successful. Incarna is a fairly safe bet, but Dust is riskier, in that the prime audience that would play it have a tendency to jump ship as new and shinier games are released. CCP may find themself in a position where y'all have invested resources into a marginally-successful product, and simultaneously have to deal with an abandoned and disgruntled EVE playerbase.

* There have been many improvements over the last few expansions, things like fleet finder, the skill queue, T3 ships, new planet textures, and so on - however, many of these successes have been small in size but very, very useful. Compare that to half-finished features like PI, or failed improvements like Dominion which took a lot of resources to develop but haven't delivered the goods. You guys do small things well and big things poorly, if the last few iterations have been any indication - please if at all possible try and seriously triage EVE until these two products get launched.

* Lag will never go away, and anyone that expects it to is either an idiot or from the future. Instead of pouring exponentially more server resources into Jita or nullsec hotspots, attempt to discourage them from forming in the first place - if a person buys or sells something, put a tax on it proportional to the trade volume going through the system to make lower-volume locales more competitive. Bombers were a good first step towards anti-blob warfare but its not enough, penalties on ships from locktimes to velocity to other attributes should seriously be considered to discourage numbers from winning.

In short, the game is not broken, its just on a negative trend - small but important fixes can work wonders, and buy critical time and community support for CCP until Dust and Incarna are complete. Just remember two things:

- Its easier to fix small technical issues than repair goodwill and PR.
- Perception is reality, and right now, the general perception is that EVE is starting to suck.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:19:00 - [1061]
 

Originally by: CCP Hellmar
Wonderful EVE community,

I realize there are many good points raised in this thread which I could comment on but I wanted to help a bit by putting some clarifications and perspective out there quickly.

Feedback like we see here is indeed read by everyone that has anything to do with high level priorities at CCP and it does affect prioritization, it always has. Nowadays it takes longer for us to react, as the code base of EVE has grown and we have a larger team of specialists that work on it.

In prior times we had a smaller team of generalists to work on EVE and thus it was easier to both react quickly and for individuals to speak to a broader set of fields. The problems we are tackling now require more specialized knowledge, as they are deeper and more complex. Our solution to address the downsides of that is "enterprise scrum" which allows gelled teams of specialists to have the agility and domain breath as a generalist have.

We are still in the process of gelling our scrum teams and while that is occurring then people are timid when it comes to replying directly to the EVE community. It doesn't help that the EVE community is full of "tough customers" which I personally have always loved and appropriated, nothing worse than apathy which is certainly not our issue, but as new people come to the forefront then they need time to adjust to the ardent feedback that you tend to give.

I have often noticed people come out and speak to their responsibilities, feel the "hammer coming down" and pull back and be less willing to comment. It takes a lot of "old timers relating to their experiences" for people to open up again.

Regarding LAG
One poster cautioned CCP Zulu about having "same people who introduced the problem" working on addressing the current lag we are experiencing with large fleet fights.

Many of the fundamentals that need to be improved now were laid down by a handful of people a decade ago during my term as CTO 2000 – 2005 (I am currently CEO of CCP as of 2004).

Now we have a team of technologists, software architects, engineers, operation specialists working on the problem. These good people possess knowledge and ability way beyond what I ever had during those initial years of EVE development. It is not to say that the core technology of EVE Online is bad in anyway; however, the world and CCP have learned so much since that we have a much better chance of doing this right a decade later.

So we are indeed getting a very fresh perspective on the problem. It however takes time to catch up to all that has been done prior. Addressing the scalability challenges of a single shard MMO is probably one of the more complicated areas of parallel architecture design. There are some aspects (e.g. session coherency, lock congestion, module stickies) which I hope the team will be able to release in the coming months but these kind of fundamental changes need to be extensively tested before we enable them on Tranquility.

Thanks for this post. This should have been done a long time ago, and I'm still kind of suspicious that CCP employees are only replying due to the level of anger and dismay amongst the customers. What that shows me is that the customer base can influence things if we get angry enough.

And that's a good thing.

Now, about the bugs.....

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:31:00 - [1062]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
We actually do constant maintenance of the game. All our developers working on future features have a certain % of their time allocated to fixing existing bugs. These requirements are pretty much constant, so you'll have a flow of fixes coming into the game. This is usually communicated through the patch notes, where a lot of the fixes are mentioned. They are ongoing all year though, so every release you'll get a load of fixes we have accumulated.
Out of curiosity, are bugs part of the backlog, or does the backlog consist just of potential changes?
The backlog are potential changes, new features and big re-factoring tasks, in particular if those re-factoring tasks involve changed game design or re-balancing. Bugs are tracked outside the backlog in a specialised issue tracking system.


So to clarify, since it was stated previously that devs spend 20% of their time on bug fixes, I assume this means that none of that 20% of time will be spent on backlog issues?


CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.19 22:40:00 - [1063]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
We actually do constant maintenance of the game. All our developers working on future features have a certain % of their time allocated to fixing existing bugs. These requirements are pretty much constant, so you'll have a flow of fixes coming into the game. This is usually communicated through the patch notes, where a lot of the fixes are mentioned. They are ongoing all year though, so every release you'll get a load of fixes we have accumulated.
Out of curiosity, are bugs part of the backlog, or does the backlog consist just of potential changes?
The backlog are potential changes, new features and big re-factoring tasks, in particular if those re-factoring tasks involve changed game design or re-balancing. Bugs are tracked outside the backlog in a specialised issue tracking system.
So to clarify, since it was stated previously that devs spend 20% of their time on bug fixes, I assume this means that none of that 20% of time will be spent on backlog issues?
Correct.

To explain in more detail: Currently developers spend 20% on defects filed on existing features on TQ (we call this type of defects "external issues"). The 80% is spent on backlog work, which includes new features, major re-factoring tasks and all defects that result from that backlog work (we call this type of defects "internal issues" since they are internal to new development).

Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:47:00 - [1064]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Because 5 days after CCP Atlas wrote this then we deployed a massive fix to post-Dominion lag in "TRANQUILITY HOTFIX v.6.21.127381_4" during DT on 9 Feb 2010. It was not the silver bullet to end all lag but it was a big fix for a regression we could trace back to Dominion and this hotfix had a clearly measurable positive impact on fleet fight lag. (This hotfix fixed DB session starvation.) Before this hotfix we had fixed a number of memory leaks and after this hotfix we started investigating the "blackscreening client" issue, a potential fix for which is now being tested in the on-going SiSi mass-tests along with other fleet fight lag fixes. (The potential fix revolves around changing locks in server services.)


Thank you for this info. WHY couldn't it have been posted long, long ago? Simple, concise communication like this quiets the nerd rage. A vast percentage of your players are software engineers...we can see through the PR BS, but info like this is golden.

Any update on the status of Walkin In Stations or Dust? Feel free to be nerdy in your response, we're SW and SE engineers..we can take jargon :-)

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:49:00 - [1065]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Correct.

To explain in more detail: Currently developers spend 20% on defects filed on existing features on TQ (we call this type of defects "external issues"). The 80% is spent on backlog work, which includes new features, major re-factoring tasks and all defects that result from that backlog work (we call this type of defects "internal issues" since they are internal to new development).


While I have no doubt that what you're saying is technically correct, it seems terribly much like splitting hairs. There tends to be a difference between "current work" and "backlog" - and when someone's working on "current work" they're not really working on "backlog" anymore. In my experience, some issues never really make it into the backlog (they're immediately available for consumption) and the backlog really doesn't operate as a queue. It isn't a terribly uncommon fate for a feature in backlog to die from resource starvation until the need for it goes away. Issues in backlog - even pretty important ones that developers would love to see done - may not ever be worked on.

And, at least where I work, part of being a stakeholder is helping prioritize what moves from back log to current work - and each stakeholder has their own queue that they manage and there's a certain amount of development time that goes to each stakeholder - though it seems like that last part is certainly different at CCP.

Or do things work very very differently there?

-Liang

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:58:00 - [1066]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Like rockets? ugh What appears to be "simple" and "easy" either may not be, or actually may be but apparently won't give an item any precedence over anything else regardless. This concept of "low hanging fruit" ripe for the picking seems to be a myth. I asked straight out in the Summit during one particularly frustrating moment, "You can't commit to doing even one single small fix out of all of the issues we've submitted? As a show of goodwill, to demonstrate that CSM can make a difference and to aid in our credibility in that regard?"

The answer was no. Said with nods of sympathy and understanding at our frustration, but still no.

As for "detailed"...CCP has said in the past that they don't necessarily want CSM-submitted issues to provide implementation details. Yes, players' detailed proposals may be spot on and in fact comprise the solution but submitting issues without such detail doesn't theoretically affect whether or not the issue is selected to be addressed. That's what game designers are for, after all.

Korvin is compiling the list of balance issues mentioned in the Minutes. He has been out of touch (maybe on holiday) so I'm not currently sure of the status of it. Just as with any other list of issues, we'll prioritize it and send it to CCP. Then we'll wait for feedback. If it takes too long, we'll email our contact and ask for a status update. Eventually (often weeks, sometimes months) we'll get a go, no-go, or maybe response for each item on the list. Then the "go" and "maybe" items will disappear into the backlog. If we want to find out their status, we'll again have to engage in email ping pong via our contact in CCP. And more time passes...

Do you see the frustration here?


I think that just about does it for me. I'm paid up until the end of the month, but I don't think I'll be renewing next month.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:01:00 - [1067]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
So to clarify, since it was stated previously that devs spend 20% of their time on bug fixes, I assume this means that none of that 20% of time will be spent on backlog issues?
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Correct.

To explain in more detail: Currently developers spend 20% on defects filed on existing features on TQ (we call this type of defects "external issues"). The 80% is spent on backlog work, which includes new features, major re-factoring tasks and all defects that result from that backlog work (we call this type of defects "internal issues" since they are internal to new development).



Ok, thanks for that clarification. I had hoped that some of the bug-fixing time might be used for CSM-backlog issues--in particular those that appear to be bugs. However, it appears that won't happen given current dev allocations that Zulu listed. In fact, your statement appears to imply that not just backlogged CSM issues but NOTHING in the backlog unrelated to the already scheduled tasking will get addressed.

Do I have this right?

Flamespar
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:03:00 - [1068]
 

Why is it that so many players in this thread make claims based on the belief that they represent the playerbase? You do not. To be frank I'd argue that the CSM does not. This doesn't mean that you can't make criticisms or that your complaints are not valid. But it does mean that you cannot support your argument by including some daft statement that suggests that your views are representative of the playerbase.

Eve online is an engineering feat of near epic proportions. Well done to all involved.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.19 23:05:00 - [1069]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: CCP Explorer
To explain in more detail: Currently developers spend 20% on defects filed on existing features on TQ (we call this type of defects "external issues"). The 80% is spent on backlog work, which includes new features, major re-factoring tasks and all defects that result from that backlog work (we call this type of defects "internal issues" since they are internal to new development).
While I have no doubt that what you're saying is technically correct, it seems terribly much like splitting hairs. There tends to be a difference between "current work" and "backlog" - and when someone's working on "current work" they're not really working on "backlog" anymore. In my experience, some issues never really make it into the backlog (they're immediately available for consumption) and the backlog really doesn't operate as a queue. It isn't a terribly uncommon fate for a feature in backlog to die from resource starvation until the need for it goes away. Issues in backlog - even pretty important ones that developers would love to see done - may not ever be worked on.

And, at least where I work, part of being a stakeholder is helping prioritize what moves from back log to current work - and each stakeholder has their own queue that they manage and there's a certain amount of development time that goes to each stakeholder - though it seems like that last part is certainly different at CCP.

Or do things work very very differently there?
(Assuming that I understand the term "current work" in the same way as you.)

Current work is being fed by two queues: 80% of the time or 4 days a week: The backlog + defects stemming from that work. 20% of the time or 1 day a week: Defects (except those stemming from backlog work).

The backlog is not a FIFO queue, it's a prioritised queue for each team. Stakeholders have multiple queues or lists but eventually they must agree internally and with the PO on an overall priority into a single backlog for each team.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.19 23:09:00 - [1070]
 

Originally by: Caladain Barton
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Because 5 days after CCP Atlas wrote this then we deployed a massive fix to post-Dominion lag in "TRANQUILITY HOTFIX v.6.21.127381_4" during DT on 9 Feb 2010. It was not the silver bullet to end all lag but it was a big fix for a regression we could trace back to Dominion and this hotfix had a clearly measurable positive impact on fleet fight lag. (This hotfix fixed DB session starvation.) Before this hotfix we had fixed a number of memory leaks and after this hotfix we started investigating the "blackscreening client" issue, a potential fix for which is now being tested in the on-going SiSi mass-tests along with other fleet fight lag fixes. (The potential fix revolves around changing locks in server services.)
Thank you for this info. WHY couldn't it have been posted long, long ago? Simple, concise communication like this quiets the nerd rage. A vast percentage of your players are software engineers...we can see through the PR BS, but info like this is golden.
Because I assumed it had been posted into the patch notes as server hotfix #4 for Dominion 1.1.1. Assumptions are bad, I know...

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:10:00 - [1071]
 

Originally by: Bomberlocks
I think that just about does it for me. I'm paid up until the end of the month, but I don't think I'll be renewing next month.


Tell me specifically why you're quitting Eve? What you're paying for today is Eve ... today - not Eve next week or next year. Here's some guesses... but can you be more specific:
- The lag is too bad. Call me when they fix it. [CCP is working on fixing it]
- I can't stand all the damn bugs - $feature is so damn buggy! Call me when they fix it. [20% of their time goes to bugs]
- I can't live without $new_feature. Call me when they add it.
- I can't live without $feature_redesign. Call me when they "fix" it.
- I can't live with ship/module imbalance. Call me when they fix $thing.

I mean, it seems like you're falling into the "I want new shinies, but not those shinies" trap I was detailing earlier. Eve, today, is worth what I pay for it. If they fixed lag, I'd be that much happier... and while I may be frustrated with the state of low sec and faction warfare and the lack of NPC 0.0 and supercap proliferation and hybrid/roflket suckage... I'd still pay if those were broken next year.

-Liang

Ricgard
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:16:00 - [1072]
 

WOW, what a thread. I have spent some time and read the entire thing.Shocked

@CCP

-Thanks for the info and thanks for your continued reading of these posts and replies you give.

-I'd rather see a lot of existing features fixed and optimized rather than new content. Most talk of lag has been about 0.0 but I've lost many a ship to lag in various ways. Also, certain content I've shied away from because of issues other players have had.

-I think you're all in for a rude awakening when Dust 514 finally hits the market. You'll have to put out new content more frequently and have fewer bugs in the game play to keep the FPS crowd happy.

-Please don't make any WIS features a required element in gameplay. I've played 3 space mmo's where you had to walk around the station to do trading, get missions, fit ships, and do industrial types stuff. It was cool for the first 5 minutes but I found myself impatient to go from one kiosk to another just to do the stuff I do in EVE right from the hanger console.

-I'd like to take pot shots at Dust players with my Megathron from orbit.

@Other players posting here

There are many strongly negative posts on this thread. Some views I share and some I don't. I would caution that how you express yourself can have a huge impact on how well your message is received. Try to avoid personal attacks and name calling while voicing your anger. It'll help all of us(players and CCP).

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.19 23:16:00 - [1073]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: Mynxee
So to clarify, since it was stated previously that devs spend 20% of their time on bug fixes, I assume this means that none of that 20% of time will be spent on backlog issues?
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Correct.

To explain in more detail: Currently developers spend 20% on defects filed on existing features on TQ (we call this type of defects "external issues"). The 80% is spent on backlog work, which includes new features, major re-factoring tasks and all defects that result from that backlog work (we call this type of defects "internal issues" since they are internal to new development).

Ok, thanks for that clarification. I had hoped that some of the bug-fixing time might be used for CSM-backlog issues--in particular those that appear to be bugs. However, it appears that won't happen given current dev allocations that Zulu listed. In fact, your statement appears to imply that not just backlogged CSM issues but NOTHING in the backlog unrelated to the already scheduled tasking will get addressed.

Do I have this right?
Well, no, not really. The backlog is constantly subject to re-prioritisation, mostly shortly before release planning but also during the release cycle.

SIEGE RED
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:16:00 - [1074]
 

Edited by: SIEGE RED on 19/07/2010 23:20:32
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Bomberlocks
I think that just about does it for me. I'm paid up until the end of the month, but I don't think I'll be renewing next month.


Tell me specifically why you're quitting Eve? What you're paying for today is Eve ... today - not Eve next week or next year. Here's some guesses... but can you be more specific:
- The lag is too bad. Call me when they fix it. [CCP is working on fixing it]
- I can't stand all the damn bugs - $feature is so damn buggy! Call me when they fix it. [20% of their time goes to bugs]
- I can't live without $new_feature. Call me when they add it.
- I can't live without $feature_redesign. Call me when they "fix" it.
- I can't live with ship/module imbalance. Call me when they fix $thing.

I mean, it seems like you're falling into the "I want new shinies, but not those shinies" trap I was detailing earlier. Eve, today, is worth what I pay for it. If they fixed lag, I'd be that much happier... and while I may be frustrated with the state of low sec and faction warfare and the lack of NPC 0.0 and supercap proliferation and hybrid/roflket suckage... I'd still pay if those were broken next year.

-Liang


Omg Liang Very Happy Stop *****footing and submit your application to CCP already Very Happy

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: Mynxee
So to clarify, since it was stated previously that devs spend 20% of their time on bug fixes, I assume this means that none of that 20% of time will be spent on backlog issues?
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Correct.

To explain in more detail: Currently developers spend 20% on defects filed on existing features on TQ (we call this type of defects "external issues"). The 80% is spent on backlog work, which includes new features, major re-factoring tasks and all defects that result from that backlog work (we call this type of defects "internal issues" since they are internal to new development).

Ok, thanks for that clarification. I had hoped that some of the bug-fixing time might be used for CSM-backlog issues--in particular those that appear to be bugs. However, it appears that won't happen given current dev allocations that Zulu listed. In fact, your statement appears to imply that not just backlogged CSM issues but NOTHING in the backlog unrelated to the already scheduled tasking will get addressed.

Do I have this right?
Well, no, not really. The backlog is constantly subject to re-prioritisation, mostly shortly before release planning but also during the release cycle.


That makes it pretty silly, honestly. What Zulu spelled out for resource allocations, and with all the work laid out visible in those team lists, you could have just said "well, in theory you (CSM) are not really right, but in practice you are spot on".

You don't re prioritise, that's pretty clear, look at Tyrannis. Feedback there was so vigorous and clear, people warned you'd have to delay the expansion or split it up if you didn't change priorities on obvious elements, but not, you stuck to the letter to the last minute, and only then did you just push things ahead.

Orange Faeces
The Atomik Izlamiks
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:17:00 - [1075]
 

Originally by: Bomberlocks
I think that just about does it for me. I'm paid up until the end of the month, but I don't think I'll be renewing next month.


Considering your corp-name, this looks like a good move. All the best...

O. Faeces

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:17:00 - [1076]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 19/07/2010 23:22:04
Originally by: CCP Explorer

Current work is being fed by two queues: 80% of the time or 4 days a week: The backlog + defects stemming from that work. 20% of the time or 1 day a week: Defects (except those stemming from backlog work).



"Except those stemming from backlog work". Does that mean that if you have a faction warfare redesign/refactor in the backlog that you'll "ignore" bugs in the current implementation until you get around to the massive rewrite? (Hard question, I know)

Quote:
The backlog is not a FIFO queue, it's a prioritised queue for each team. Stakeholders have multiple queues or lists but eventually they must agree internally and with the PO on an overall priority into a single backlog for each team.


Interesting. I think I agree with your decision to firewall the internal queue discussions from the CSM - even if it frustrates them some. Ultimately they do not in fact work for CCP, even if they are under NDA.

-Liang

Ed: Also thanks for answering. :D

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:18:00 - [1077]
 

Originally by: Flamespar
Why is it that so many players in this thread make claims based on the belief that they represent the playerbase? You do not. To be frank I'd argue that the CSM does not.

You argument is invalid, the CSM is the elected body representing the playerbase, deal with it.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:22:00 - [1078]
 

Edited by: Cailais on 19/07/2010 23:23:29
Originally by: CCP Explorer
The backlog is constantly subject to re-prioritisation, mostly shortly before release planning but also during the release cycle.


If that's the case, (and I may be getting myself a bit confused here), then the CSM could influence that re-prioritisation at almost any stage - is that correct?

If it is the case then how is it the CSM came away with the impression that no 'fixes' could be deployed within the next 18 month (approx) time frame?

C.

SIEGE RED
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:27:00 - [1079]
 

Edited by: SIEGE RED on 19/07/2010 23:31:45
Originally by: Cailais

Originally by: CCP Explorer
The backlog is constantly subject to re-prioritisation, mostly shortly before release planning but also during the release cycle.


If that's the case, (and I may be getting myself a bit confused here), then the CSM could influence that re-prioritisation at almost any stage - is that correct?

If it is the case then how is it the CSM came away with the impression that no 'fixes' could be deployed within the next 18 month (approx) time frame?

C.


To answer the first question as per the CSM minutes, no, they cannot influence that. There is no agreement on it, no direct communications, no due process.

To answer question number two, have you actually read the minutes? :P They were told that, both in insight in planning, and in explanations on prioritisation.

Besides, as long as CCP does not track and classify in their systems what is a CSM flagged issue, defect or element, it could be possible they are doing stuff, but they don't communicate that to the CSM, or communicate about it. Anyhow, result is the same, like their CEO said "perception is reality" (while whoever linked that article, that was pretty interesting I must say, but he seems to like to say that a lot in interviews).

Originally by: Liang Nuren

Originally by: CCP Explorer



Quote:
The backlog is not a FIFO queue, it's a prioritised queue for each team. Stakeholders have multiple queues or lists but eventually they must agree internally and with the PO on an overall priority into a single backlog for each team.


Interesting. I think I agree with your decision to firewall the internal queue discussions from the CSM - even if it frustrates them some. Ultimately they do not in fact work for CCP, even if they are under NDA.

-Liang

Ed: Also thanks for answering. :D


Liang, think for a moment. If that is accurate, then their public communications on the raising of CSM status as well as all the exposure for previous CSM's is effectively bull****, or PR as it is also known.

After all, it is NOT a queue mechanism. Read the CSM minutes again. They are adopting a passive passthrough mechanism. In a lot of SCRUM books, that is used an example of process sabotage.

I do think you are highlighting an interesting issue here, very similar to what is apparent from past feature development tracks, for example Dominion. They don't seem to trust their own processes, so ofcourse they do not trust a CSM.

Stabin
Caldari
Posted - 2010.07.19 23:28:00 - [1080]
 

Originally by: Marlenus
Originally by: Malcanis
The plain issue here is that CCP has bitten off more than it can chew with developing Dust, Incarna and WoD all at once; they're deeply committed to all three projects, and there's not a whole hell of a lot they can do now that we're asking them to, you know, maintain their core game as well. They really dont have a lot of room to maneuvre.

<snip>

The very best action we can reasonably hope for from CCP in the short term are some goodwill gestures, maybe a few bug-fixes & minor balancing changes (FIX ROCKETS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD). We need to accept that now. Regardless of any change of heart they've had recently, that's all we're going to see this year.

<snip>

What we can hope to see from them is an unambiguous, absolutely honest admission that they realise they made a mistake, they understand what that mistake is, and they've made a commitment to changing their ways, backed up with some of this transparency we hear so much about and see so little of.

They've learned a lot - much of it unpleasant, all of it very important - in the last few days just by actually engaging with us. They need to keep doing that. They need to keep in touch with what their customers want. They need to change their development strategy to things that they can realistically achieve. Ambition is a noble thing in a game developer, but so is focus on product quality and the one depends on the other.

And they need to tell us they're doing these things and keep telling us while they're doing them.

I said they were bloody fools to have landed themselves in this position and I meant it. I hope there were some red faces in the CCP boardroom this weekend and this morning. If we dont see their blushes in the next few days, we'll know that the decision makers have shrugged off all the advice and concern and anger we've spent time and care communicating to them, and we'll know that EVE is on the path to decay and destruction.


Malcanis, I snipped you a bit for brevity, but I think your post is the best summary of where we stand that I've seen. I agree 100% with what you've said here.

I guess we'll know which way they're gonna jump by Wednesday or so.


I'm not sure I would be quite as harsh as Malcanis. It's not like anyone has to commit to maintaining the best PVP sandbox on the market. The makers of this game have certainly done enough to rest on their accomplishments, or chart a completely different course. I can't really see where they have to prove anything to anyone.

Still, if they want this game to be "THE" hardcore sandbox it's been in the past, they would be wise to listen to the above posters.

I really feel that most of the people that are upset want the new features too, but they doubt that it can be done and the games status as the games best PVP sandbox be maintained.

It comes down to providing leadership and direction more than features. If that is lost now, I too doubt if will ever return.


Pages: first : previous : ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 ... : last (66)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only