open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Need for MOAR Speed
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (10)

Author Topic

Darth Vapour
Posted - 2010.08.13 18:41:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: mrpapageorgio
Originally by: CCP Zulu
We call this the long battle on lag because there's not a single issue that creates lag or removes it.



Wrong, Dominion.


That's actually a wrong assumption. I'd elaborate but I can't use numbers. It makes me look worse.


That never stopped you before. See: HTFU video.

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2010.08.13 18:42:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Mr Booger
Will there be a devblog on what exactly caused the Dominion lag-spike, or indeed CCP's efforts to find out what is going on in that area?

Yes, we are investigating that and the short answer is that it seems to have started before Dominion. And it's a whole slew of smaller issues we've started uncovering, very few of them directly tied to Dominion.

So while it would be very nice to have it bound to Dominion and just uninstall that, it isn't poor Dominions fault.

There will be a slew of blogs on specific things uncovered. They'll have graphs and all sorts of tech stuff.

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2010.08.13 18:45:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Darth Vapour
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: mrpapageorgio
Originally by: CCP Zulu
We call this the long battle on lag because there's not a single issue that creates lag or removes it.



Wrong, Dominion.


That's actually a wrong assumption. I'd elaborate but I can't use numbers. It makes me look worse.


That never stopped you before. See: HTFU video.


Chicks totally dig that. I need all the help I can get being fat and a single father of two.

SokoleOko
Minmatar
Death Wish.
Posted - 2010.08.13 18:47:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: mrpapageorgio
Originally by: CCP Zulu
We call this the long battle on lag because there's not a single issue that creates lag or removes it.



Wrong, Dominion.


That's actually a wrong assumption. I'd elaborate but I can't use numbers. It makes me look worse.


It's not assumption. Just yesterday I was roaming in Vale/Geminate and lag was unbearable - with only 20 ppl on local we were unable to jump or to load grid after the jump. Presumably because there was a battle somewhere else.

It is the players, not the server statitics, that play this game. And the customer is always right... right?

Korerin Mayul
Amarr
Posted - 2010.08.13 18:51:00 - [65]
 

eve *isnt* dying
devs are posting, and posting well.

i have clearly fallen into reverso world! yay!

MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror
Posted - 2010.08.13 18:51:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: CCP Manifest
We're ... trying to figure out a good regular timetable for doing such a thing so that it's not one-time-only.

May I propose weekly, with CCP & CSM alternating? This gives each side a week to consider the prior post, do research, ask others' opinions, and compose a proper response. In the end it means that CCP would commit to writing *something* every two weeks -- hopefully that's not an excessive burden.

Originally by: TheDevBlog
This is a report from some of the findings of the lass mass testing on Singularity

A1: "The women! Give back the women!"
A2: "Hopefully about 55 kilos." (I find the in-game "female corpse" mass... disturbing.)

MDD

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2010.08.13 18:52:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: iP0D
Originally by: CCP Oveur


I actually don't know which metrics you're referring to or which of my opinions. But I'm pretty sure you're about to enlighten me since you worded it like that.


I think he is referring to the CSM Meeting Minutes:

Quote:
14:30-15:30 CCP: Commitment to Excellence

CCP Attendees: Nathan – CCP Oveur, Erlendur – CCP Explorer

The CSM gave a presentation on player expectations regarding excellence and expressed concern at the direction in which CCP is going with EVE. There is full consensus within the CSM that this issue is a problem.

...

CSM remained unconvinced of CCPs commitment to excellence, even after Nathan's arguments were heard.


Summary:

The CSM gave a presentation on player expectations regarding excellence and expressed concern at the direction of CCP. The CSM stated that there’s a widespread belief that CCP is emphasizing quantity at the cost of quality, which goes against the promised excellence initiative.

CCP disagreed strongly with the claim that it isn’t committed to excellence and feels that the resources being used to constantly improve Eve Online are a clear sign of this commitment.



This is more or less the "other" part of the situation, which combined with the "technical" part constitutes the big picture. For product, business, etc.

This is why I thought it'd be a good idea for you and CSM to tackle that one together, you know:

Originally by: Vilhjálmur Thorsteinsson
CCP‘s culture is strong, and is built on four core values: We are fearless, we stand united, we pursue excellence, we practice transparency. Such values cannot simply be dictated by committe or by installed by fiat. They have to be lived and breathed by everyone in the company, including the board and its chairman, or they are not credible. Also, the values are truly validated only when there is a crisis or a severe test facing the company. Will it then live up to its values, or are they empty talk?




The metrics about sales and quality? The point there was pretty simple and the numbers behind it as well. Apocrypha which was taken as an example for a great expansion and sold very well, was the most buggiest expansion we have done and created the largest technical debt of any expansion before and we even cut a ton of features due to technical issues with them. There, poor quality sold boatloads.

We're never going to ship an expansion like that again. We're still cleaning up after it.

But in many other respects, it was a great expansion and great experience finally having better exploration in EVE.

iP0D
Posted - 2010.08.13 18:53:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: SokoleOko
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: mrpapageorgio
Originally by: CCP Zulu
We call this the long battle on lag because there's not a single issue that creates lag or removes it.



Wrong, Dominion.


That's actually a wrong assumption. I'd elaborate but I can't use numbers. It makes me look worse.


It's not assumption. Just yesterday I was roaming in Vale/Geminate and lag was unbearable - with only 20 ppl on local we were unable to jump or to load grid after the jump. Presumably because there was a battle somewhere else.

It is the players, not the server statitics, that play this game. And the customer is always right... right?


Difference between how it looks on paper, versus the practical reception. Customers aren't always right btw, sometimes an enterprise needs to stay a course, but only after calculating in risk/reward vs the timeline. A smart enterprise will always listen, explain, and make sure that the immersion remains part of the process.

Technical state vs. reception of immersion. Didn't Hilmar once say "perception defines reality"? Cool

Btw, this is really great. Been years since I've seen a thread like this, where CCP was sticking to fearless and just saying it "as is", burning trolls and still showcasing communication and important stuff. Kudos.


CCP Oveur

Posted - 2010.08.13 18:55:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: SokoleOko
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: mrpapageorgio
Originally by: CCP Zulu
We call this the long battle on lag because there's not a single issue that creates lag or removes it.



Wrong, Dominion.


That's actually a wrong assumption. I'd elaborate but I can't use numbers. It makes me look worse.


It's not assumption. Just yesterday I was roaming in Vale/Geminate and lag was unbearable - with only 20 ppl on local we were unable to jump or to load grid after the jump. Presumably because there was a battle somewhere else.

It is the players, not the server statitics, that play this game. And the customer is always right... right?


I don't get your point. I wasn't saying that there isn't lag.

I was saying that it's wrong to assume that the lag that you are experiencing today is Dominions fault.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.08.13 18:56:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 13/08/2010 19:08:47
Originally by: CCP Oveur

Also very sorry that you think I look worse. I'm not sure how else to explain to you than with numbers our commitment. Interpretive dance perhaps?


FTFY

Honestly, the "fix lag" crowd seems to have been in 0.0 fights right after Dominion and haven't since, or are simply echoing a complaint they heard months ago. The black screen sucks, but huge fleet fights have always had noticeable issues that people lived with and worked around.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.08.13 18:59:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: mrpapageorgio
Originally by: CCP Zulu
We call this the long battle on lag because there's not a single issue that creates lag or removes it.
Wrong, Dominion.
That's actually a wrong assumption. I'd elaborate but I can't use numbers. It makes me look worse.
To back up CCP Oveur here with the numbers:

The specific issues that cropped up in Dominion, memory leaks and DB session starvation, were fixed by February this year. The memory leaks had been fixed in December 2009. The DB session starvation was tracked down in late January, confirmed in a mass-test on Singularity on 27 January and the fix was deployed to TQ on 9 February ("TRANQUILITY HOTFIX v.6.21.127381_4"). 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.

CCP Atlas wrote a dev blog about those issues on 4 Feb. In that dev blog he discussed one of the remaining issues, the "blackscreening client". We started work on that issue and deployed changes to TQ this summer to improve and mitigate it (dev blog is being planned). We haven't fixed the issue but we have improved it and are still working on it.

More fixes were deployed to TQ yesterday (12 August, "TRANQUILITY HOTFIX v.6.30.167296_10"; another dev blog is being planned to detail the results) and still more are in various stages of code review and testing (yes, you guessed it, even more dev blogs are being planned). All of these fixes involve performance enhancements to old code, not Dominion code.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:03:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Malcanis


May we assume that you will read the next CSM minutes?

PS Have you re-evaluated your opinion of those "metrics"? You know the ones I mean.

Of course, the whole point of meeting minutes is to read them over and agree that's what happened in the meeting. Otherwise they aren't meeting minutes Wink

I actually don't know which metrics you're referring to or which of my opinions. But I'm pretty sure you're about to enlighten me since you worded it like that.


Specifically the metrics that you (CCP) are quoted as saying "do not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features"

bitter vetiranarian
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:08:00 - [73]
 

Too little too late imo.

Dalmont Delantee
Gallente
Shiloh Technologies
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:08:00 - [74]
 


CCP Oveur is is possible you can do something about the 'special' people who post rubbish about strange conspiracies and explain to the lovely people that the walking in stations they so craved befroe they were told about it ('tards) and changed their mind needs the kind of resources you are spending on it.

Also that you wouldn't put out a prettying and pointless feature so something had to be added for it to work (incarna/dust/PI etc)?

IT might help those 'special' people to actually not cry like babies....

SokoleOko
Minmatar
Death Wish.
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:08:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
I don't get your point. I wasn't saying that there isn't lag.

I was saying that it's wrong to assume that the lag that you are experiencing today is Dominions fault.


And no-one - I believe - is saying that "lag is because of one of Dominion's features". When players say "Dominion" it's rather reference to a point in time.

Also, I remember from CSM Minutes CCP's statement along the lines "server statistics are better that they ever was".

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:11:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: iP0D
Originally by: CCP Oveur


I actually don't know which metrics you're referring to or which of my opinions. But I'm pretty sure you're about to enlighten me since you worded it like that.


I think he is referring to the CSM Meeting Minutes:

Quote:
14:30-15:30 CCP: Commitment to Excellence

CCP Attendees: Nathan – CCP Oveur, Erlendur – CCP Explorer

The CSM gave a presentation on player expectations regarding excellence and expressed concern at the direction in which CCP is going with EVE. There is full consensus within the CSM that this issue is a problem.

...

CSM remained unconvinced of CCPs commitment to excellence, even after Nathan's arguments were heard.


Summary:

The CSM gave a presentation on player expectations regarding excellence and expressed concern at the direction of CCP. The CSM stated that there’s a widespread belief that CCP is emphasizing quantity at the cost of quality, which goes against the promised excellence initiative.

CCP disagreed strongly with the claim that it isn’t committed to excellence and feels that the resources being used to constantly improve Eve Online are a clear sign of this commitment.



This is more or less the "other" part of the situation, which combined with the "technical" part constitutes the big picture. For product, business, etc.

This is why I thought it'd be a good idea for you and CSM to tackle that one together, you know:

Originally by: Vilhjálmur Thorsteinsson
CCP‘s culture is strong, and is built on four core values: We are fearless, we stand united, we pursue excellence, we practice transparency. Such values cannot simply be dictated by committe or by installed by fiat. They have to be lived and breathed by everyone in the company, including the board and its chairman, or they are not credible. Also, the values are truly validated only when there is a crisis or a severe test facing the company. Will it then live up to its values, or are they empty talk?




The metrics about sales and quality? The point there was pretty simple and the numbers behind it as well. Apocrypha which was taken as an example for a great expansion and sold very well, was the most buggiest expansion we have done and created the largest technical debt of any expansion before and we even cut a ton of features due to technical issues with them. There, poor quality sold boatloads.

We're never going to ship an expansion like that again. We're still cleaning up after it.

But in many other respects, it was a great expansion and great experience finally having better exploration in EVE.


It may have been buggy for you, but it was great for us, because it fixed one of our biggest problems: lag (Actually it fixed several game structure problems). Polish means something rather different to you than it does to us.

Polish to us means gameplay that works. Apocrypha delivered this. As far as we the players are concerned Apocrypha scores pretty highly on what we think of as "polish". I understand that to you guys as coders it might have looked like a plate of spaghetti with live eel sauce, but to us it was great not because of W-space or T3, but because a really really important part of the game started working a whole lot better. W-space and T3 were both great, but NFS was what really made it good.

In short, I can definitely understand why you said what you did, but I think you're radically misinterpreting the data. And I can point to thousands of posts on your forums that support my interpretation and contradict yours.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:11:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Dalmont Delantee

CCP Oveur is is possible you can do something about the 'special' people who post rubbish about strange conspiracies and explain to the lovely people that the walking in stations they so craved befroe they were told about it ('tards) and changed their mind needs the kind of resources you are spending on it.

Also that you wouldn't put out a prettying and pointless feature so something had to be added for it to work (incarna/dust/PI etc)?

IT might help those 'special' people to actually not cry like babies....


Not likely. Those are two different groups of people. One who want Incarna and complained that it hasn't come out yet and the other who wants to blame world hunger on Incarna.

MARS VICTOR
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:13:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur

Apocrypha which was taken as an example for a great expansion and sold very well, was the most buggiest expansion we have done and created the largest technical debt of any expansion before and we even cut a ton of features due to technical issues with them. There, poor quality sold boatloads.

We're never going to ship an expansion like that again. We're still cleaning up after it.


Was it not after Apocrypha that you switched to Agile? I do wonder how a value set like that of apocrypha would be handled through Scrum. It's clear Apocrypha created a technical debt, but how would that be within the use of scrum.

Originally by: CCP Oveur

But in many other respects, it was a great expansion and great experience finally having better exploration in EVE.


Look at it from player's eyes: it was an awesome expansion that deliverd to a wide variety of player types and styles of gameplay.

Compare this to say Tyrannis, and maybe then it is more clear why we worry. Even then, from again a player view, Tyrannis basically showed us the marketing can't be relied on for content delivered, plus it was quite a bit late and cut in two. I'm not sure if I am making it clear enough, but one example seems to be a case of technical debt of an old system, the other of expecation divide in a new system. It is clear wich one had more customer value, that this requires a compromise in approach is clear to us.


Also, let's please avoid the technical approach of that feedback thread to the previous Zulupark blog Wink This current approach is much better then what we saw in that thread. What we see here (really, it is appreciated) is valuable to us. It's different from the long time of impression of "let's avoid the issue and throw in some numbers". No disrespect, you know, this is ticky stuff, it's appearances and perspectives and all that human communication stuff.

Ander
Gallente
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:14:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
rabble rabble


backpeddle more

Having been a supporter of CCP and often defending or explaining your actions when discussed over at pandemic-legion.com, I even get accused of being a "dev".
Although this accusation is untrue it has gotten harder for me to explain or defend some of the paths CCP has taken in recent history...


CCP Oveur

Posted - 2010.08.13 19:15:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Malcanis


May we assume that you will read the next CSM minutes?

PS Have you re-evaluated your opinion of those "metrics"? You know the ones I mean.

Of course, the whole point of meeting minutes is to read them over and agree that's what happened in the meeting. Otherwise they aren't meeting minutes Wink

I actually don't know which metrics you're referring to or which of my opinions. But I'm pretty sure you're about to enlighten me since you worded it like that.


Specifically the metrics that you (CCP) are quoted as saying "do not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features"

Ah, I answered that above. That was about Apocrypha. Feature-loaden-bug-ridden expansion that sold very well.

We we hadn't before pushed that many new features into a single expansion and won't do that again. Tyrannis was basically 2 features.

I was actually reading my presentation from 2006 which kicked off the Need For Speed initiative back then. Our strategy then was 1 new feature vs 5 improvements to current systems.

wr3cks
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:16:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur

The metrics about sales and quality? The point there was pretty simple and the numbers behind it as well. Apocrypha which was taken as an example for a great expansion and sold very well, was the most buggiest expansion we have done and created the largest technical debt of any expansion before and we even cut a ton of features due to technical issues with them. There, poor quality sold boatloads.



According to your bean-counting clipboard, perhaps. Do the customers get a say in which expansions they think are the most buggiest? Not all bugs are equal.

Taking all the fun out of large fleet warfare is a pretty big bug. Inducing carpal tunnel to fuel POSes via PI is not a bug, right? Broken as intended?

Originally by: CCP Oveur

We're never going to ship an expansion like that again. We're still cleaning up after it.


You should be saying this about Tyrannis, which came out two weeks late, with game-breaking bugs requiring an emergency patch, and a remarkably terrible UI, even for EVE.

Dominion was at least a fair attempt to improve goofy sov mechanics, otherwise I'd throw that in too.

Related: anyone want to come shoot a stationary object with 22 million HP with me? We're working on putting it into its second RF timer.

Originally by: CCP Oveur
But in many other respects, it was a great expansion and great experience finally having better exploration in EVE.


Yes -- your customers are happy with it. The features work well and were a distinct improvement over existing gameplay.

Perhaps back then 'broken as intended' was not an acceptable state of affairs.

LegendaryFrog
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:17:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 13/08/2010 19:21:10
Originally by: CCP Oveur
I was actually reading my presentation from 2006 which kicked off the Need For Speed initiative back then. Our strategy then was 1 new feature vs 5 improvements to current systems.


That is all we could ever ask for.

I think some of the confusion surround your comments about Apocrypha is that with so many new features added, the user experience on launch was surprisingly good. In comparison, with Tyrannis (which only added a couple of features as you mentioned), some major game breaking bugs managed to make it to launch (POS guns firing on blues?). It is hard to understand why, with less features, more -noticeable- bugs were introduced.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.08.13 19:20:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Polish to us means gameplay that works. Apocrypha delivered this. As far as we the players are concerned Apocrypha scores pretty highly on what we think of as "polish". I understand that to you guys as coders it might have looked like a plate of spaghetti with live eel sauce, but to us it was great not because of W-space or T3, but because a really really important part of the game started working a whole lot better. W-space and T3 were both great, but NFS was what really made it good.
Quantum Rise (just before Apocrypha) contained a lot of performance enhancements, in particular StacklessIO and EVE64 but also Weapon Grouping, and Apocrypha 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 contained performance enhancements as well (especially 1.3).

I would submit that in Apocrypha you were originally experiencing Quantum Rise as far as performance was concerned and then you were experiencing Apocrypha 1.3 and later.

(Edit: Added Weapon Grouping to Quantum Rise list.)

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:23:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Malcanis


May we assume that you will read the next CSM minutes?

PS Have you re-evaluated your opinion of those "metrics"? You know the ones I mean.

Of course, the whole point of meeting minutes is to read them over and agree that's what happened in the meeting. Otherwise they aren't meeting minutes Wink

I actually don't know which metrics you're referring to or which of my opinions. But I'm pretty sure you're about to enlighten me since you worded it like that.


Specifically the metrics that you (CCP) are quoted as saying "do not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features"

Ah, I answered that above. That was about Apocrypha. Feature-loaden-bug-ridden expansion that sold very well.

We we hadn't before pushed that many new features into a single expansion and won't do that again. Tyrannis was basically 2 features.


Yeah, 2 features which might work perfectly in a coding sense, but from a gameplay sense, they dont work very well at all. Again, the disconnect between what you think of as "polished" and what we do.

You know what the best part by miles of Dominion was? The projectiles rebalance. Ignorant as I am of coding, I'm going to guess that it didn't take a lot of code work to do this at all, but it made a HUGE difference to the gameplay experience of thousands and thousands of your customers. It was a massive step forward in what we think of as "polish", because something that didn't work suddenly worked great. From a coding perspective, nothing much changed - a few constant values were modified, the database and item descriptions were updated, good job guys, what's next on the list for this morning?

That was polish.


Originally by: CCP Oveur

I was actually reading my presentation from 2006 which kicked off the Need For Speed initiative back then. Our strategy then was 1 new feature vs 5 improvements to current systems.


That was a great strategy.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:23:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 13/08/2010 19:28:02
Originally by: wr3cks
Dominion was at least a fair attempt to improve goofy sov mechanics, otherwise I'd throw that in too.

Related: anyone want to come shoot a stationary object with 22 million HP with me? We're working on putting it into its second RF timer.


I've been in those fleets, possibly with you. Remember what it was like rolling POSs? This is better, not great, but much better.

Honestly though, Oveur, players judge the expansions on a net-positive/negative basis. Are the benefits from the expansion worth the negative experience of the bugs? Most players remember Apoc with fondness, not because of all the bugs, but because of all the excellent features that were added. Some being features that players had been begging for a long time to have.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:29:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
The metrics about sales and quality? The point there was pretty simple and the numbers behind it as well. Apocrypha which was taken as an example for a great expansion and sold very well, was the most buggiest expansion we have done and created the largest technical debt of any expansion before and we even cut a ton of features due to technical issues with them. There, poor quality sold boatloads.

We're never going to ship an expansion like that again. We're still cleaning up after it.

But in many other respects, it was a great expansion and great experience finally having better exploration in EVE.


There often does seem to be a great gap between those who are focused on the technical side of things and us players, who get our value from the emotions that come from immersing into the environment you created for us (and that we ourselves evolve through our own actions).

Somewhere in the middle is the right balance, from the perspective of making money and keeping customers satisfied. I'm sure that is a moving target but EVE players seem pretty consistent in identifying what we love about this very special "game" (even if we ***** at the same time about all the stuff we hate).

To me, that's why this kind of dialog is sooooo important. Perspective from both sides is vital in the extremely unique situation we have here where differences in perspective can be openly debated and ways to close the gap energetically discussed in a public venue.


MARS VICTOR
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:31:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: LegendaryFrog

Originally by: CCP Oveur
I was actually reading my presentation from 2006 which kicked off the Need For Speed initiative back then. Our strategy then was 1 new feature vs 5 improvements to current systems.


That is all we could ever ask for.

I think some of the confusion surround your comments about Apocrypha is that with so many new features added, the user experience on launch was surprisingly good. In comparison, with Tyrannis (which only added a couple of features as you mentioned), some major game breaking bugs managed to make it to launch (POS guns firing on blues?). It is hard to understand why, with less features, more -noticeable- bugs were introduced.


What he said. That's the confusing part here. The "big" apocrypha had a few issues, but was great and was followed up on. The "small" Tyrannis expansion is basically empty, had a horrible and frankly emberassing deployment (the market issues that had been bugreported weeks before which had drastic impact), plus overall in terms of gameplay it has already succumbed to bots on a massive scale for Planetary Ineraction. A followup on Tyrannis elements is .. well .. part of a future expansion. Apparently.

In a way, PI to many feels like it may very well become another case of how POS lasted for years of tears until finally things were changed. Doesn't mean that'll end up that way, but .. it's not like we've had real precedent on this - if that makes sense.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:32:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Malcanis
Polish to us means gameplay that works. Apocrypha delivered this. As far as we the players are concerned Apocrypha scores pretty highly on what we think of as "polish". I understand that to you guys as coders it might have looked like a plate of spaghetti with live eel sauce, but to us it was great not because of W-space or T3, but because a really really important part of the game started working a whole lot better. W-space and T3 were both great, but NFS was what really made it good.
Quantum Rise (just before Apocrypha) contained a lot of performance enhancements, in particular StacklessIO and EVE64, and Apocrypha 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 contained performance enhancements as well (epsecially 1.2).

I would submit that in Apocrypha you were originally experiencing Quantum Rise as far as performance was concerned and then in Apocrypha 1.3 and later.


Yeah, casting my mind back, I agree.

But that doesn't matter. In fact it nicely illustrates my point.

It was in Apocrypha that we perceived the improvement, so Apocrypha gets the credit. This is what I'm trying to get across here: you can make a million jillion coding improvements, and we wont give you a teeny tiny thank you. You can write code that would make Kernigan and Ritchie report you to the Coders Inquisition, and we wont mind. What matters to your customers is how well the game works.

All that code quality stuff: great. I'm glad you're doing it and I am glad to see resources put in to what can only have a positive long term effect. But the fact is, it's really for your benefit, not ours. It doesn't do us any direct good at all. It's only good for us insofar as it means we see improved game-play.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.08.13 19:32:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: MARS VICTOR
Was it not after Apocrypha that you switched to Agile? I do wonder how a value set like that of apocrypha would be handled through Scrum. It's clear Apocrypha created a technical debt, but how would that be within the use of scrum.
We switched to scrum at the beginning of Apocrypha. It worked well to coordinate a large number of people to make a large number of features. Unfortunately it resulted in a large number of defect reports.

MARS VICTOR
Posted - 2010.08.13 19:40:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: MARS VICTOR
Was it not after Apocrypha that you switched to Agile? I do wonder how a value set like that of apocrypha would be handled through Scrum. It's clear Apocrypha created a technical debt, but how would that be within the use of scrum.
We switched to scrum at the beginning of Apocrypha. It worked well to coordinate a large number of people to make a large number of features. Unfortunately it resulted in a large number of defect reports.


So, you did something that massive effectively while switching systems and methods. Speaking from experience it does not strike me as a surprise then that this created technical debt. Have you factored this in as one of the origins of either human resource or systems pattern factors leading to technical debt? Traditionally in our (software) industry) it is a primary cause in such circumstances of technical debt after all. That's why an inroduction of transition to Scrum is always accompanied by engaging in smaller projects.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (10)

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