open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:00:00 - [1201]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 00:04:06
Originally by: Terianna Eri
CCP: Here's an awful idea
Playerbase: 30 pages of generally articulate feedback why the idea is awful in many different ways and will accomplish the opposite of what it intends to do AND reverse the entire point of the Dominion expansion (getting people into 0.0)
CCP: nope we know better and we're doing it anyway
Playerbase: would you like to explain why
CCP: no



You're out of your mind if you think there were 30 pages of "generally articulate feedback". The knee jerk reaction was so awesome that there were 15 pages of feedback before anyone thought to finish reading the dev blog and realize that they weren't taking away all sanctums/havens in > -0.8 space. Rolling Eyes

Originally by: Dev Blog

1. Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
2. In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
3. Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
4. Coalitions will be marginally less stable
5. Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)





So let's break the whining down:
- "I just upgraded my system and now it's going to be worthless!" -> Confirms #1, #5
- "The big guys are just going to kick everyone out of the good space!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3, #4
- "Everyone will leave 0.0 and go to high sec because there's better ISK there!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3
- "Man screw that worthless space! Nobody would even bother conquering it!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3

I could go on, but basically this whole thread boils down to a bunch of "Elite 0.0 Pro PVPers" (read: massive ****ing carebears) that have a massive ISK faucet and they don't want to let go despite the fact that it is destroying the game. So instead they're going to go back to high sec where it's nice and safe. It's even better because they don't seem to comprehend the difference between raw ISK faucets and items traded for ISK. Rolling Eyes

Protip: the reason high sec mission bears make such good ISK/hr these days is because there's so much damn ISK flowing into the economy.

Quote:
I wish there were a middle finger emote. This is disgusting.


Indeed. :looks at you:

-Liang

Sig Sour
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:10:00 - [1202]
 

Heads up, next January the Dev awards will be on. Highest coveted award will be "Dev That Caused the Most Whine" award. CCP Grayscale is winning so far.

Someone at CCP can one up this guy, I know it!

Wicked X
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:15:00 - [1203]
 

Edited by: Wicked X on 29/03/2011 00:15:40

Good work CCP Greyscale.
The proposed changes are a step in the right direction.
Resistence from the big coalitions is to be expected, i hope this wont stop you,because your changes have a good chance to make 0.0 better and more fun again.
I am looking foward to seeing some 0.0 alliances basing there success on quality rather than pure numbers again, hardly any of those left.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:16:00 - [1204]
 

Did I just see a piece of sky falling?

.. oh wait, it was just raven poo.

oldmanst4r
Minmatar
oldmanst4r's Corporation
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:17:00 - [1205]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
stuff


I honestly only see one outcome.

1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases.
2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats.
3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed.

I invite anyone to refute these points.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:19:00 - [1206]
 

Originally by: oldmanst4r
Originally by: Liang Nuren
stuff


I honestly only see one outcome.

1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases.
2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats.
3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed.

I invite anyone to refute these points.


So nothing is going to change then? Very Happy

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:22:00 - [1207]
 

Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 29/03/2011 00:22:31
Originally by: UniqueOne
Originally by: oldmanst4r
Originally by: Liang Nuren
stuff


I honestly only see one outcome.

1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases.
2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats.
3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed.

I invite anyone to refute these points.


So nothing is going to change then? Very Happy


Yeah, i'll pay 2b in upkeep for a system that cannot generate enought revenue to pay for itself.

Oh wait.

Benjamin Hamburg
Gallente
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:22:00 - [1208]
 

1) Place high-end moon in higher ss systems. (Or raise the ss of systems where high-end/rare moon are)

2) Create new upgrades to lower security status of a given systems.


At least...

If you don't do that, don't expect small alliance to be able to hold claim on good ss systems. Also don't expect reducing the blob doing it. Blob will be worse, as players will gather in fewer systems.


Sem Nan
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:24:00 - [1209]
 

I have only one thing to do about this latest devblog.

:facepalm:

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:30:00 - [1210]
 

Originally by: oldmanst4r

I honestly only see one outcome.

1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases.
2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats.
3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed.

I invite anyone to refute these points.


Easily.

Your point #1 confirms their goals:
- Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
- Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)

It implies:
- People will all bunch up in a few overcrowded systems.
- Vast tracts of space will be empty.
- Big guys will immediately smash a bunch of small guys to seize the best systems.
- Small alliances will come take space that is now vacant, and the "big guys" aren't too interested in this space.

This confirms:
- Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
- Coalitions will be marginally less stable
- In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals

Your point #2 confirms:
- Nothing. We aren't going to have 10000 people in one system running anoms. Thus, it isn't realistically going to happen.

Your point #3 confirms:
- Nothing. It's complete bull****.

-Liang

Zephyr Decole
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:34:00 - [1211]
 

Edited by: Zephyr Decole on 29/03/2011 00:39:10
Sooo...turning the game into even more of a second job for those living in the 0.0 <> -0.2 band is supposed to retain subscribers how?

We now have:
-Unplayable lag fights
-Insanely high sov bills
-A grinding process to make isk that makes picking herbs in wow look like fun
-Developer hours being poured into allowing us to walk around in a station (welcome to Hello Kitty Island: Adventures in Space) rather than fixing core game functionality (don't tell me the team working on the station walking feature could not be better used fixing old and broken aspects).
-A company that does not listen to player feedback
-Strong suspicion of GM favoritism/corruption in several previous incidents


If there are any game studios out there looking to start a new IP now is the time. Take what makes EVE fun, leave out what makes it a job, and I would imagine you have a goldmine on your hands.

Illiet
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:44:00 - [1212]
 

So how would this change make top alliances look for new places if their income won't change? They just improve rent for good systems =)

Kijo Rikki
Caldari
Point of No Return
Waterboard
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:51:00 - [1213]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

Easily.

Your point #1 confirms their goals:
- Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
- Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)

It implies:
- People will all bunch up in a few overcrowded systems.
- Vast tracts of space will be empty.
- Big guys will immediately smash a bunch of small guys to seize the best systems.
- Small alliances will come take space that is now vacant, and the "big guys" aren't too interested in this space.
This confirms:
- Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
- Coalitions will be marginally less stable
- In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals



What makes you think it will be worth the effort to take worthless systems that cannot even sustain a small alliance?

What makes you think coalitions will suddenly become less stable? If anything, this looks to strengthen them by forcing allies to cluster closer together.

With what looks like more time spent in highsec to make the isk necessary for the smaller guys to sustain their war/defense efforts, including jumpclone cooldown and traveltime, what makes you think there will be more conflicts? I foresee alot more conservatism among the pvpers who will see a reduction in isk in their home systems. Couple with just the fact that when a fight does go down, you're more likely to have available pilots stranded in highsec so even less pvp occurs.

Personally, I foresee alot less pvp for myself, which is sad, I just jumped back into it and its been great for the month I've been back. I've gotten more kills in a month than my entire 3 year career.

But I'm not gonna waste my time jumping down to highsec and spending hours grinding level 4 missions to make up for shiplosses, just to travel around vast tracks of deadspace in 0.0 looking for a fight for over an hour before finally finding an engagement that lasts for 5 minutes and has a chance of forcing you to go back to highsec for another day. That's a ******ed waste of 15$.

Spazz21
Rage For Order
Nihil-Obstat
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:13:00 - [1214]
 

Sorry, I didn't go through the first 40 pages. Just the first and last.

I don't see how this will really do much other then make parts of null completely worthless. It seems as it will merely shift the population of ratting and will end up saving alliances money as the systems become higher income so they can dump the crap systems that has no good moons and no logistical value.

Pvp: Sure this might be good for pvpers as there will be more people ratting, but it also might not as there will also be more ratters in the system that can still blob up on the enemy, should they decide to catch someone ratting.

Money: Well since a lot of systems will probably lose all value, if there is no cyno/JB in that system and no good moons, and alliances can safely drop those systems and keep the other ones and still be paying same monthly fees for the ones kept. Since there is more people in one area, they are getting more moneys worth for a system. So I can't really imagine this reducing the amount of isk for players or alliances.

New Alliances: Even with alliances dropping sov, a new alliance still wouldn't be able to join in without being blue. They'll just get hot dropped by 200 Super Carriers the next day. And why would a small alliance or corp want that system if it ain't worth ****? Would be better off staying in High and do missions/incursions and just do roams into Null.

Compacting Null: If no one is going to use these systems, then those systems are going to be essentially a time delay in travel. If they hold of no to very little value, then CCP might as well delete those systems. I thought the idea of having sov upgrades was to give people more money to buy more stuff so they can blow more stuff up and have more stuff to be blown up. The idea I got from CCP watching Fanfest, they like it when **** blows up. So why compact it into smaller clusters? Seems as CCP is trying to kill off Null then get more people into them. =/

Sir Ota
Amarr
Attack Force
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:29:00 - [1215]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Very clever idea was here....
That's all for today,
-Greyscale

May be you are right. Yes, i understand, ccp wants money for PLEXes, etc, and because of this wants to cutdown income of nullsec citizens and wars of alliances. I understand, but i want to suggest slighty another math in this "briliant" change. It look almost like yours, but your model makes systems below -0.4 totaly worthless. In my plan systems below -0.4 - is good place for nullsec "newcomers".
ss 0 = 0 level 5 anomalies
ss -0.1 = 1 heaven
ss -0.2 = 2 heavens
ss -0.3 = 2 heavens + 1 sanctum
ss -0.4 = 2 heavens + 2 sanctums
ss -0.5 = 3 heavens + 2 sanctums
ss -0.6 = 3 heavens + 3 sanctums
ss -0.7 = 4 heavens + 3 sanctums
ss -0.8 = 4 heavens + 4 sanctums
ss -0.9 = 5 heavens + 4 sanctums
ss -1 = 5 heavens + 5 sanctums (yeah "totaly six additional high anomalies" (c) you)

PS just for information 80% of my nullsec friends will leave nullsecs after this change.

nulab jones
Assisted Genocide
Unprovoked Aggression
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:31:00 - [1216]
 

Edited by: nulab jones on 29/03/2011 01:35:22
Seems like a ploy to sell more gtc and plex by making it harder to make the isk to fund pvp.

You seem to forget we need the isk to buy the plex, cos im sure as hell not using real money to buy a haircut, tattoo, new shirt or even pay for game time (did that for 3 years, so more more of my real money for CCP) in the future.

4 accounts paid with plex from running sanctums in a crappy system (cant afford the rent on a good one), maybe 1 or 2 after this change.

Well done CCP


Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:39:00 - [1217]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


way to be so chicken **** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are ****ing them.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:46:00 - [1218]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 01:46:35
Originally by: Skaarl
way to be so chicken **** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are ****ing them.


Spend more time around the bitter-vet train, and you'd come to realize that the only way CCP can fix the problems with the game is to address their root causes of economic overabundance and too great of ease in region to region transportation. In other words, to fix the long term game, CCP has no choice but to **** players in the short term.

All I want to see happen in regards to the Sanctum Nerf is the Jump Bridge nerf, capital ship cyno spool timer, and some small scale manufacturing infrastructure apart from starbases introduced at the same time.

Tom Aran
Caldari
Virtual Democracy
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:48:00 - [1219]
 

after initial migration the 0.0 will be more stagnant than ever. with SOV mechanics and defenders now caged in a couple of systems, young and upcoming alliances will have no chance winning those high end systems.

anyway, you can be sure belt-botting will become even more popular.

good jjob cpp. you are ruining your own game





Nikgah Plz
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:48:00 - [1220]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


*Starts packing* *cancel subscription* *%*%* SWG all over again.

nulab jones
Assisted Genocide
Unprovoked Aggression
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:49:00 - [1221]
 

Originally by: Skaarl


way to be so chicken **** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are ****ing them.


Kinda funny they pushed this one through when our so called stake holder CSM is also in limbo and not active

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.29 01:57:00 - [1222]
 

Originally by: nulab jones
Originally by: Skaarl


way to be so chicken **** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are ****ing them.


Kinda funny they pushed this one through when our so called stake holder CSM is also in limbo and not active


What's really funny to me is how this thread is largely 40 pages of people whining about not being able to make as much money as they want, which is literally the entire point of making this change - to reduce the influx of money flowing around.

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:10:00 - [1223]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: nulab jones
Originally by: Skaarl


way to be so chicken **** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are ****ing them.


Kinda funny they pushed this one through when our so called stake holder CSM is also in limbo and not active


What's really funny to me is how this thread is largely 40 pages of people whining about not being able to make as much money as they want, which is literally the entire point of making this change - to reduce the influx of money flowing around.


no, the point to this is to make more conflict in 0.0. if you had lived in the populated areas of 0.0 that are actually going to be most effected by this you will realize that it will decrease that significantly as the population in the crap areas will drop significantly. and it benefits the droneland russian isk sellers as they have the most truesec of anywhere.

Ghengis Yamamoto
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:12:00 - [1224]
 

Originally by: Nikgah Plz
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


*Starts packing* *cancel subscription* *%*%* SWG all over again.


Yep the arrogance and keeping the course sure reminds you of SWG.

If this impacts the game as much then they won't have time to reevaluate, as the game will be gone within 3 months back to about what it was 3-4 years ago. Then its just a slow death.

EVE's players are pretty resilient but there are limits, this could well be getting close to it when taken as part of the whole, notice they've been to afraid to post their other change details...

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:14:00 - [1225]
 

Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto
Yep the arrogance and keeping the course sure reminds you of SWG.

If this impacts the game as much then they won't have time to reevaluate, as the game will be gone within 3 months back to about what it was 3-4 years ago. Then its just a slow death.

EVE's players are pretty resilient but there are limits, this could well be getting close to it when taken as part of the whole, notice they've been to afraid to post their other change details...


Remind me again how this is like Star Wars Galaxy? CCP is modifying something that didn't even exist prior to 2009, and last time I checked, Eve was feeling quite healthy before then.

Malidia
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:27:00 - [1226]
 

This is only going to end badly, what you are doing is just putting more isk in the pockets of the already rich players as they will have priority over these systems as they tend to have power and control, the average person will lose what now provides him a means of making a decent ammount of isk and enables said person to do what they like in the game therefore keeping it intresting.

Ghengis Yamamoto
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:28:00 - [1227]
 

Edited by: Ghengis Yamamoto on 29/03/2011 02:29:14
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto
Yep the arrogance and keeping the course sure reminds you of SWG.

If this impacts the game as much then they won't have time to reevaluate, as the game will be gone within 3 months back to about what it was 3-4 years ago. Then its just a slow death.

EVE's players are pretty resilient but there are limits, this could well be getting close to it when taken as part of the whole, notice they've been to afraid to post their other change details...


Remind me again how this is like Star Wars Galaxy? CCP is modifying something that didn't even exist prior to 2009, and last time I checked, Eve was feeling quite healthy before then.


SOE gave promises of several changes to the game before April 2005. They then scrapped all the vetted material that was well received, rewrote the code and released the CU in April 2005. Subscriptions dropped. They once again started talking about things the playerbase wanted, leading them on. Then in November 2005 they revealed the NGE which dramitically changed the game, within 90 days they had lost half their playerbase.

The changes were announced 2 weeks before they went live. There was much outcry about them. SOE didn't care, LA didn't care. They glorified themselves and said its this way we are preparing for the new players we'll get, if you don't like it get out. That's what Jon Smedley and Julio Torres told the playerbase, Greyscales arrogance is on the same level. Words can stir folks hearts and have to be chosen more carefully. Smedley and Torres claimed the same that their focus groups and models showed this was the path, they were wrong.

The greatest benefactor of SOE's screwup and telling their playerbase they didn't want them was CCP and EVE. Those same 90 days saw EVEs population more than double, many of those people still play EVE.

Players will put up with a lot but giving them something and then yanking it away after they've invested so much work into it, kills games. That's what happened with SWG, the changes in April 2005 significantly nerfed several aspects of the game, the changes in November 2005 killed most aspects of the game which also significantly nerfed pvp.

There are parallels here, only time will tell if it is as bad. But I would suggest CCP change the tone of their posts, the tone Smedley and Torres used more than anything else is what galvanized the playerbase against SOE and they have never really recovered. No game they've launched since could be considered a success, nor any game they've acquired.

Lord Zoran
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:30:00 - [1228]
 

You cant implement something and then just do a complete turn around and remove it. If you had considered the implications properly prior to introducing sanctums etc then it wouldnt have mattered but now 2 years later you realise the error and want to take it away the same way as in a further 2 years down the line you will realise how this was the final straw and caused the decline of your game while you turn off the last server.

zenoph
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:34:00 - [1229]
 

This is the problem with CCP, they jump the gun and implement stupid changes without consideration and then realise it was a dumb mistake later on. For once listen to the players and maybe you can get it right.

Or Well
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:38:00 - [1230]
 

I can has CONCORD killmailz? YARRRR!!

Srsly. Implement an ingame mechanic to allow players to take out CONCORD SBUs and lower LowSec systems ratings. I'd be down


Pages: first : previous : ... 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 ... : last (118)

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