open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Alter bad new company direction, STOP rushing stuff out
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 : last (15)

Author Topic

BackStreet Babe
Posted - 2011.04.12 18:01:00 - [301]
 

Edited by: BackStreet Babe on 12/04/2011 18:00:42
there is no signs of excellence coming from ccp or eve currently.

rushed through crap, that dosnt work or isnt wanted is not excellence

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises

Posted - 2011.04.13 00:14:00 - [302]
 


AnakieNine
Posted - 2011.04.13 01:08:00 - [303]
 

+1
I already allowed 3 of my accounts to run out last month.

The only thing that has been keeping a lot of accounts active including mine is the training skills. This game keeps subscribers for one reason over all others. Skill advancement and hope/belief in what the game may offer in the future.

Once that hope for "excellence" has gone, so will much of your player base. Every new player signing onto these boards sees the mountain of discontent coming from old players over the last 9+ months and the ramifications aren't good. It is no longer just something probably effecting the older players but one that will bleed the numbers of new players into the system.

That graph also should/could look a lot worse. It includes a lot of player grabs that CCP did in the quarter such as removing the learning skill which brought alot of players/alts back. Even the QEN stated that Plex was effected by old players returning. Granted this is probably also what caused one of the large variance in the graph that quarter. So dont read to much into the spikes of the quarter. Much better to look into the trend VV and akati.

Assuming no real marketing changes my belief the trend change reflects a drop in sentiment and the large eve player base that just keeps accounts active for skills. I'd perfer to see number of accounts who played more than 5 hours or longed on more than x time in the last 30 days.

Shining New stuff is great but bring out new content like PI that currently has no multiplayer play into a multiplayer game is not "excellence" imo. All you did was encourage thining out of the player base as anyone involved in PI is basically a loner in a single player game. (unless they are chatting to someone.) The reason people liked the original PI descriptions was because it was "another" battlefield that effected existing game mechanics. It been a year and nothing on that front.. Why didn't you make it where we had to terraform the planet. build large infrastructure and terraform the plants first. That would have brought long levity before actual Pi itself and made people become emotionally connected to the planets they terraformed. Also deterraform if left alone to repeat the cycle. So will the Captian Quarters be the same? disconnected from the game and just a spot to land in-station? Eve is about war, wealth and frendship. Stop bring new features that deminish these qualities unless it is of a very high standard and somehow adds value to the existing game. Walking in station should be great but will it. Most people at fanfeast shrug their head at the info.

Last but not least. You believe your communication with players is good however by running things like the csm you forget the basics (same as forum security..) of determining customer service and gauging the opinions of your customers. How about taking a step back the next time you just give away a nice new ship and instead provide it as a reward to filling out a customer survey/poll. Do some basic stat on groups of players depending on their player age and if it's a main account or alt. Get back to basics and Re-learn your customer base both the new and old ones.There is nothing like being able to say 35% of customers over a year old want the older game mechanics fixed over new content and that 25% of players in their first year don't give a dam for 0.0. Guess what? 15% want the market systme made more advanced and 70% found the most fun they ever had in eve was when they ?????.

You get the idea. I think you have moved from a company of people that played and loved the game, who instinctively knew what was good and drove head first toward it until the vision was done; to one who don't have the time to play which has a bureaucratic management going for the quick in your face dollar returns over the long term good of the game. That approach is good at times but it's not a approach to attempt to rely on for the last 2+ years.

Hope keeps us here but how long?

Bronya Boga
Amarr
Posted - 2011.04.13 01:24:00 - [304]
 


Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
Posted - 2011.04.13 04:13:00 - [305]
 

Originally by: Akita T

The general perception already was that CCP cares more for quantity than quality as of late, and this is now more than ever obvious.



About the only thing to come from Hilmar's mouth in 2 years is "our target is 600k subscribers everyone"

Yeah..... Aiming for a subscriber target above all else was smartest move in the middle of building 2 new unrelated products.

Funny part of that vid is the looks of horror from the devs as he randomly barges into rooms shouting it.

Tehg Rhind
Posted - 2011.04.13 05:20:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: Tehg Rhind on 13/04/2011 05:38:13
Edited by: Tehg Rhind on 13/04/2011 05:23:10
Guys, I feel your pain. I truly truly do. EvE has been ruined for you. You see no value in this game and therefore you want to leave. But why leave without sending a message? Seeing as you see no value in this game, you must also so no value in your assets, however in that you are mistaken. I am here to provide your assets with value. The final message of disdain for EvE that you can send to CCP is through publicly abandoning your assets and ISK to me. Send them to me and I will start a thread with your player name and details of the abandoned assets, which will surely create a strong message for CCP. Show them you mean business. Send me your ISK, your ships, your stockpiles. I will bear the burden of all of them and make sure that your clear dislike of the game is heard throughout New Eden.

These pixels mean nothing to you, let me give show you one last moment of value for them.

Edit: If you are willing to hold your ground with me then bully to you. But for all those that have made their public proclamations of abandonment I submit to you the following service, which is outlined above

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1495852

Soldarius
Caldari
Peek-A-Boo Bombers

Posted - 2011.04.13 07:43:00 - [307]
 

I support this product and/or service. In this case, advice from the market gurus.

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows

Posted - 2011.04.13 08:56:00 - [308]
 

Supported with both hands.

Elaine Shandrate
Posted - 2011.04.13 09:56:00 - [309]
 


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.13 13:32:00 - [310]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 13/04/2011 13:33:30
Originally by: Tehg Rhind
Guys, I feel your pain. I truly truly do. EvE has been ruined for you. You see no value in this game and therefore you want to leave.

That's where you're totally wrong.
AT WORST, we're cutting back from multiple accounts to a single active account.
EVE has not YET been ruined for us, we do not wish to leave, but we fear that SOON™, it might actually come to that.
We wish to at least TRY to prevent that from happening.

Reiisha
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.04.13 21:31:00 - [311]
 

I can only agree to Akita. While i still think Incarna at least is a good thing, it shouldn't come at the cost of the rest of the game being neglected. Take people from WoD to work on Incarna, don't take them from EVE - We're paying for *this* game, not the other two.

And the most important thing: When the marketing department starts to have a say in game design, fire them. Too many developers have been ruined by people pretending to know about games by quoting "market data". I really don't want CCP to be one of them.

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.04.13 22:46:00 - [312]
 

Edited by: Jaik7 on 13/04/2011 23:15:36
common sense proposal is common sense

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.14 00:58:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: AnakieNine

Shining New stuff is great but bring out new content like PI that currently has no multiplayer play into a multiplayer game is not "excellence" imo. All you did was encourage thining out of the player base as anyone involved in PI is basically a loner in a single player game. (unless they are chatting to someone.) The reason people liked the original PI descriptions was because it was "another" battlefield that effected existing game mechanics. It been a year and nothing on that front..



Not really true...they're always playing the industry and market game, which is the lifeblood of Eve. Also, Dust is coming soon enough, which turns PI into a battleground.

Originally by: AnakieNine

Why didn't you make it where we had to terraform the planet. build large infrastructure and terraform the plants first. That would have brought long levity before actual Pi itself and made people become emotionally connected to the planets they terraformed. Also deterraform if left alone to repeat the cycle.


Nice idea...I'd love to see more complex mutliplayer interactions in PI.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.04.14 06:51:00 - [314]
 

Supported.

Trinity Faetal
Gallente
Little Garden

Posted - 2011.04.14 08:34:00 - [315]
 

Edited by: Trinity Faetal on 14/04/2011 08:37:37
+1

i'd rather be out fighting ppl then sansha or sleepers. also letting 2 accounts go inactive, if trend continues all account will go inactive and i will have to pick up working on my social life this summer.

Chong Woon
Posted - 2011.04.14 08:53:00 - [316]
 


Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.

Posted - 2011.04.14 11:02:00 - [317]
 

Bioware just killed their reputation by rushing out a thrashy DA2.

Learn from their mistake.

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2011.04.14 17:30:00 - [318]
 

Edited by: Grimpak on 14/04/2011 17:31:39
Originally by: Trader20

And Grim I had to look up BFF and all is I can say is, "We need this in Eve Online." BFF Game



Little things are still little.

by team Best Friends Forever (BFF)

that was like, one of the most meaningful things ever done to EVE since apocrypha.


and it was just a mashup of small fixes and improvements.

Stegas Tyrano
Posted - 2011.04.14 19:33:00 - [319]
 

They should let players buy shares of the company using PLEX :D.

EnslaverOfMinmatar
Amarr
Posted - 2011.04.14 20:01:00 - [320]
 

Support

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective

Posted - 2011.04.15 14:32:00 - [321]
 

supported

Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
Posted - 2011.04.15 19:10:00 - [322]
 

as some one with the majority of the last decade spent in QA at several games companies (vivendi, activision, 3do, gearbox, etc) i'd bet my eve account that it's managment related more then tester related.

also, i'd happily volunteer to move to either atlanta or iceland for a job! :D

supported.

Vernal Equinox
Minmatar
Saiph Industries
SRS.
Posted - 2011.04.15 22:54:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 12/04/2011 17:47:03


We don't care about your so-called market research that tells you rushed and unpolished new features would sell better than older, sturdy, polished content.
That might be the case for WoW clones, BUT NOT FOR EVE.



^this. I think CCP forgets that thier market is niche. Makes more sense to focus on subscriber retention than addition. Moreso, the simple fact is that the concepts behind EvE are so unique, so spectacular, so immersive that if CCP only focused on making each element of the game as good as it could be, the new subs will pile on and stay playing. Great game is great. If you build it, they will come.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.16 05:42:00 - [324]
 

i think everyone pretty broadly agrees with this, it's not a really controversial topic. however like 'commit to excellence' it's basically just an empty slogan; there's nothing to pass or upvote here. "Don't Rush Stuff", "Be Excellent", blah blah

that's not a proposal. 'devote more resources and staff to team gridlock and team BFF', or 'make BFF a permanent part of every major patch release, forever', those are specific proposals that aren't empty.

we all agree that there needs to be a massive resource push to iteration teams like BFF, and will be focusing on what i call the 'CCP Abandons Features' narrative in the upcoming summit.

I'thari
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.16 09:44:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: The Mittani
i think everyone pretty broadly agrees with this, it's not a really controversial topic. however like 'commit to excellence' it's basically just an empty slogan; there's nothing to pass or upvote here. "Don't Rush Stuff", "Be Excellent", blah blah

that's not a proposal. 'devote more resources and staff to team gridlock and team BFF', or 'make BFF a permanent part of every major patch release, forever', those are specific proposals that aren't empty.

we all agree that there needs to be a massive resource push to iteration teams like BFF, and will be focusing on what i call the 'CCP Abandons Features' narrative in the upcoming summit.
So, "don't relese feature untill it's working" is not a proposal? oh well...

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.16 20:53:00 - [326]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 17/04/2011 07:45:07

Originally by: The Mittani
i think everyone pretty broadly agrees with this, it's not a really controversial topic. however like 'commit to excellence' it's basically just an empty slogan; there's nothing to pass or upvote here. "Don't Rush Stuff", "Be Excellent", blah blah

I can sadly agree with that completely.

Quote:
that's not a proposal. 'devote more resources and staff to team gridlock and team BFF', or 'make BFF a permanent part of every major patch release, forever', those are specific proposals that aren't empty.

Indeed, it is not a specific gameplay or resource allocation proposal.
However, it is a proposal for a "company policy" shift.

Just like the "tenure" of Doc. E.G. at the helm of the in-game economy division has resulted in changes that MIGHT have made the game's economy more of a "free market", the lack of accompanying game balance/design changes to compensate for that "increased freedom" with some form of negative feedback regulating mechanism ended up throwing a lot of things that made gameplay sense into disarray.

The CCP leadership seems to have forgotten that EVE is by initial design a niche game, so its appeal (and resulting subscriber growth line-like graph) OTHER than the uniqueness of it for a long time has mostly been quality over quantity.
Or, if they haven't forgotten that, they let themselves be swayed by external factors which have nothing to do with the game of EVE (i.e. pressure from some of the people who financed their expansion and now want to see fast results in terms of returned revenue).
Either way, the notion that the "conventional marketing wisdom" that applies to WoW clones -- that "(any) new features sell better than (most) older polished content" -- DOES NOT apply to EVE. Or, better said, that if you try to apply it to EVE, you won't get the results you see for the run-of-the-mill WoW clones.

So, yes, it is a proposal that MAYBE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE (afterall, we're just customers, not company managers), but there is merit in trying to explain to CCP management that their current policy focus will not work the way they expect it to work.
Or, alternatively, that listening to people with no gameplay background (i.e. marketing, accounting, investors) when it comes to the general direction they take EVE into will not end all that well for them.

HOWEVER, ONE OF THE CLAIMED "RIGHTS" OF THE CSM IS THAT OF A STAKEHOLDER.
CSM might or might have not been intended as a mostly cosmetic and/or PR thing at first, and it might have initially applied only to the prioritization process to a small degree, but it's certainly grown a lot since then, starting with CSM3 or so, and thereafter.
Nowadays, in a twisted sort of way, the mass of EVE customers is indeed somewhat similar to an actual stakeholder//investor in the company that is CCP, we have a vested interest in keeping the game running, and therefore, the company afloat... and the CSM is, for better or worse, our best chance to reach slightly more receptive ears at CCP (rather than just screaming and shouting in the forums for no visible effect).

Even if normally we shouldn't really have the right to push our opinion regarding what would normally be internal CCP matters, in this particular case, I believe that the argument is worrying enough to deserve to be at least heard.
Unlike almost any of the other proposals the CSM has brought forth so far, this one _IF_ it makes it through the CSM process (which I kind of doubt, but still hold the tiniest shred of hope), when presented, is not for the game dev team, but for marketing/accounting.

I don't know, but I personally think that CSM6 just might have a shot of expanding the scope of the indirect dialogue of "the customer" (us) with "the company" that CCP is, and this could be one of those aspects that would be... ahem... challenging, but interesting.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.17 05:42:00 - [327]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 17/04/2011 07:40:07

...char limit reached...

Quote:
we all agree that there needs to be a massive resource push to iteration teams like BFF, and will be focusing on what i call the 'CCP Abandons Features' narrative in the upcoming summit.


Not so much just abandoning features (although that is a huge part of it too), but also to a smaller degree the tendency to release barebones features in an environment we know is conducive to NOT revisiting old features too often.
The approach needs to be two-pronged : older features do need to be revisited even if they were quite ok once upon a time, but also, new features SHOULD NOT be released at all in such a skeletal state so often.

But yeah, on the other hand, this CSM might as well ignore this PARTICULAR (company policy // marketing) aspect of this way too wide-reaching issue because, realistically speaking, it's something unlikely to have much of an effect (if any, at all) on CCP's attitude (much less actions), so it will practically be a waste of time.
Just like you can't convince the staff economist that the EVE economy is fundamentally unlike the real world economy so his measures at best only do more bad than good when the other important "secret ingredient" (gameplay alterations) is missing, I suppose it will be almost impossible to sway any of the guys over at marketing that simply pushing out more and more new stuff will not do any good.

Then again, a more restricted approach (i.e. just the "Feature Abandonment" part) might have more chances of success, so, good luck with that.
Hopefully you'll get through to some degree.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.04.17 07:15:00 - [328]
 

Originally by: Akita T
... its appeal (and resulting subscriber growth line-like graph) OTHER than the uniqueness of it for a long time has mostly been quality over quantity.

I disagree. Quality, as in software quality and feature polishedness, was never a selling point for eve. Depth, endless possibilities, pvp and uniqueness were and still are.
Serving a niche market with essentially no competition and having a playerbase that is frustration tolerant minimized the impact of lack of quality for CCP. This has led to a management and dev mentality where quality is regarded as of secondary importance. However, the bigger the game, the playerbase and the company grows, the meaner the problems arising from that mentality become. Thus underlining the importance of the call made by you in the opening post.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.17 09:05:00 - [329]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 17/04/2011 09:09:44

Well, "quality" in the broader sense, not strictly "lacking bugs" or similar.

One could argue that, say, the game design choices that lead to the depth and width we experience in EVE would constitute in itself "quality", and that the more both of those "dimensions" is expanded by any additional feature, the higher the quality of that particular feature is.
So, in that sense, for example, PI would be a rather shallow but wide feature (quite simplistic if you look beyond the sheer number of building/schematic/material combinations, but with a large-scale impact on a lot of people), so not exactly quite of high quality yet. But if its depth could be improved (meaningful territorial conflict, population/zone management, a more involved prospecting process, a more involved competition for resources, etc), it would qualify as being of high quality afterwards.

But yeah, you have a point.
Good thing that the conclusion is nevertheless the same Wink

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.04.17 11:03:00 - [330]
 

Yeah, I thought of dwelling on the definition of "quality" but I was lazy.
At least we can say that the quality of the game experience is still good enough for us to care to discuss here Laughing


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 : last (15)

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