open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Accord reached at CCP's special summit
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:29:00 - [361]
 

Originally by: CCP Navigator

Return of ship spinning

This is something that a lot of players are curious about and what I can tell you is that we will implement a form of ship spinning but we are not returning to the old hangar view. This new variation will be similar and, while you can spin your ship, it will not be exactly how it was before.


Why Not? You already have the Code in place for the "Old Style" Hanger View, why is there a need to use up development time in order to re-invent the wheel here?

Lemming Lass
Minmatar
Lemmings Online
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:29:00 - [362]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Ship Spinning:

There's 2 things people want ship spinning back for:
1) we like to spin ships, it's fun.
2) ship spinning took less performance than the current avatar view.

CCP is going to add as a replacement for the door wallpaper that addresses both concerns.
It will not be the same old hangar view, but will be similar in terms of functionality and performance.


So, I see that it's not just CCP that misses the point.

I DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT SPINNING THE SHIP.

Decanting to grab ammo is STUPID!

Heavenly Blues
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:29:00 - [363]
 

Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Kitsune Sakai
Quote:
It is CCP‘s plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store.


Not good enough. Why the heck use an adjective like "game breaking" when you don't have to? Obviously CCP did this to get some wiggle-room.

So my 3*15€ won't reach CCPs pockets next month.


Because it's impossible to cover everything in one statement, had we tried to enumerate someone would have found we had forgotten and gone "well, they obviously left room for *this one*"

There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".

_____

Ship Spinning:

There's 2 things people want ship spinning back for:
1) we like to spin ships, it's fun.
2) ship spinning took less performance than the current avatar view.

CCP is going to add as a replacement for the door wallpaper that addresses both concerns.
It will not be the same old hangar view, but will be similar in terms of functionality and performance.


How about you share the definition of game breaking and p2w???????


I think that he means that Plex are being removed from the game so that you can no longer pay to win yourself into a super carrier. Rolling Eyes

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:30:00 - [364]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
The major problem is that right now it takes longer to dock to Incarna (more resources must be loaded) and some functionality that the classic hangar view had isn't there -- so for example it's harder to dock, unload ore, and get back into space for more exciting mining action. And of course, no ship spinning.
No no no. The major problem was lack of choice. Do you even read the assembly hall threads?

We want to choose when we leave our ship, it's called Immersion.

Telven Stareal
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:30:00 - [365]
 

Originally by: Nyphur
Edited by: Nyphur on 02/07/2011 18:18:40

I found this devblog a reasonable answer to the recent controversy and player concerns. However, for a statement that there was NO margin for misunderstanding on, and that was painstakingly translated to ensure it would be heard clearly in all languages, there was a great deal of margin for misunderstanding.

For example, it is mentioned that there are no plans for non-vanity MT, then later the term "game-breaking" is used and the concept of buying "an advantage" over an investment of time is discussed. Puchasing a ship outright that already exists in the game for 3500 aurum wouldn't be an "advantage" unless that ship costs more in ISK than 1 plex is worth on the open market. The CSM said it was convinced that CCP did not plan to introduce gameplay-affecting items, then went on to make statements concerning "game destroying" changes. The wording of the latter part implies that ships without "different statistics from existing common hulls" could be sold, and the co-issue of selling items normally produced through in-game means from thin air and therefore bypassing production was not addressed.

I would be inclined to believe that this was clumbsy wording, despite the time taken to craft the perfect statement. The next big step is to wait for the CSM to get back home and start answering questions, and to get further questions the CSM might not be able to answer ready for the CCP press conferences on Tuesday.


To re-iterate what was said on air on EVE Radio last night:

If you still have any further concerns following this devblog, please mail them to [email protected] and I will do my best to ask the CSM and to ask CCP at Tuesday's press conference.





Well I admit, if you "try" to read into what was posted or "betwen" the lines. You can find just about anything you want. They said Vanity Only. Last time I cecked when somene says only this, it meant ONLY, that is nothing else but the item/type referred to.

If you want t "read" into what wasn't posted, your call. But do try to also read what IS there.

Coco Caine
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:31:00 - [366]
 

I just had a look at it again. This NEX shop is so bad. I simply can't wrap my head around the fact. Can one of the story guys get it consistent somehow?

'And lo, Concord made monocles so awesome and indestructible, they are only available on the black market, like in every station, and the dealers will only take PLEX, cause that is sort of the big black market currency these days. And it's so awesome that Concord prevents you from having ANY monocle at all, it's even highly illegal to use a 5 ISK eye patch'.

'And then Concord also designed a jeans that look like all other jeans, but is like extremely cool, and costs like a battle cruiser. On the streets they call them THE PANTS'.

I'll give CCP a few weeks to take a bit of action, but I feel like biomassing my accounts for this fail of game design.


Jason1138
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:31:00 - [367]
 

"So you had to fly people all the way to Iceland before you could answer "Purely vanity items only".



lol, seriously. Anyone who believes this is a fool

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:31:00 - [368]
 

Good job getting "commitments" riddled with loopholes from different people from the ones driving gold ammo.

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:32:00 - [369]
 

So they could not clearly state that ther will never be anything beyond vanity items. Had to put in all the wiggle room.

Won't be resubbing any accts, just here trolling til Nov 15, unless CCP wants to give me a refund.

coolzero
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:34:00 - [370]
 

Originally by: Jason1138
"So you had to fly people all the way to Iceland before you could answer "Purely vanity items only".



lol, seriously. Anyone who believes this is a fool


yeah but problem is they still havent said a clear "NO"

they said "There are no plans, and have been no plans"

this still leaves open someone comming up with a plan.



KrustyKrab
Can We Haz Your Stuff
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:34:00 - [371]
 

I read a very good, very long article from Vanity Fair about Iceland, their 'men', and how they think (and a bit of 'why' they think the way they do).

Vanity Fair - Full Article Text

My post and link isn't to bash CCP or any Icelander, but to hopefully let you gain some insight as to what the mindset is. A lot of us (Americans especially, which I am one) can't be asked to understand another culture, another way of thinking that might be different than our own.

Some might focus on the 'elves' bit, which was honestly a bit amusing, but no different than those in my country that still believe somehow that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or Iranians that believe the holocaust during WW2 never happened.

We have a good idea of the British mindset based on their history. We have a good idea of the German mindset based on their history. Same for America, Russia, etc. It is good to try and understand people of a different culture.

After reading the article, and I'll admit it is just one view (however to me, it is a very good view), I learned things that I honestly never knew before about Iceland.

What does this have to do with Eve and the current situation we find ourselves in? Maybe something, maybe nothing, but reading is good for you, and it might make you interested enough to cross-reference the info in the article with other articles and such (ie never get your info/news from a single source).

Anyway, carry on.

Garekell
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:35:00 - [372]
 

Originally by: CCP Navigator
Hello everyone,

Return of ship spinning
I can tell you is that we will implement a form of ship spinning but we are not returning to the old hangar view. The time line for designing, testing and implementing this new variation of ship spinning has not been finalized but we will bring you more information in a future dev blog.

Minimum Specs

We are going to investigate introducing a minimum specification for players who want to run two clients in the upcoming 'ship spinning' view. What these minimum specs will be are still to be decided and, again, we will bring this to you in the form of a dev blog.




Some form of ship spinning but not the old hangar like we want. Some vague time in the future.... everyone at CCP forget incarna was promised to be optional?

So you are going to 'investigate' people being able to run two clients at the same time? Why does it sound like already CCP is back-tracking from the info they just put out to appease us? Investigate = what? A year from now? We want the option of keeping our old hangar like we were promised.

Dryderian Vex
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:35:00 - [373]
 

In the video nothing is said about any questions raised in the last days, except that they discussed - it went well mostly with a bit of tension sometimes and that CCP is glad to have such a practical institution as the CSM. That's all and takes 10 minutes? For that you needed a vid?

And the blog also says nothing we didn't already knew. Oh no, they will address the performance issues with the CQ.


Kial Riece
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:36:00 - [374]
 

"trust, but verify"

Agreed!

Also, if I had flown over to Iceland with 3 days notice, dropped everything I was doing, gone through hours of discussion which I had prepared for with hours of my own time and then transcribed those hours into a statement to present to thousands of eager and patiently ( well, some!) waiting people holding torches and pitch forks, myself included!

I think a #*$~ load of drinks is acceptable to take the edge off?

I mean I would! Wouldn't you ? Very Happy

Lemming Lass
Minmatar
Lemmings Online
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:36:00 - [375]
 

Originally by: Coco Caine


'And lo, Concord made monocles so awesome and indestructible, they are only available on the black market, like in every station, and the dealers will only take PLEX, cause that is sort of the big black market currency these days. And it's so awesome that Concord prevents you from having ANY monocle at all, it's even highly illegal to use a 5 ISK eye patch'.

'And then Concord also designed a jeans that look like all other jeans, but is like extremely cool, and costs like a battle cruiser. On the streets they call them THE PANTS'.





Verily

Sha Dar
eXceed Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:37:00 - [376]
 

Edited by: Sha Dar on 02/07/2011 18:37:53
Quote:
and this environment will be available until Incarna performance is similar to pre-Incarna performance.



As soon as CQ is forced, i'm out.

Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:37:00 - [377]
 

So to sum up -

MT will be vanity only.

Shipspinning is gone, but we'l put something better than the door.


So you clammed up for a week, then took people out of their daily lives and flew them to iceland for that? You are aware that before CQ, you still had the option to not load the station environment right? Remember? It would show your ship in the hangar as a static picture... So umm, why did you change it to a door?


You left people angry for a week, then flew a group of people to iceland, when you could have just NOT changed the non-environment hangar to a door, and simply posted on the forums a "no, never more than vanity".

good job guys, real efficient. Laughing


Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:37:00 - [378]
 

Wish I could be happy with this result but I cannot.

Quote:
Game-affecting Virtual Goods: We are convinced that CCP has no plans to introduce any game-affecting virtual goods, only pure vanity items such as clothing and ship skins. We have been repeatedly assured that there are no plans for ‘gold ammo', ships which have different statistics from existing common hulls, or any other feared ‘game destroying' virtual goods or services. We have expressed our deep concern about potential grey areas that the introduction of virtual goods permits, and CCP has made a commitment to discuss any proposals that might fall into these grey areas in detail with CSM at the earliest possible stage.


While this statement is true I fear I must disagree with the overall sense of comfort in the message because I very strongly do NOT agree.

The lack of a clear concise statement declaring that they will never go in this direction is alarming, let me explain why.

Right now there is a roll out of cosmetic microtransactions which by and large the CSM, myself included, had no real issues with. I personally had no issues with it because there was an understanding that this was the far extent of what would be done. Nowhere in these statements is a determination to never cross this line into pay for non cosmetic, just an immediate desire to not pursue this goal. I can not support any MT scheme that would pave the way for even the possibility of going beyond this. I would have been satisfied if they said "we will never do this", you will notice that this statement did not occur.


I respect the fact that CCP has no plans to go beyond cosmetic and I truly feel this sentiment is sincere, but without committing to it my confidence in the future of this MT scheme is in doubt and as such I cannot support it.







Rebbecca Black
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:38:00 - [379]
 

"It is CCP‘s plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store."

See this is what ****es me off. CCP you are lying to me again. A year ago you used the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE to state that you have 'no plans' for micro-transactions. It's not 'we have no plans'.. its not 'there never have been plans'.. it's there NEVER WILL BE. If you use language that gives you wiggle room I just look at you like you're a lawyer or politician (for those of us living in the US it's the same thing.) What the **** did the CSM even go there to do if not ensure that there NEVER WILL BE.

Failed emergency summit is failed.

At least it happened on a Friday.

Kingston Black
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:38:00 - [380]
 

Dear god mittens, what did you do to poor ccp zulu???

His body language and the bags under his eyes alone

he looks like a battered spouse scared of what your gonna do next lol

poor guy ugh

Llambda
Space Llama Industries
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:39:00 - [381]
 

Dear CCP,

Please add a "facepalm" pose to the avatar editor so that my character can properly convey how I feel about this nonsense.

Love,

Me

praznimrak
Gallente
Level Up
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:39:00 - [382]
 

Edited by: praznimrak on 02/07/2011 18:39:18
CCP please quit incarna!!!
IT is a content that have nothing to do whit space ships and most of us players.There are toons of games out there that make ppl dress their avatar and stuff,in EVE we dont nead that.
We play cose of space ships( i think i speak in name of most of players)and epic engagements,strategy and market.

Reconsider bans you did place an awesome ppl old players that did help make this game what it is today.
And please Fire responsibly ppl for all the mess they did make.
PRAZ

XavierVE
Reasonable People
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:39:00 - [383]
 

Thanks for stepping back from the brink, CCP.

Though this would have been easier and far more cost-effective had you just come out and said "No" to the big yellow question to start with.

Juno Valchelza
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:40:00 - [384]
 

I honestly don't get it. People re-subbing after reading this dev blog and saying "Thanks for clarifying the MT debacle."

Quote:

It is CCP‘s plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store.



Then you got the previous blog:

Quote:

However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum. In Fearless people are arguing a point, which doesn't even have to be their view, they are debating an issue. This is another example of how information out of context is no information at all.



AND THEN the one well before that, when they introduced the NeX:

Quote:

So this thing is vanity items only?

Yes. We will start out with a rather limited number of items initially, carefully measuring the demand and how it impacts the economy. As time progresses, we'll gradually introduce new items and revise our strategy. We've also discussed this issue in depth with the Council of Stellar Management and will both consult with them and keep them up to date every step of the way.



People still complain that CCP didn't state that there Will NEVER be MT with the NeX... Just unsub and quit. If you do it now and a year (or two) later CCP finally decides to introduce MT and pay-to-win, they would have lost revenue that could have been generated from your sub. Just quit now and leave.

As for the old station view... I HIGHLY DOUBT that CCP has anything ready yet, thus that's why they made that statement in the blog. My guess is a few months down the road if they divert resources to work on that.

I still enjoy reading these posts and shaking my head while laughing at this mess.

Telven Stareal
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:40:00 - [385]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 02/07/2011 18:23:53
The language used seems deliberately opaque, especially the contrast between vanity items and 'game breaking items' (instead of vanity items and non-vanity items). It is also acknowledged that there is room for a 'grey area' between these two categories, which explains why an either/or formulation wasn't used. So my main question is, what is the potential content of the set of non-vanity and non-gamebreaking micro-transaction purchases? I can see some relatively unproblematic possibilities here, such as store-fronts/establishments but there also seems to be scope for more objectionable options.

To help us calibrate our instruments to the language being used could you elaborate on two possible examples, please?

1) Would the sale of faction standings be considered 'game-breaking'?

2) I know that CCP has committed not to introduce MT for remaps in the past but this was done after the intention to do so was first raised. Since this is a neutral issue, having already been dealt with, can you tell us whether these would have been considered 'game-breaking' or 'grey area' transactions?

Thank you.

Edit - Just saw this above:
Originally by: csm rep

There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".



Could you share this understanding with us please?


First, please look up what the word opaque means. And while you do that, also what the word "only" means as well.

I say this because they very clearly say, "The NeX store will "ONLY" sell vanity items."

I really don't know how much more clear they can be..

E6o5
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:41:00 - [386]
 

Edited by: E6o5 on 02/07/2011 18:49:28
Quote:
It is CCP‘s plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only.


So they still can introduce a "NeXt" (next bull****) store to sell the "gold ammo" there and keep the NeX store clean ...

Quote:
There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store.


But next week new plans can be made ... also how do you define "game breaking" and "enhancements"? is a faction tower (I hear bpc don't drop anymore) game breaking when it can only be purchased using some AUR?

Quote:
The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time.


What about fair advantages?

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:42:00 - [387]
 

Originally by: Lemming Lass
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Ship Spinning:

There's 2 things people want ship spinning back for:
1) we like to spin ships, it's fun.
2) ship spinning took less performance than the current avatar view.

CCP is going to add as a replacement for the door wallpaper that addresses both concerns.
It will not be the same old hangar view, but will be similar in terms of functionality and performance.


So, I see that it's not just CCP that misses the point.

I DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT SPINNING THE SHIP.

Decanting to grab ammo is STUPID!


So it's about the "idea" that your player goes out of its pod?
Or is it about the associated performance of loading your character?

Which is it?

Both have been addressed by CCP's statement.

Adakis Fenikkusu
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:42:00 - [388]
 

Edited by: Adakis Fenikkusu on 02/07/2011 18:45:42
Originally by: Coco Caine
I just had a look at it again. This NEX shop is so bad. I simply can't wrap my head around the fact. Can one of the story guys get it consistent somehow?

'And lo, Concord made monocles so awesome and indestructible, they are only available on the black market, like in every station, and the dealers will only take PLEX, cause that is sort of the big black market currency these days. And it's so awesome that Concord prevents you from having ANY monocle at all, it's even highly illegal to use a 5 ISK eye patch'.

'And then Concord also designed a jeans that look like all other jeans, but is like extremely cool, and costs like a battle cruiser. On the streets they call them THE PANTS'.

I'll give CCP a few weeks to take a bit of action, but I feel like biomassing my accounts for this fail of game design.




LOL...It's a real head scratcher.

Well, consider this, we are only trading with Capsuleers on the market. Up until June 21, we spent all of our time naked in our pods, a pair of jeans is worth a lot of money to us. :P

EDIT: Reply to Meissa Anunthiel

He means from a Role-Playing view point. Are we really going to get out of our pods just to pick up some cargo?

1) Dock
2) Eject Pod
3) Dock Pod to CQ Gantry
4) Drain Pod
5) Unplug from Pod
6) Get Dressed
7) Tell Minmatar Slaves to get cargo out of ship. (My main is amarrian.)
8) undress
9) Plug into Pod
10) Fill pod with goo
11) Undock Pod
12) Load Pod into Ship
13) Undock

Get it?

Garekell
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:42:00 - [389]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Wish I could be happy with this result but I cannot.

Quote:
Game-affecting Virtual Goods: We are convinced that CCP has no plans to introduce any game-affecting virtual goods, only pure vanity items such as clothing and ship skins. We have been repeatedly assured that there are no plans for ‘gold ammo', ships which have different statistics from existing common hulls, or any other feared ‘game destroying' virtual goods or services. We have expressed our deep concern about potential grey areas that the introduction of virtual goods permits, and CCP has made a commitment to discuss any proposals that might fall into these grey areas in detail with CSM at the earliest possible stage.


While this statement is true I fear I must disagree with the overall sense of comfort in the message because I very strongly do NOT agree.

The lack of a clear concise statement declaring that they will never go in this direction is alarming, let me explain why.

Right now there is a roll out of cosmetic microtransactions which by and large the CSM, myself included, had no real issues with. I personally had no issues with it because there was an understanding that this was the far extent of what would be done. Nowhere in these statements is a determination to never cross this line into pay for non cosmetic, just an immediate desire to not pursue this goal. I can not support any MT scheme that would pave the way for even the possibility of going beyond this. I would have been satisfied if they said "we will never do this", you will notice that this statement did not occur.


I respect the fact that CCP has no plans to go beyond cosmetic and I truly feel this sentiment is sincere, but without committing to it my confidence in the future of this MT scheme is in doubt and as such I cannot support it.




AMEN - after all exactly one year ago they promised that there were no plans to do ANY micro-transactions yes?

Janos Saal
Amarr
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:42:00 - [390]
 

Edited by: Janos Saal on 02/07/2011 18:43:44
Originally by: Vile rat
Wish I could be happy with this result but I cannot.

Quote:
Game-affecting Virtual Goods: We are convinced that CCP has no plans to introduce any game-affecting virtual goods, only pure vanity items such as clothing and ship skins. We have been repeatedly assured that there are no plans for ‘gold ammo', ships which have different statistics from existing common hulls, or any other feared ‘game destroying' virtual goods or services. We have expressed our deep concern about potential grey areas that the introduction of virtual goods permits, and CCP has made a commitment to discuss any proposals that might fall into these grey areas in detail with CSM at the earliest possible stage.

Back to square one.

While this statement is true I fear I must disagree with the overall sense of comfort in the message because I very strongly do NOT agree.

The lack of a clear concise statement declaring that they will never go in this direction is alarming, let me explain why.

Right now there is a roll out of cosmetic microtransactions which by and large the CSM, myself included, had no real issues with. I personally had no issues with it because there was an understanding that this was the far extent of what would be done. Nowhere in these statements is a determination to never cross this line into pay for non cosmetic, just an immediate desire to not pursue this goal. I can not support any MT scheme that would pave the way for even the possibility of going beyond this. I would have been satisfied if they said "we will never do this", you will notice that this statement did not occur.


I respect the fact that CCP has no plans to go beyond cosmetic and I truly feel this sentiment is sincere, but without committing to it my confidence in the future of this MT scheme is in doubt and as such I cannot support it.


Back to square one. :(


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (38)

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