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 : ... 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Stephanie Rose
Nos Exigo Effercio
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:28:00 - [661]
 

Originally by: The Offerer
Originally by: John Zorg
Edited by: John Zorg on 02/07/2011 22:06:28
I am sure that there will be no response to this. But couldn't the GTC(PLEX) system be seen as a "Gold Ammo" system. If I have $1 000,000 and I play EVE Online I am able to purchase all the ISK I want with real money. No time is invested into that.

You say so nicely in your blog and on the youtube video that CCP will _NEVER_ have a pay to win feature in EVE-Online but the GTC(PLEX) system is exactly that...

A comment from CCP would be appreciated...

JZ


Yes, you are in position to buy whatever you want by selling PLEX-es, but:
- you are giving game time to a player that need it to play;
- you are getting ISK that was created by that player through gameplay. By needing his ISK you've created content for that player - a need to get a bit more ISK to buy a PLEX.
- you will use that ISK to trade it for some items that other players produced. You've created content for them by having a need for those items and you've boosted the economy in the process (because as wee all know - more selling, healthier economy).

This system is nothing like "golden ammo". This system is good for the game.
----



If your rich an have lots of money, your BUYING an advantage, if your not rich, an don't have money, your not buy anything, but pounding sand. Whether you want to spin it as P2W, or not, it still gives an advantage to people who can afford it. Like someone said on a blog, no one seems to be able to clearly define P2W. Now, this may not be CCP selling you the stuff, it is coming from other players, but it still takes REAL money to make all this work, one way or another.


Celedraug
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:28:00 - [662]
 

A serious question for the CSM with all your supposed tough talking with CCP - what did you "win" here?

No change in what has already been said about MTs. Last year CCP had said "none at all", this year they say "only vanity items", what about next year? No plans is what they said before your ""conference", no plans is what they say now but the fact is, given the first "change of plans'; neither the CSM nor the players can trust that statement.

Whats the limits on vanity items - was this discussed? - will I be able to buy a Raven that has flame decals down the side from the store? - same stats, same ship, vanity only but created by CCP not the players. This is an important point for the playerbase but does not seem to be addressed.

Old hanger function back - apparent win? not really - we will get a temporary hanger back .... sometime (that covers a lot of ground) and then back to incarna only with the "promise" that it will be better. That is not what the majority of forum posts on the subject wanted so a loss for the players.

Please bullet point for us all what was actually achieved here?

Telion Rethson
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:28:00 - [663]
 

Edited by: Telion Rethson on 02/07/2011 22:33:38
Well, most of my concerns have been addressed, apart from one, which could potentially be quite a major issue. That issue is the leaked Hilmar email. The CSM said:

Quote:
The Leaked Hilmar Global Email: We were appalled by the leaked Hilmar email and the atrocious and out-of-touch messaging it contained. We sympathize and agree with those players offended and disgusted by it.


Which is all fine and well, but one major thing is missing - any kind of comment from CCP on this. In the Hilmar email, there is this passage:

Quote:
We have communicated our intention here internally in very wide circles through the Virtual Economy Summit presentation at the GSM, our Fearless newsletter, sprint reviews, email lists and multiple other channels. This should not come as a surprise to anyone.


This suggests that, amongst other things, the Fearless newsletter depicted the intended future of Eve. This newsletter emphatically and blatently advocates non-vanity items for real-life cash. This would appear to contradict the statements that:

Originally by: CCP
It is CCPs 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.


and

Originally by: CSM
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.


So, is Hilmar's email correct, or are these statements correct? I can only see three scenarios:

1) Hilmar's email is correct, and the statement about 'no plans for vanity items' is simply a lie by CCP, which the CSM were tricked into believing. I sincerely hope this is not the correct scenario.

2) Hilmar's email is wrong, or badly worded, and, despite what it says, there never have been any plans for non-vanity items for real-life cash, as these statements indicate. If this is the correct scenario, I would expect Hilmar to publicly indicate that he realises he 'dun goofed'.

3) Hilmar's email is correct in that, at one time, there were plans to sell non-vanity items, but these plans are now utterly scrapped, so the statements are accurate in that there are now no plans to do this, but are wrong when they say there never were. If this is the correct scenario, I would urge CCP to be honest enough to admit it.

EDIT:I will say this in defence of CCP. To those asking for a statement of 'CCP will never introduce non-vanity items into NeX', unfortunately, the folk at CCP are not clairvoyant, nor have crystal balls. As such, they cannot honestly make such a statement. The best you can ask from them is to indicate whether there are currently any plans whatsoever to do so. They have said 'no'. It just took much longer than it should have for them to say this, which is one thing that makes me think that scenario 3 above is the correct one.

AJ Falconi
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:30:00 - [664]
 

A New Player's Perspective

I had ony just discovered EVE and subscribed about 4 weeks ago, after playing only 3 days of a 14-day trial. It was exactly the game style I've been looking for, and I was having a great time.

Then Incarna released, and this controversy and the protest movement erupted.

It is unfortunate that neither CCP nor the players (in general) were able to speak reasonably and civilly through the blog and forum formats. The CCP blogs & forum posts alternated between insulting and irrelevant, and many of the players behaved like spoiled two-year-olds, but with a lot more bad language.

It was funny at first, but quickly got a bit worrying. It made me ask myself whether I should continue subscribing if EVE's future was really so uncertain. So I'm glad that CCP now seems to be listening to the players, but it makes me sad that it required a summit in Iceland and days of difficult negotiations.

I have my own opinions about the various issues being raised:

1) Play-To-Win

I applaud CCP's committment never to sell non-vanity items in the NeX. This was the only real deal-breaker for me. I can't see myself playing a even a free game where I'm at a disadvantage if I don't spend real money for in-game items. I certainly would never pay subscription fees for such a game.

(I can live with PLEX as an alternative to black-market ISK sales. What I can't stand is the idea that buying and selling characters is allowed. How is this not a EULA violation? If I had to start a new character with no skills, so should everyone else.)


2) Docking

I like the concept of being able to walk around in-station and interact with other pilots outside my ship. But right now, there's no point in loading CQ because it's nothing more than a prison cell.

I also strongly agree with all the players who are saying that the player experience ought to be Space <-> Hangar <-> Walking. I don't understand why CCP is so resistant to this. It's what the players want, it's easy to do, and would be a big PR win. It doesn't have to be hanger *or* CQ" when it can be hangar *and* CQ. Until this happens, I'll be leaving CQ turned off, because most of the time I'm docking only for a very short time.

So, my message to CCP is simple: Make the CQ great, so that players will *want* to disembark. But don't force them into a prison cell every time they dock.


3) Performance

I don't have any performance issues with my hardware. It's not top-of-the-line, but it's not ancient either. I especially appreciate being able to span multiple monitors with the UI.

Also, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are trying to run multiple clients on low-end PCs. Frankly, the idea of running multiple simultaneous accounts strikes me as a bit "play-to-win" already. I don't see how to prevent it, but asking the UI to be low-end enough to support multiple instances on one low-end PC is asking too much.


Finally, I also have one issue of my own to raise.

As a new player, while I am enjoying the game for now, I do worry about my ability to compete with players who have many more years of skill-points invested, and who may have advantages that I can never get. For example, I hate the idea that there are high-end blueprints that I can never have simply because a limited supply was distributed by lottery long before I started playing. A new character should have every opportunity to succeed that a player who began when EVE first released (8 years ago?).


So, CCP, thanks for taking player concerns seriously. I realize you have a business to run, but unless you're building the game that the players want, you're won't succeed.

And CSM members, thanks for being strong and vigorous representatives of player concerns. Don't let either CCP or mindless player rage keep you from doing everything you can to make EVE a great game for everyone.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:31:00 - [665]
 

Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
The time to complaining "I don't want InCarna" has come and passed, what now matters is the impact for us who care less about the integration between the two.
I still think you're trolling.

I and many others actually really look forward to walking in stations. We simply want to choose when we disembark. Could it be more clear?


I understand the sentiment and argument, it's one I and several others of the CSM have consistently made since May 2010 (first CSM 5 meeting where we were introduced to InCarna). InCarna should stand on its own merit and not be forced down the throat of unwilling participants. I agree.

However I also think CCP wants integration between the 2 gameplays to be of tantamount importance. I disagree with that choice but respect the decisions. My condition for them to get their way in this regard is that I have similar performance footprint I had before.

Resisting for the sake of resisting will get us nowhere. The underlying reasons we are resisting are what matters. In this instance they are: performance, and potential loss of functionality.

Malak Alraheem
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:32:00 - [666]
 

Edited by: Malak Alraheem on 02/07/2011 22:32:39
For me I will accept what was said. The NeX side of things was a major concern for me but extremely secondary to performance issues.

I had been running three accounts on a single quad-core machine with a mid-range video card with no problem. With this new client the stability with two accounts running is poor, three is very unstable and unplayable. Because of those changes and the apparent neglect of information or concern up to this point about players like me that play this way I see no point in paying to maintain all three accounts. So to paraphrase the blog:

"CCP will work on creating a minimum hardware spec that supports multiple clients, but I want it to be clear that the current maximum subscription payment by me is a single client until this stability issue is addressed."

I do not need to load and waste time (or system resources) with the walking in stations system to dock, unload salvage, reload ammo, and head back out. Please make a function in the menu to turn off the walking in stations unless the player hits a button like they would to load the fittings or check the market.

Also, please add:
The ability to choose being in your cabin or on the catwalk at login.
The ability to be facing your ship when you dock.
The ability to right click on the ship in your hangar to perform functions.
The ability to not show a ship if you are not in a ship.
Split out the graphics settings from 'inside stations' and 'out in space'. The game suffers horribly from the lack of this ability now.

Thank you

p.s. CCP Sreegs anti-bot blog, still waiting.

Edmar
Ship Depot
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:32:00 - [667]
 

Now that it's locked, I have parsley thread withdrawal.

Rakamy
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:33:00 - [668]
 

I for one am very happy with the results of the special summit. I think CCP and the CSM handled the hot topic issues professionally and with satisfactory results.

It's my only hope that the return of "ship spinning" which CCP said will come at a later date. Doesn't end up like the proposed rebalancing of hybrids which has been "coming at a later date" for what 2 years now?

Rens Amarr
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:34:00 - [669]
 

Originally by: Celedraug

Whats the limits on vanity items - was this discussed? - will I be able to buy a Raven that has flame decals down the side from the store? - same stats, same ship, vanity only but created by CCP not the players. This is an important point for the playerbase but does not seem to be addressed.




Simple question for CCP then:

Will vanity items be sold in the store that are just reskins of items that players make for the market?

Lemming Lass
Minmatar
Lemmings Online
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:34:00 - [670]
 

Originally by: Mag's
I and many others actually really look forward to walking in stations. We simply want to choose when we disembark. Could it be more clear?


Yeah, I'd like to add that I also want WiS, just not when I'm only docking to grab the right kind of tank to fight off an incursion, etc.

Kelnarn Shaelingrath
Caldari
River-Rats in space
The Ditanian Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:36:00 - [671]
 

Originally by: Esrevid Nekkeg
There is only one thing I'm worried about and that is regarding the ability of my hardware to run two accounts simultaneously:
Originally by: Arnar Hrafn Gylfason, Senior Producer for EVE Online
The CSM raised concerns with performance running multiple clients after the Incarna launch where the minimum hardware spec will only support one client logged in when in a station environment. CCP will work on creating a minimum hardware spec that supports multiple clients, but wants it to be clear that the current minimum specification aims at single client with low settings.
My machine exceeds the present recommended system configuration on every point except for the fact that I have a NVIDIA Gforce GT430 instead of a GTX460 in my PC. And it can not run two clients without seriously overheating and in general slowing down to an unacceptable level. And having read several posts regarding that or similar hardware issues, I know I'm not the only one.


No, you are not, I have dual 460's in my system and can't run 3 clients without getting bogged down to a few frames per second.
---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce GTX 460
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Display Memory: 4065 MB
Dedicated Memory: 993 MB
Shared Memory: 3071 MB
Current Mode: 1920 x 1200 (32 bit) (59Hz)
Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor
Monitor Model: DELL 2405FPW

CCP needs to really look at this aspect hard and long to resolve it in a manner that's consistent with their own promises and statements.

o/
K.S.

Debbie DoesDallas
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:36:00 - [672]
 

Its unfortunate that CCP seemingly forgot how to communicate effectively with its player base. They've done fairly well in the past. I'm glad to hear the results of the summit. Thanks to the CSM's for the short notice trip.

The Incarna bugs are bad but then again, we all remember some bad bugs introduced in other expansions as well. They will have to fix em and hopefully soon.

I hope to see more content upgrades in the future and less WiS. How about fleshing out the T3 line to include other ship types? What about incorporating some of the winning ship designs from the last contest? I see more effort in a NeX store than I do with things that contribute to actual spaceship violence and that's sad.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:37:00 - [673]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
The time to complaining "I don't want InCarna" has come and passed, what now matters is the impact for us who care less about the integration between the two.
I still think you're trolling.

I and many others actually really look forward to walking in stations. We simply want to choose when we disembark. Could it be more clear?


I understand the sentiment and argument, it's one I and several others of the CSM have consistently made since May 2010 (first CSM 5 meeting where we were introduced to InCarna). InCarna should stand on its own merit and not be forced down the throat of unwilling participants. I agree.

However I also think CCP wants integration between the 2 gameplays to be of tantamount importance. I disagree with that choice but respect the decisions. My condition for them to get their way in this regard is that I have similar performance footprint I had before.

Resisting for the sake of resisting will get us nowhere. The underlying reasons we are resisting are what matters. In this instance they are: performance, and potential loss of functionality.
Then why the disingenuous CSM blog? Why dance around the houses and not come straight out and say, "sorry chaps, you don't get what you want, you have no choice"?

I think that's what naffed me off the most and I'm pretty naffed off with what you didn't sort out.

Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:39:00 - [674]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Esrevid Nekkeg
My machine exceeds the present recommended system configuration on every point except for the fact that I have a NVIDIA Gforce GT430 instead of a GTX460 in my PC. And it can not run to clients without seriously overheating and in general slowing down to an unacceptable level. And having read several posts regarding that or similar hardware issues, I know I'm not the only one.

Someone from CCP should answer this in more detail, but we spent some time discussing issues with various cards, and CCP is aware of many of these issues. They are working hard on them.
Good to know, thanks. I will wait to see what their hard work brings us then.
Like I said, I'm worried about this, not put off.

GeneralMartok
Caldari
the united
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:39:00 - [675]
 

Originally by: Heavenly Blues
Originally by: GeneralMartok
its a true shame that CCP caters to the tantrums of whiney ***gots


Hey look, this guy could have gotten a blowjob with what he spend on his e-monocle.


I bought 2 quafe shirts, a monocle, sterling dress shirt, commando pants and precision boots without spending RL money, I did this for your juicy tears and to show support for CCP over the tantrums of the chromosomally challenged

Maybe if the denziens of eve protested in this manner over botting, we'd actually have some progress in that arena

Stephanie Rose
Nos Exigo Effercio
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:39:00 - [676]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Resisting for the sake of resisting will get us nowhere. The underlying reasons we are resisting are what matters. In this instance they are: performance, and potential loss of functionality.


I don't think resisting means much to CCP. Most companys know new things come with a risk, as well as rewards. Hilmar said it best, wait an watch. Seems CCP doled out just enough to make some happy, an stop them from leaving. Now, the loss won't hurt as bad, an they can continue on as planned.

Kerrisone
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:41:00 - [677]
 

Originally by: AJ Falconi
A New Player's Perspective

I had ony just discovered EVE and subscribed about 4 weeks ago, after playing only 3 days of a 14-day trial. It was exactly the game style I've been looking for, and I was having a great time.

Then Incarna released, and this controversy and the protest movement erupted.

It is unfortunate that neither CCP nor the players (in general) were able to speak reasonably and civilly through the blog and forum formats. The CCP blogs & forum posts alternated between insulting and irrelevant, and many of the players behaved like spoiled two-year-olds, but with a lot more bad language.

It was funny at first, but quickly got a bit worrying. It made me ask myself whether I should continue subscribing if EVE's future was really so uncertain. So I'm glad that CCP now seems to be listening to the players, but it makes me sad that it required a summit in Iceland and days of difficult negotiations.


As a new player, while I am enjoying the game for now, I do worry about my ability to compete with players who have many more years of skill-points invested, and who may have advantages that I can never get. For example, I hate the idea that there are high-end blueprints that I can never have simply because a limited supply was distributed by lottery long before I started playing. A new character should have every opportunity to succeed that a player who began when EVE first released (8 years ago?).


So, CCP, thanks for taking player concerns seriously. I realize you have a business to run, but unless you're building the game that the players want, you're won't succeed.

And CSM members, thanks for being strong and vigorous representatives of player concerns. Don't let either CCP or mindless player rage keep you from doing everything you can to make EVE a great game for everyone.



You missed the part where players told CCP all those things in testing, or in various other threads that depicted the majority of issues known to us before Incarna. What couldn't be discussed 'rationally' were the leaked documents that CCP would not comment on except to spin in the dev blogs, and the email they have yet to comment on.

As far as tech2 bpo's get over it, I've been in game nearly 2 years I don't have any, if you want them so bad you can waste billions of isk in the hopes that you will recoup their ridiculously high price over the course of YEARS of non stop production or a resale. I can play fine w/o having them you don't need them to play you don't need them to have fun. You might as well be complaining that as a child you didn't go to the school that offered a free trip to 'Pick your favorite country' to visit and it ruined your life forever.

If you choose to learn the game mechanics and how other players make use of the rules to their advantage you are going to be about 'equal' to other players in various situations. It is very rare players fight each other one on one and in that case odds are you aren't going to be equal on any number of points, skills, ships, time in game, etc. I'm not going to rehash SP issues go read the new citizens forums or the thread about 'too many veterans in the game' that issue is discussed over and over every time a new player doesn't get it.


Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:41:00 - [678]
 

Edited by: Smoking Blunts on 02/07/2011 22:46:47
Originally by: AJ Falconi
A New Player's Perspective


3) Performance

I don't have any performance issues with my hardware. It's not top-of-the-line, but it's not ancient either. I especially appreciate being able to span multiple monitors with the UI.

Also, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are trying to run multiple clients on low-end PCs. Frankly, the idea of running multiple simultaneous accounts strikes me as a bit "play-to-win" already. I don't see how to prevent it, but asking the UI to be low-end enough to support multiple instances on one low-end PC is asking too much.



i think yourll find most peopel that run more than one account have decent pc's and have invested time and money into a pc that pre incarna would do fine running many accounts.

for me 8 clients wasnt a issue before this patch, now anymore than 3 is very problematic. why do i need to go and spend another 1000 upgrading my hardware when a few weeks ago there was no issue.
we also not just talking CQ here, the client even with that off is using way more than it used to. its like comparing pre dominion and post dominion performances, with 1 patch ccp screwed fleet warfare and so far havnt come close to fixing the problems they introduced.

i fear that the same is true now. 18months-2 years from now the problem they have introduced wont have been fixed, and infact it will probibly be far far worse

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:41:00 - [679]
 

Originally by: Celedraug
A serious question for the CSM with all your supposed tough talking with CCP - what did you "win" here?

No change in what has already been said about MTs. Last year CCP had said "none at all", this year they say "only vanity items", what about next year? No plans is what they said before your ""conference", no plans is what they say now but the fact is, given the first "change of plans'; neither the CSM nor the players can trust that statement.

Whats the limits on vanity items - was this discussed? - will I be able to buy a Raven that has flame decals down the side from the store? - same stats, same ship, vanity only but created by CCP not the players. This is an important point for the playerbase but does not seem to be addressed.

Old hanger function back - apparent win? not really - we will get a temporary hanger back .... sometime (that covers a lot of ground) and then back to incarna only with the "promise" that it will be better. That is not what the majority of forum posts on the subject wanted so a loss for the players.

Please bullet point for us all what was actually achieved here?


We won the clarification that the stance depicted in Fearless (the "Greed is Good?" PDF) does not represent plans for the addition of pay2win in Eve Online. We argued about cases upon cases upon cases for hours (quite litteraly). CCP understands what we say and it is their stance as well. So we clarified their stance. We deliberately steered clear of future plans. CCP has not plan to change its current plan (we got assurance of that). At the end of the day, a statement is a statement, either we believe what they say (I do, hence why I was furious when there was a hint of a lie), or we don't. If we don't believe what they say then nothing they can *say* can reassure us. And only watching what they do can help. That's a choice.

The limits on aesthetics for vanity items have not been discussed. The art department dictates (as they always have) what is acceptable and not. I think they're a bit too extreme in their adherence to what they consider acceptable, but that's a sidenote to the issue. As far as I know they do not plan to accept player-generated textures or models. I don't recall them going ballistic when we discussed that possibility in the past, but the answer has so far be no and I don't expect it to change.

"Old Hangar" is not the old hangar, it's similar to the old one in terms of function and performance. Read above for my points on the space->hangar->CQ thing. During CSM 5 we said "don't want people to be forced into incarna". CCP said "what if the performance is equal". We said "we still think it's undesirable, but this is an acceptable compromise". Pick your battles, the integration of flying in space and InCarna is going to happen, we placed the limit of when it is deemed acceptable and not.



Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:41:00 - [680]
 

Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 02/07/2011 22:47:29
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 02/07/2011 21:53:47
Originally by: Ra Vhim
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow

Yes, CCP still wants to dock straight to Incarna.



Did they explain why we must be forced into Incarna? Or did they explain why pilots must leave their pod every time they dock? I am hoping for an other answer then that this is CCP's way to promote NeX (and I would very much appreciate hearing about it).


Because it makes for a more seamless (hate the marketing word, but it's true) interaction between "flying in space" and "doing stuff based on your character".

I've always said that it would be better to have people dock in their hangar and make them want to join InCarna for its own values, but it makes sense to me that, if performance are equal, not having to go through an additional step makes the 2 more integrated. So if performance is equal, then it's acceptable to me otherwise it's just *****ing "I don't want InCarna".
Well, InCarna's here whether we wanted it or not, so if it's there and docking/interacting doesn't take more resources, then it makes sense not to have the intermediary "hangar" step.

The time to complaining "I don't want InCarna" has come and passed, what now matters is the impact for us who care less about the integration between the two.

Edit: and the reason the statements do not cover every edge-case is because we have to summarize 2 days of hectic discussion about all those cases into a few paragraphs, we feel the statement we made covers the points made by the players and addresses them. And yes, your dissection of every word and wriggle room and grey area and tiny detail that wasn't mentionned in the statement has been discussed and addressed.


Ok.

During the CSM meeting, have you guys at any point inquired CCP about how immersion breaking the current incarnation of incarna (no pun intended) is?! And sorry if the following question sounds offensive.. but.. Does the CSM even cares about immersion?

Thank You.

EDIT: Didn't see your next posts following this one, but it doesn't matter because i somewhat agree with what you have been saying. I am, however, interested in knowing if CCP intends to address the immersion breaking aspects of the current Captain's Quarters.

Couldn't care less about spinning my ship tbqh. Only care about how is someone involved on a battle-situation supposed to do something that should take HOURS just because he needed to stock up on Cap Boosters. (That is: Docking, leaving ship with pod, leaving pod naked on a publicly-seen catwalk, throwing up pod goo, shaking up nausea, walking to quarters, dressing up, walking to balcony, opening ship cargobay, loading cap boosters, walking back to quarters, undressing, walking to pod naked on a publicly-seen catwalk, entering pod, filling pod with goo, entering ship with pod, undocking)

Kane Molou
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:42:00 - [681]
 

What I want to know is what makes the CSM better then the rest of us? What makes them soooo damned special that they get access to information and the like we aren't allowed.........


oh that's right.....


Nothing.

they are no more and no less then the rest of us, except that they bow down and sign NDA's that forbid them from doing their job of keeping US informed.

Again.. if CCP is truely serious about showing us they are going to keep their promises of fixing bugs, releasing more content etc etc etc.. Lift the NDA. Lift the Gag order on the CSM and let us see what they see.. given again they are meant to be our voice..

How can WE have a real voice if WE don't get the same information?

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:43:00 - [682]
 

Originally by: AJ Falconi
It is unfortunate that neither CCP nor the players (in general) were able to speak reasonably and civilly through the blog and forum formats. The CCP blogs & forum posts alternated between insulting and irrelevant, and many of the players behaved like spoiled two-year-olds, but with a lot more bad language.


I really like your post. If CCP had half as much common sense about EVE as you do after playing for a few weeks, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If you think of what CCP did as akin to what Tiger Woods did to his wife, you might better understand the player anger. (Many players have been loyal customers of CCP for far longer than Tiger Woods and his wife were a couple.) And when, as you say, CCP blogs & forum posts alternated between insulting and irrelevant, couldn't that anger be expected to grow? It certainly didn't help matters that CCP devs post with anonymous alts on forums in an unethical and dishonest effort to influence the debate. Nothing stokes anger more than dishonesty.

Stephanie Rose
Nos Exigo Effercio
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:45:00 - [683]
 

Originally by: Kane Molou
What I want to know is what makes the CSM better then the rest of us? What makes them soooo damned special that they get access to information and the like we aren't allowed.........


oh that's right.....


Nothing.

they are no more and no less then the rest of us, except that they bow down and sign NDA's that forbid them from doing their job of keeping US informed.

Again.. if CCP is truely serious about showing us they are going to keep their promises of fixing bugs, releasing more content etc etc etc.. Lift the NDA. Lift the Gag order on the CSM and let us see what they see.. given again they are meant to be our voice..

How can WE have a real voice if WE don't get the same information?


Puppets don't have their own voices, it is all an illusion.

Heavenly Blues
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:45:00 - [684]
 

Originally by: GeneralMartok
Originally by: Heavenly Blues
Originally by: GeneralMartok
its a true shame that CCP caters to the tantrums of whiney ***gots


Hey look, this guy could have gotten a blowjob with what he spend on his e-monocle.


I bought 2 quafe shirts, a monocle, sterling dress shirt, commando pants and precision boots without spending RL money, I did this for your juicy tears and to show support for CCP over the tantrums of the chromosomally challenged

Maybe if the denziens of eve protested in this manner over botting, we'd actually have some progress in that arena



No tears here boy. If it makes your sad little life better by imagining them, go ahead. Your delusions harm no one.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:46:00 - [685]
 

Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
The time to complaining "I don't want InCarna" has come and passed, what now matters is the impact for us who care less about the integration between the two.
I still think you're trolling.

I and many others actually really look forward to walking in stations. We simply want to choose when we disembark. Could it be more clear?


I understand the sentiment and argument, it's one I and several others of the CSM have consistently made since May 2010 (first CSM 5 meeting where we were introduced to InCarna). InCarna should stand on its own merit and not be forced down the throat of unwilling participants. I agree.

However I also think CCP wants integration between the 2 gameplays to be of tantamount importance. I disagree with that choice but respect the decisions. My condition for them to get their way in this regard is that I have similar performance footprint I had before.

Resisting for the sake of resisting will get us nowhere. The underlying reasons we are resisting are what matters. In this instance they are: performance, and potential loss of functionality.
Then why the disingenuous CSM blog? Why dance around the houses and not come straight out and say, "sorry chaps, you don't get what you want, you have no choice"?

I think that's what naffed me off the most and I'm pretty naffed off with what you didn't sort out.


i am too hacked off with this too.
you look liek you gave up when they said no, you cant ahve good performance you must have space barbie's and deal with it.
the preformance of incarna is horrid. we know this, the csm know this and ccp know this. but on face value it looks like nothing is being done and nothing will be done to sort it out. specificly multiboxing

im sorry by a soon from ccp might as well be a never

Moon Shadowfall
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:46:00 - [686]
 

Edited by: Moon Shadowfall on 02/07/2011 22:47:55
Originally by: AkJon Ferguson
Originally by: AJ Falconi
It is unfortunate that neither CCP nor the players (in general) were able to speak reasonably and civilly through the blog and forum formats. The CCP blogs & forum posts alternated between insulting and irrelevant, and many of the players behaved like spoiled two-year-olds, but with a lot more bad language.


I really like your post. If CCP had half as much common sense about EVE as you do after playing for a few weeks, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If you think of what CCP did as akin to what Tiger Woods did to his wife, you might better understand the player anger. (Many players have been loyal customers of CCP for far longer than Tiger Woods and his wife were a couple.) And when, as you say, CCP blogs & forum posts alternated between insulting and irrelevant, couldn't that anger be expected to grow? It certainly didn't help matters that CCP devs post with anonymous alts on forums in an unethical and dishonest effort to influence the debate. Nothing stokes anger more than dishonesty.


..says the person who trolled, flamed and baited MANY threads disagreeing with him...including trolling this one still. Get out the Preparation H and stop the whining...or move on to another game. What a hypocrite.

They can say nothing more to attempt to answer your concerns. If you can't trust them then please take your subscription money elsewhere...

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:47:00 - [687]
 

Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
The time to complaining "I don't want InCarna" has come and passed, what now matters is the impact for us who care less about the integration between the two.
I still think you're trolling.

I and many others actually really look forward to walking in stations. We simply want to choose when we disembark. Could it be more clear?


I understand the sentiment and argument, it's one I and several others of the CSM have consistently made since May 2010 (first CSM 5 meeting where we were introduced to InCarna). InCarna should stand on its own merit and not be forced down the throat of unwilling participants. I agree.

However I also think CCP wants integration between the 2 gameplays to be of tantamount importance. I disagree with that choice but respect the decisions. My condition for them to get their way in this regard is that I have similar performance footprint I had before.

Resisting for the sake of resisting will get us nowhere. The underlying reasons we are resisting are what matters. In this instance they are: performance, and potential loss of functionality.
Then why the disingenuous CSM blog? Why dance around the houses and not come straight out and say, "sorry chaps, you don't get what you want, you have no choice"?

I think that's what naffed me off the most and I'm pretty naffed off with what you didn't sort out.


I don't think the CSM blog is disingenuous in the least in this regard. What we got is a replacement of the wallpaper to something equivalent to the old hangar (we can't get the old hangar back, I forgot the reason, it may have to do with rendering technology they obsoleted, I can request clarification).

My question is "what do you want"?
If your answer is:
- "don't want InCarna". I can't give you that. For better or worse, InCarna and Eve are now one and the same.
- "I don't want to be forced into InCarna for philosophical reasons [ie, I play 'flying in space', not 'space dollies]", see point above.
- "I don't want to be forced into InCarna for performance reason". We got a compromise solution (and a bit extra)
- "I want my hangar functionality where I spin my ship", we got you that

Integra Arkanheld
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:48:00 - [688]
 

Edited by: Integra Arkanheld on 02/07/2011 22:51:21
Very HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery Happy
Now we should forget about misunderstandings and/or mistakes, and concentrate on the game. The time to protest is finished (until something might appear again (and I hope not)).

Laendra
Universalis Imperium
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:48:00 - [689]
 

It's easy to say, that after you have been caught with your hand reaching for the cookie jar, but before you actually took the cookies, that you were never intending to take a cookie, just merely touch or clean the jar. CCP coming out NOW and saying that they never had plans for non-vanity goods in the first place is about as believable as politicians telling us the bull**** they tell us to get elected.

Stephanie Rose
Nos Exigo Effercio
Posted - 2011.07.02 22:48:00 - [690]
 

Originally by: GeneralMartok
Originally by: Heavenly Blues
Originally by: GeneralMartok
its a true shame that CCP caters to the tantrums of whiney ***gots


Hey look, this guy could have gotten a blowjob with what he spend on his e-monocle.


I bought 2 quafe shirts, a monocle, sterling dress shirt, commando pants and precision boots without spending RL money, I did this for your juicy tears and to show support for CCP over the tantrums of the chromosomally challenged

Maybe if the denziens of eve protested in this manner over botting, we'd actually have some progress in that arena



Your so right, you didn't spend any real money, just the person who bought the GTCs to make the PLEXes that you bought to buy your AUR, they spent real money.


Pages: first : previous : ... 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 ... : 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