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 : ... 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Angeliq
Minmatar
Soimii Patriei
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:16:00 - [721]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Celedraug
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
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.
[/quote



No sure if we are on the same point here - not player generated skins or models but CCP generated. I was meaning will they sell in the store the same ship but looking different as one we would have build ourselves or brought from another player. This is a vanity item but it impacts the player economy.


We discussed ships of similar stats to another but with a different model (ie, having a hurricane that has spikes to take a ridiculous example). The answer is that the amount of time it takes for the art department to produce new ship models renders this scenario unlikely. However the "economy" aspect has been made clear in this that any change in paint job/model needs to take in an existing ship as a source as well so as not to disrupt the economy.


What do you mean SHIPS OF SIMILAR STATS??? Stats as in attributes? The same ship (hull) but with different attributes?
A very important aspect for the dev when a player uses Cash Shop "golden items" is that the enemy player MUST NOT KNOW about it, so if CCP makes new exclusive models for NEX Store, "the enemy" will know about them.

Moon Shadowfall
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:17:00 - [722]
 

Totally agree with you Meissa.

:P

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:17:00 - [723]
 

Originally by: AJ Falconi

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.)


I'd advise you not to take anything CCP says at face value. But I'd imagine you'll have to learn that lesson for yourself.

I agree that it is absurd to play a subscription-based game that offers in-game advantages for $. EVE is the most expensive subscription-based game on the market, with most paying customers spending (or having spent on their behalf) $30 or more per month. ($75/month in my case.) The protesters think that ought to buy us improving content over time and no microtransactions other than plex (primarily for the reason you cited.) CCP disagrees and is in the process of breaking the game (# of ship fittings you can save, for example) and selling that functionality back to the players. This joint statement doesn't address that.

Your point about character sales is excellent. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed (and I confess that one of my 5 'mains' is 'bought', though I didn't buy him until I'd been playing for a year and a half.) I don't think you put that genie back in the bottle. The other side of the argument is that it's nice to think that after playing for several years that you can cash out and send your 'space hero' off into someone else's hands where he can continue his exploits.

Meeogi
Amarr
Lone Star Privateers
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:18:00 - [724]
 

Edited by: Meeogi on 02/07/2011 23:18:53
Satisfied..... thank you C.C.P. Thank you C.S.M


Stratharn
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:19:00 - [725]
 

Edited by: Stratharn on 02/07/2011 23:19:46
I've cancelled and won't be coming back any time soon. Maybe in a year or two, but my account goes dark on Jul 14, and will probably stay that way for quite some time.
If CCP had said all this when the questions were being asked, and before I hit that Cancel Subscription button, it might have been a different story.

Also converted to Perpetuum.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:20:00 - [726]
 

Originally by: Angeliq
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Celedraug
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
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.
[/quote



No sure if we are on the same point here - not player generated skins or models but CCP generated. I was meaning will they sell in the store the same ship but looking different as one we would have build ourselves or brought from another player. This is a vanity item but it impacts the player economy.


We discussed ships of similar stats to another but with a different model (ie, having a hurricane that has spikes to take a ridiculous example). The answer is that the amount of time it takes for the art department to produce new ship models renders this scenario unlikely. However the "economy" aspect has been made clear in this that any change in paint job/model needs to take in an existing ship as a source as well so as not to disrupt the economy.


What do you mean SHIPS OF SIMILAR STATS??? Stats as in attributes? The same ship (hull) but with different attributes?
A very important aspect for the dev when a player uses Cash Shop "golden items" is that the enemy player MUST NOT KNOW about it, so if CCP makes new exclusive models for NEX Store, "the enemy" will know about them.


The opposite Angeliq. 2 ships having similar attributes but different models.
It is extremely clear we do not want 2 ships having the same model but one being better than the other. That point of view has been made clear, CCP does not plan on introducing those.

Nemo Valkir
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:21:00 - [727]
 

Thank you CCP
Thank you CSM

...but sweet lord some players players/ forum posters are ****s!
We are not all like that, honest!
Well done sorting this one out.

Kane Molou
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:22:00 - [728]
 

Originally by: Ispia Jaydrath
Actually it's because we voted for them to represent us.

Hope this helps~~[/quote



Not really, No.

Because I don't see how them being voted into the CSM makes them any better then we are.. they are NOT better then any other eve player except they get Free trips to Iceland and a fancy title in the forums.

We are expected to believe them based on the information they get, and yet the information they get we aren't allowed to know about.. ok doesn't any one else see the contradiction in that?

We the players... are meant to believe everything is hunky dory based on the opionin of people who are getting free lunches off a company that has lied to us in the past..

We the players are apparently not allowed to look at the information because we are 'lesser' then the C.S.M. And yet we are meant to come to the SAME conclusions as the CSM..

It logically doesn't make sense, and honestly it's kinda like the current situation in Australia where Gillard is trying to ram her Carbon Tax down peoples throats after saying it wasn't going to happen.. only in this case it's CCP, Micro/Macro Transactions and a really screwed up lack of Content in the latest 'expansion' that isn't even complete.

Again.. CCP lift the NDA or Release the same information the csm got to see for ALL your players to see and make their OWN minds up about it.

Celedraug
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:23:00 - [729]
 

Originally by: Ispia Jaydrath
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.

...


Actually it's because we voted for them to represent us.




No actually we didn't - CCP imposed them on us - allowing us to choose who they were, not if we wanted a CSM to represent us in the first place.

I don't remember getting a vote on if we wanted a CSM to represent us.

Moria Kethar
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:25:00 - [730]
 

CSM: I understand you may be trying to address player concerns, but I find it very frustrating. As I have stated previously (see posts 571, 608), this is not just a simple "Incarna is here, shut up and deal with it" but no-confidence in the direction of the game presently. Particularly given the delayed and contradictory communications - i.e. Hilmar's email and the implications therein that remain ignored.

Trebor - I am not concerned with the pay to win aspect of direct CCP --item-- sales, as that is a oversimplification. The issue is that it would be bypassing the player-generated economy, which is the backbone of Eve - right now, if you want a ship, guns, ammo, ect, someone in Eve had to work for it. THAT is the concern for me when CCP refuses to say No, never. I don't want to invest my money and time further into a product and company that can't promise they aren't going to destroy what I play the game for.

It also leaves the door open for selling game mechanics (boosters, additional fittings, faction standings) - something else I find unacceptable.

I am glad you have found their response acceptable, but I don't. That is my choice - as with any investment gamble, each and every person here has to decide for themselves what the line is. If they find the current risk that their money and time invested might be wasted later to be acceptable.


Meissa - Understand that as stated previously, the refusal of CCP to budge on Incarna only reinforces the notion that they are more concerned with developing features empty of valuable gameplay/advancement as far as Eve is concerned, but will benefit their upcoming intellectual properties. There are much more serious gameplay issues in game that need development attention (as stated previously) then the robotmen in stations - another concerning issue left unaddressed in this joint meeting.

CCP got what it wanted - enough placation that some people will resub for now so they can continue in whatever mysterious direction they desire, an end to the rioting and an excuse to lock the threadnaught. CSM may think it a victory, but I really don't see anything as having changed or gained besides more vague promises of sparkles without any gameplay meat to be invested into Eve.

Righteous Deeds
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:25:00 - [731]
 

Edited by: Righteous Deeds on 02/07/2011 23:26:45
Color me cynical, but as I've said, the only reason I can think of to eventually force players in the CQ (which is still obviously the plan) is so that they are more likely to identify with their avatars and thus more likely to buy NEX items. That makes a poor reason, IMO, for going this route. Let players decide forever if they want to disembark. Most will still end up in the station and a fair number of those will go for the bling. I will reserve the right to keep making a case for this.

That said, I am 90% pleased with the settlement and resulting mea culpa. Don't care what bling they sell and for how much in the NEX. Don't mind that Eve funds development on other products. (It has to.) And while I'm not much on a ship spinning, I'm looking forward to the return of a functional substitute for the CQ door for as long as I can get it. (You might want to consider shifting more assets to Eve-content development though, as I do think it's a fair criticism that it's been awhile since more meat was added.)

CSM: Guys, that's much for you efforts here, especially those of you that managed to get out to Iceland. As a working professional/parent too old to have this particular vice, I can only imagine it wasn't easy to excuse yourselves from RL to attend to this.

CCP: Despite my gripes over the last few days, thank you guys for working with the players, paying attention, and having the guts to admit you could have done the communication a little better. Thanks also for your willingness to make adjustments on our behalf, and for committing to a vanity-only NEX. And thanks mostly for a fun game to while away too many hours.

Accounts being reactivated.

Garekell
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:27:00 - [732]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Garekell
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

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.


Meissa I respect you but you are falling into mittens trap of assuming you know best and you opinion is what matters most.

"Resisting for the sake of resisting will get us nowhere."

We aren't resisting for the sake of resisting... we are 'resisting' because we don't want it.

"The underlying reasons we are resisting are what matters. In this instance they are: performance, and potential loss of functionality"...

Part of it, but you forget not wanting it.

More and more you sound like you are saying 'listen to me I am right and you are wrong so shut up.' Sad


I understand and appreciate what you are saying. But there are fights we will not win.
I don't care about InCarna, I didn't ask for InCarna, I didn't want InCarna. This should be clear. I made that stance clear as far back as CSM 3 (check the video of the CCP panel during fanfest 2009 on youtube, during the Q&A I asked exactly that).

Considering that keeping on arguing "I don't want InCarna" is a battle fought (and lost) a while ago, we have to make sure it is not disruptive to what we actually want. And if possible turn it into something we actually can make use of. Considering that we got it, we go with what our reasons for not wanting it in the first place are.

I don't believe I am complacent, misleading or "I know better now shut up here" here. It's not about being right in this instance, it's about being sensible with regards to what one can achieve. Clamoring "delete incarna!" will serve no purpose. Saying "I don't want to see 'my' avatar EVER" serves as little purpose. CCP has decided that they consider InCarna to be a part of Eve, the sensible stance from then on is to make sure it does not disrupt those who wanted nothing to do with it in the first place, and that's what I've been busy doing.

If, in having that stance, I do not represent your view I am kinda sorry, but in my personal opinion that is a pointless one to keep having (though the underlying reasons are still as valid)


I agree with you but I was mainly talking about the tone. Believe it or not I am not some howler monkey with it's head in the sand.

Think of it this way, you say you don't want incarna and for many of the same reasons many of us don't... and yes it is apparent you have made the decision to move on from that 'impossible dream'. But how many years as you said did it take you to get to that place in your thinking? Don't fault others for not being in the same place at the same time as you. Wink

Anyway peace, and that's for being a regular communicator here in the forums. Few of the CSM are.

Buzzmong
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:29:00 - [733]
 

Edited by: Buzzmong on 02/07/2011 23:31:10
A few questions for the CCP staffers or the CSM reading this:

Communications

Why was CSM not informed of the NeX pricing?

Why was the CSM's feedback on Zulu's first blog not taken on board causing the CSM-predicted torrent of offended players?

Dev communications to players: What's happening with regards to getting more info and responses out to the playerbase?

The game and development in general

What're CCP's plans for Eve in the future? We've got Incarna after a long wait, but what's next on the cards?

Gameplay wise: What's being reiterated? Is FW being looked at or are wormholes having more content?

Is the proliferation of Supercaps and the problems they're causing being seriously looked at?

When is the "18 months" finishing so resources get shunted back to full steam EvE development?


Apart from all that, I appreciate the CSM at least going over there and making the players view clear. Shame you couldn't get more compromises or a full proper defined statement about not having non-vanity in the NeX ever.

It's a shame about the hanger view though. Future iteration yes but it's only long term temporary item and isn't Space->Hanger->CQ, ah well.

Orpheus Ovid
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:30:00 - [734]
 

Thank you CCP and CSM

I applaud your efforts. Personally, I am very excited where this game is going. EVE must adapt or it will go the was SWG. Every company makes mistakes and screws up and instead of retreating or ignoring their customers CCP choose to do something pretty radical. The CSM has no official function. CCP could choose to ignore them, but instead they flew them out to Iceland and sat down and head a deep long discussion about the game. They even had to sign ND contracts.

However, I also must congratulate the player base. No where would you find a more dedicated and devoted fan base. The protests were awesome, and in light of the available information a good response. Except for tools were being jerks.

Eve is an awesome game.

Ranita Drell
Intaki Liberation Front
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:30:00 - [735]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
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".

The problem is that it's not more seamless if you don't want to do something that doesn't require your character exit his or her pod. In that case, it's just an awkward, immersion-breaking distraction. I also have doubts that CQ will ever load as quickly as the old hangar view does, and we'll have to end up settling for performance that is "good enough."

The solution that ought to please everyone is to put in an option that allows the player to choose between the hangar and CQ as the default view when docking. Have this default option set to CQ to start.

CQ is not going to provide a universally "more seamless" or superior overall experience, nor will the hangar view. The best approach therefore would be to leave this decision up to the individual player, who knows his or her own needs and preferences best.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:30:00 - [736]
 

Edited by: Smoking Blunts on 02/07/2011 23:32:01

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Garekell
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

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.


Meissa I respect you but you are falling into mittens trap of assuming you know best and you opinion is what matters most.

"Resisting for the sake of resisting will get us nowhere."

We aren't resisting for the sake of resisting... we are 'resisting' because we don't want it.

"The underlying reasons we are resisting are what matters. In this instance they are: performance, and potential loss of functionality"...

Part of it, but you forget not wanting it.

More and more you sound like you are saying 'listen to me I am right and you are wrong so shut up.' Sad


I understand and appreciate what you are saying. But there are fights we will not win.
I don't care about InCarna, I didn't ask for InCarna, I didn't want InCarna. This should be clear. I made that stance clear as far back as CSM 3 (check the video of the CCP panel during fanfest 2009 on youtube, during the Q&A I asked exactly that).

Considering that keeping on arguing "I don't want InCarna" is a battle fought (and lost) a while ago, we have to make sure it is not disruptive to what we actually want. And if possible turn it into something we actually can make use of. Considering that we got it, we go with what our reasons for not wanting it in the first place are.

I don't believe I am complacent, misleading or "I know better now shut up here" here. It's not about being right in this instance, it's about being sensible with regards to what one can achieve. Clamoring "delete incarna!" will serve no purpose. Saying "I don't want to see 'my' avatar EVER" serves as little purpose. CCP has decided that they consider InCarna to be a part of Eve, the sensible stance from then on is to make sure it does not disrupt those who wanted nothing to do with it in the first place, and that's what I've been busy doing.

If, in having that stance, I do not represent your view I am kinda sorry, but in my personal opinion that is a pointless one to keep having (though the underlying reasons are still as valid)


its having a massive negative impact on almost everyone i know in game. and what you got is.. its still gonna ahve a negative impact, but we can spin ships again.
screw spinning ships, if that was the point wow you would have achived the goal.

it wasnt, its a loss of functionality, that in referance to the blog
Quote:
We were pleased when Torfi announced that the current "Disabled Incarna Door" will be replaced with an environment that will provide similar functionality and performance to the pre-Incarna Hangar, and this environment will be available until Incarna performance is similar to pre-Incarna performance. While the final details and timelines have not been worked out, ships will once again spin all over New Eden.

has no time scale for being restored and will probibly be worse than before when it does land, if ever.

that really dosnt give me reasons to be happy. you should have just said ' its broke, it will stay broke til if/when ccp can be bothered, and quite possibly wont bother as its gonna be removed anyway'

Grey Griff
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:32:00 - [737]
 

and still there are lot of disappointment, ok we will return to you hangar wow, but only temporary ehm, and that is the way all question answered, when i think about possible non vanity items i feel unmotivated even to log in

Solomon XI
Hidden Souls
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:33:00 - [738]
 

I'm satisfied. Thank you for finally answering the questions, CCP. Thank you to all of the CSM members for their hard work in getting this settled. Thank you!

Lusulpher
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:33:00 - [739]
 

Edited by: Lusulpher on 02/07/2011 23:47:44
Originally by: Geksz
Edited by: Geksz on 02/07/2011 17:06:10
Edited by: Geksz on 02/07/2011 17:01:09
Will there be an explanation on WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A PERMANENT HANGAR BAY VEIW (like the old one without Incarna)? And why isn't Incarna optional like CCP promised earlier? (I'm sorry, but the option to have a still picture instead if the hangar is really disappointing, and in early test builds it wasn't even there!!!)

The blog clearly states that CCP is working on implementing a new spinning ship hangar view. OK, good to know, but what was wrong with the old one?


They also deleted all the old assets for the NeX store, and the racial customization options for the Incarna engine, and did not deploy the minigame we could play room-to-room...

They simply don't feel they have to explain any game-altering decisions with the community anymore. And the CSM did not get any promises for actions on a set timeframe.
:18months: to fix hybrids and AFs, or Sov payment pricing.


Empty words, I will hold to my 6 month probation. Let them SCRUM out some fixes.Neutral

edit: And people are thanking them for returning features, they promised NEVER to remove as they were FUNCTIONALITY-BASED. This is as bad political situation as the renewal of the Bush Tax Cuts to "create jobs"...by destroying positive revenue.Evil or Very Mad
That is self-serving politics affecting my virtual hobby and I am personally offended. My trust in you to protect your own brainchild is almost completely shattered.

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:35:00 - [740]
 

Originally by: AJ Falconi
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.


Exactly right. And a source of a great deal of the anger towards CCP not caused by their dishonesty. CCP shouldn't force its players to use features they don't want to use (like the new forums, for instance.)

Originally by: AJ Falconi

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.

CCP has designed the game in a way to encourage people to buy multiple accounts. CCP has conducted marketing campaigns/promotions to encourage people to buy multiple accounts. I would LOVE it if there was a magical way to prevent anyone from having more than one CHARACTER, but that's just not feasible. Given where we are, it is incumbent on CCP to make sure that their junk runs in multibox mode as smoothly as it did before this patch.

Originally by: AJ Falconi

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?).


Here's where we differ. When I started playing 2.5 years ago, there were toons with 100M skillpoints. I did not worry about my ability to compete, I just started training. Now my 4 original toons are all approaching 60M SP and any 'inability to compete' can be attributed to either my personal lack of gaming skill or my inability to prioritize my skill training. You noobs actually have it easier than I did, as there was no training queue and there were learning skills back then. Also, you seem to contradict yourself when you say 'character sales is a horrible idea' and 'I want to be on an even playing field with older players.' Character sales lets you do that.

And the t2 bpo lottery was a horrible idea, but that's another ship that has sailed. You can buy as many t2 bpo as you can afford.

Hope that helped. Fly safe.

Sorgenbinder
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:37:00 - [741]
 

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

One word...

PLEX

Soldarius
Caldari
Peek-A-Boo Bombers
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:37:00 - [742]
 

Apology accepted.

Now, you see what happens when people communicate with each other?

That being said, if CCP goes back on these promises, the rage will be epic.

Elliott Calvadeux
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:38:00 - [743]
 

Just want to say thanks to CCP and the CSM for the result. I'm happy with it at least.

Grey Griff
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:47:00 - [744]
 

Originally by: Sorgenbinder
"The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time."

One word...

PLEX


ehm no, it does't give you special ability or magical ship with uber stats, it just redistributes ingame resources which in the first place can't be aquired with plex, so there is no advantage over investment of time

Sorgenbinder
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:58:00 - [745]
 

Originally by: Grey Griff
Originally by: Sorgenbinder
"The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time."

One word...

PLEX


ehm no, it does't give you special ability or magical ship with uber stats, it just redistributes ingame resources which in the first place can't be aquired with plex, so there is no advantage over investment of time


So spending real-world cash and converting it into in-game money wouldn't give me an advantage...?

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.02 23:59:00 - [746]
 

I just really hope CCP fixes the immersion issue with Captain's Quarters. Just remembering that the POD is over there by the catwalk brings the kind of sickness to my stomach that i feel when i remember about a documentary on Discovery Channel that showed a guy who, after being lost in the jungle for 23 days, had to stab his dog (which up until that point had been following him without question) on the back of the head with a machete so that he could eat him....

No.. to be honest.. nothing makes me sick as recalling that documentary.. dammit, i shouldn't have tried to write about it.. now i am depressed.. dammit **** it...

Ranita Drell
Intaki Liberation Front
Posted - 2011.07.03 00:12:00 - [747]
 

Edited by: Ranita Drell on 03/07/2011 00:22:27
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
- "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

None of these really apply to me, although I guess "philosophical reason" comes closest. I care about ship spinning least of all, although I appreciate that you fought to get something your constituency wanted.

I want CQ/WIS. It was never on my top list of things I wanted, but I'm happy to have it (or will be, when it's actually good). The reason I'm happy to have it is because it's an immersion-enhancing addition to the game. This, in fact, is the only thing Incarna has going for it right now, as there doesn't seem to be a ton of gameplay-oriented Incarna content on the horizon.

So it makes absolutely no sense to implement CQ in an unnecessarily immersion-breaking fashion, as it directly subtracts from the only value the expansion adds. It actually runs directly counter to CCP's stated goals with regard to Incarna and EVE. CCP's argument therefore doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny, even if you're sympathetic to their premises (as I am).

So what it boils down to, again, is CCP trying to force a NeX display case on us, and in doing so, they're compromising the quality game experience for paying subscribers. You may feel that on this particular issue, the impact on quality is sufficiently minor that it's not worth fighting for.

But what you'd actually be doing is fighting to hold the line. On one side of the line, CCP allows MT to drive their design and development considerations to a greater degree, sometimes at the expense of the overall EVE experience. On the other side of the line, design is focused on improving the overall experience for paying subscribers (and thus, maintaining and increasing the revenue from active accounts), and MT is a form of supplemental income that is pursued as unobtrusively as possible.

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.07.03 00:12:00 - [748]
 

Originally by: Vandrion
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.




Thanks for the honesty!!!!!!

Now Can someone on the CSM or with CCP please define the following statement made by CSM member Meissa Anunthiel in post 335 in this thread:

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


Answer please.

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.07.03 00:15:00 - [749]
 

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".



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



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

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.03 00:16:00 - [750]
 

I asked it earlier but the thread is longLaughing
Will the settings for incara/ ships in space be split soon. Was it discussed?
Will we beable to set how we disembark our ship ie. Which way we face and where we show up.

Logging off sitting- relog still siting?
Was this discussed?


Pages: first : previous : ... 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 ... : 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