Dear CCP

No this is :parrotdad::parrotdad:

1 Like

Of all the advice I have given them thru the years, they implemented some scanning window changes that are currently in the game, but not all. Some UI changes that you can see on health bar and icons of active weapons on a target and that is all. Well, maybe also the typhoon front redesign that looks slightly like a sharks maw. I dont know if they acknowledged it because it was maybe also brought by others, but I think they were sound advices so even one person like me could make them see its actually good stuff.

But all of it was really small and directed to the devs.

The things I directed to management never have been implemented, maybe beause management is too far away from player choices and preferences, and it have the deciding word, last word. Like with monetization. Ever as direction of the game changes, its not player input. Blame CCP Seagul and Hilmar.

1 Like

the general consensus is my ideas are best

2 Likes

I’d fire that general. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

–President Gadget

2 Likes

pretty much. i know there will always be some players who will always be unhappy with the game. what i asking ccp to do is do changes that pleases most not all of eve online community. i know its not easy to do so but at this point i believe many player of eve are not that happy with ccp and how they managed this game lately. for example this new patch that comes on 13th of feb. it brings good stuff yet there is one change in that patch that bother many nullsec players and i know nullsec is not all players of eve but its where big things happens and when you ■■■■ up null sec well the game doesnt do that well.

1 Like

If all they did was please people, highsec would be a themepark with no aggression, farmers in lowsec would be completely eliminated (even though they serve a valuable purpose as part of Faction Warfare), nullsec would be 100% safe while people want to rat and easy on attackers when people want to roam, etc.

Just following what the vocal people in the community want isn’t going to improve the game.

However, since you bring up the upcoming changes on 13 Feb, have you read the responses and CCP posts in the specific forum thread?

This one from CCP Fozzie for example:

It’s pretty clear that CCP are already responding to community feedback on the proposed changes and the outline in the devblog probably won’t be the final form of the changes.

The same for the most recent fighter nerfs, which were originally planned to be much harder than they ended up (though still pretty hard). CCP changed their position based on feedback from the community.

Same again for jump fatugue, which has been changed a couple of times now as a result of community feedback.

So specifically, what are they supposed to do other than what they are already doing?

You try it, for a day:

Read all the posts in General Discussion.
Summarize them.
“Find the balance.”
Tell us what we want, summarized.
Tell us how you’d patch.
Read all the replies telling you how bad your patch is.
Think about it. Read the replies again to know how it feels.
Stop being autistic and ■■■■■■■ listen.

1 Like

They only lessened the change that was bad. There were better ways of dealing with the issue, but CCP never considered them because it would be a lot of work, not changing some numbers and calling it done. Issue is not about few numbers, Its about the method, the principle of ratting, number of steps to aquire wealth, availability of loot at each step, kind of loot gathered. It could also be a lot harder to bot, as it would need coordination of many people in aquiring wealth. CCP never considered it. I dont know if the timeframe management gave them for it was so small, or the management dont understand how to deal with these problems.

2 Likes

Hi Nion,

I think CCP does a lot more. They communicate with Capsuleers. The Changes that we have seen in Eve are adressing not always the loudest or the most powerfull. Sometimes they adressing silent voices.

I think the journey we are on is a good one. True not always we gret what we write. And there are good Ideas.
But sometimes there is more to the point then what meets the eye. If you see it as journey, try to understand where CCP os comming from, where they see conserns, what they vision is (which is sometimes hard to understand), I see that we are on a good path.

If I compare the latest changes to the changes done before, they are so much better in ways. I think we all learn how to build this universe together. It is not a one way street.

But isn’t that what the OP is talking about? They published, the community reacted, they listened and adjusted.

That’s what the thread is about right?

Reaction was not the best when you take into account the feedback that was provided. Instead of picking the best idea and implementing, they only diminished the bad change. That is a difference between good development and bad development.

1 Like

What was the best idea? Can you link it for me, since my recollection is of huge rage until Elise Randolf posted a heap of sense in a r/eve thread and then people calmed down.

But CCP needed to make a change and listened to the feedback, then adjusted?

What else are they supposed to do and coming back to the OP, which opinion is the specific one they should listen too?

In this case, which one is the specific best idea they didn’t implement?

image

It is idea of removing bounties in null and replacing it with tags that should be looted and transported to hgh sec to sell.

Can you link it, where it’s been proposed and discussed by the community?

The OP indicated above that what he means is the what “most of the community” want. So can you link where most of the community are in favour of that idea and where it was suggested?

I never advised of what the most of community wants. Majority isnt always right. I advised only what would be the best for the game, when you have to act on different levels and have many risks in what you do, giving a single person ability in exchange for risk, but empowering masses, giving rise to potential multiplication of risk.

Fot that idea, it was discused only in few posts and CCP never replied to any post. Maybe they even did not see it.
https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/message/6969395/#post6969395
And few other posts, but this one I have found with a quick search.

1 Like

I agree. However, it’s the topic of this thread and this current discussion demonstrates the difficulty of the whole thing for CCP.

One player comes in and says CCP should listen to what most of the community wants, another player says they should do what’s best for the game (which is as subjective as “most of the community”). A third player will come in and say they should do something different again.

Meanwhile, CCP have processes in place to consult with players (as useless as I personally think the CSM is), they listen to feedback from the community, they develop according to their roadmap which defines overall priorities for them and they look at the log data to see how changes impact the different areas.

They are on a hiding to nothing, since they can’t please everyone.

However, the topic of this thread is that they should listen to what the majority of players want, but there’s still no clear update from the OP what specifically would help CCP determine this.

That should not be the focus. Majority is not even using these features. Its a fraction of players that have ideas and would profit off of them. Others just pick up the game and play it, they seek different things in gameplay, one of them is how much you can exploit it in as little time as possible, without risk. Botters, AFKers and risk averse people should not be the focus, and in null for sure, so ideas should reflect what ccp wants (assuming they want what I wrote), not being a small attmpts at damage control that have no effect.

I agree. The OP might not though. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

And one more thing that would really make a lot of complaining go away is ability to turn on or off UI features, graphic and audio options. In UI its just that everyone have to use it, so there should be a ground for customizations.