Meh. Not surprised. I’d be annoyed if CCP hadn’t killed my interest in this game a long time ago with their inability to deliver on their promises.
This devblog was terrible. Using stats to try and hide the real reason why people don’t use it. It’s because CCP have failed to provide anything interesting to do with their avatars.
Seems like the EVE project keeps getting smaller. We’re a long way away from the days when EVE was going to be the ultimate sci fi simulator.
The future of EVE is a copy of what we see in the rear mirror. Since Rubicon, EVE has become a copy of itself: “Shooting structures in large buddy fleets worked in the past, so let’s design more structures to shoot at in large buddy fleets”.
And that’s all in the grand scheme of things. Just it won’t even be fast, as once structures are released, they’re subject to PvP imbalance and must be balanced, so you end up shooting the same stuff with different stats, flying the same ship with different stats because of ship rebalnace, and the only reason why you do it it’s because all the other stupids doing the same and which you would miss if you weren’t doing it.
Which, guess what, is almost the only reason why I am here. Just my lovely stupids don’t necessarily pay or play…
You can’t really blame CCP. Any time they implement something genuinely new, lots of people complain. Of course lots of people complain when they “fix” stuff, but if they only focus on the things they’ve done in past then people are only complaining about the same things and maybe there’ll be a small number who stop complaining. If they implement new things then they just get a raft of new complaints on top of all the old ones. If they implemented a system where everyone got five bill and a free ship, I’m pretty sure 95% of the player base would riot or complain.
Yeah, agreed 100%, they did the same thing when they introduced the new NPE at FF when they tried to justify Suicide Ganking as a valid reason for player retention.
DMC
sad and disappointing about WiS. Sad that CCP simply couldnt be bothered making it better and disappointed that the eve community had something to do with it
I guess there could easily be a different view on what is genuinely new, but if I think back, the only 2 genuinely new ideas implemented in the last few years have been:
Both of those have been pretty positively perceived.
I may be not remembering something else genuinely new though.
Edit:
'3. Mode switching in T3D. That is also something genuinely new (and pretty neat as well).
You dont see citadels as new? but other than that i agree. i havent been excited about eve updates since well its been that long… trinity maybe
I don’t personally. No. They are a POS shaped like a station, with fittings like a ship.
All of the things about Citadels already existed in the game before Citadels, just not as a single object.
I think Citadels are great. Not being negative about them. I find them extremely useful, just not something that introduced a genuinely new idea into the game. More a bringing together of existing ideas.
However, that may be totally because I am thinking about the idea of something genuinely new in a specific way and not necessarily the same as others might.
I think you are right. You can’t really call something new when it replicates what is already in game. The new moon mining arrays can be classed as new, when they eventually come out.
New ships don’t even excite me unless they do something completely original, like the command destroyers.
then get excited ! IIRC they are planning on making a ship made for FC with incredible tanking capability but with near zero in terms of DPS.
[quote=“Este_DeStirr, post:192, topic:9940, full:true”]And WANCs (Wall-Applied Nano-Coatings!!)
[/quote]
Any respectable Gallentian party already has these and many other fluids adorning the walls, and sometimes even the mirrored ceilings.
[quote=“Erebus_TheChin_Sundance, post:212, topic:9940”]
Any respectable Gallentian party already has these and many other fluids adorning the walls, and sometimes even the mirrored ceilings.
[/quote]Hey! That’s not true! Liar!
Well, of course people dont use CQ anymore after nothing happened there for 6 years! We still have only our own quarter, where we can do almost nothing except for looking at our ship, look at ourself in a mirror and sit on a couch! There we more then enough player wo wanted that feature continued with all the promises like walking in station. But of course usage start to decline if performance is bad and promised features are never delivered. I am very, very sad about this decision, was still hoping “Someday, CCP will bring walking in station and all the other cool stuff with CQ! Someday they will!”
I’m sad they are retiring the Captain Quarters. 
The first screenshots I did when I started playing took place there, I liked walking around, standing by the mirror or sitting on the couch watching news. I like the different styles for each race. There wasn’t much else to do but for me, at least, it gave more “reality” to my character.
I understand the technical problem behind it all as well as the reason why they are taken down.
I hope CCP will bring them back someday, reviseted, with more to do and not only in npc-owned stations. 
…lets not muddle the issue here, on one side we have the captains quarters, on the other getting out your ship/pod.
CQ was pony, unrealized potential yes, but all the features that would make it great we now know are impossible to implement in it’s current old, tired, soon to be dead state.
Then there is the broad spectrum of possibilities for the simple hankering to just get out of your ship. This is essentially the issue. And something a good percentage of the player base would like, and will miss.
Exactly . And Incursions came about around the same time as wormholes, as did Faction warfare (ie all within a few years of each other).
I’ve heard people say that before (“people complain about new stuff”) but that’s bogus, people complain about BAD stuff and don’t complain about good stuff. Incarna/ambulation/captain’s quarters/whatever were never good, nor was it ever a good idea (because tacking on a completely different game to an older, existing game is STUPID, especially for a smallish developer like CCP, and it didn’t help that they were over-reaching with the vampire stuff and the FPS stuff at the same time).
I’ve learned that WiS fans aren’t the most realistic bunch around, which is why CCP explaining the nuts and bolts reason for removing a totally useless, ancient and futureless feature that was measurably hurting the game’s ability to progress just passed completely over their heads.
I doubt it passed over everyone’s heads, but there’s more than the face value statement to be considered.
edit: No WiS fan is saying “keep it in spite of the reasons for not keeping it” they’re saying “we’re disappointed this feature did not go further and we’re disappointed that you’re dishonestly apportioning the blame for it’s lack of use to disinterest for the feature, rather than being honest and saying the feature wasn’t used because it was implemented badly”
Nowhere does the devblog make that argument.
The whole thing is just factual about usage, time and cost to maintain and the need to rewrite completely in the future if something is ever implemented again.
There isn’t a single bit of blame aside from CCP accepting their own part in not seeing the value in continuing to maintain it; and nothing dishonest in that sense, about how it is written.
Did I miss something in the article that somehow blames the playerbase for disinterest?
When they use graphs of usage to justify its removal, they’re saying “We’re taking this away because you don’t use it”. It’s a passive assignment of blame but it is essentially stating that we’re at fault for the future lack of support. It does nothing to address why it wasn’t used.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but for my part, I don’t see how it is possible to read into the article words that aren’t written and then know that you are somehow correct.
The usage stats are low. No blame involved. Just fact. That’s all the graphs show. They don’t apportion blame anywhere.