Clearly you have a more positive outlook on public correspondence between companies and their client base than I.
4 Likes
Nah, I just don’t assume that I somehow have a compass that can guess intent of a writer. My interpretations are my own and I’m responsible for what I think.
Doesn’t mean what I think is in anyway what was intended unless that can be clearly quoted. Here, I don’t think it can and I certainly don’t see anywhere in the devblog CCP blaming us for the CQ removal.
1 Like
No, they’re saying “we’re removing it because it’s a little-used feature (graphs show) with a very disproportionate amount of effort involved in maintaining it.”
Features that are not used often, but require little to no maintenance, and don’t hamper other development, are left alone until a good reason for change comes along.
1 Like
Yes, but why isn’t it used? Because it was badly implemented. The graphs are a way of justifying the removal. I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t remove something if it isn’t used. I’m saying there’s more to it than “no one wanted to use it” and that by stating “we’re removing it because of low usage” they’re shifting responsibility away from the poor implementation and onto the player base.
Edit: I understand that if you’re anti WiS you’re not going to want to hear me keep saying that “hey, maybe look into this deeper” feel free to ignore my comments if it upsets your positive outlook on this issue.
4 Likes
Well said, that’s why COSMOS (for example) is still in the game.
Not at all, we’re outright saying in the blog that it hasn’t been maintained, and it’s holding us back with other development, so that’s part and parcel of why it’s being removed.
We’re well aware that the fact it’s not being used is due to the fact that there’s been no feature development. On the flip side of the coin, there’s been no feature development on it because our players sent us a clear message that they wanted us focused on spaceships, so we invested more there.
Regardless of the reasoning behind the removal, the undeniable fact remains that if we WERE to do any development on Captain’s Quarters, we’d need to start the whole feature from scratch no matter what we wanted to do, so removing it makes total sense given that 1) there are no plans on the roadmap to do walking in stations feature development, and 2) its current state is holding us back from further visual development work.
4 Likes
Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. People complain about good stuff all the time because it is not their idea of good stuff - sovereignty mechanics and null will never be fixed and good so that everyone would be happy. As one example, people complained tons about jump fatigue, and that was a good change - it stopped or at least signifigantly lessened the threat of bored null mega-alliances would just hotdrop smaller alliances or even corporations in low for shits and giggles.
Most people here have understood and accepted the reasoning. They are still allowed to express their feelings on the matter and disappointment in an unfulfilled promise. I understand why CQ has to go. Doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it.
Edit: Wasn’t meant as a reply to Halcyon, this new forum system takes some getting used to.
3 Likes
Again. At no point have I disagreed with the reasons for its removal. I’ve simply stated my disappointment that it went nowhere. I know many people who wanted it to go somewhere. Perhaps we should have organised a high sec riot to demand it went somewhere instead of quietly hoping.
I’d like people to stop painting fans of WiS as dreamy eyed hippies demanding that unworkable features remain in the game at the cost of everything measurably described as progress. That is not what we’re saying.
3 Likes
I can’t speak for anyone else but i’d hazard the guess that the replies you are getting is because you seem to be in denial (and people in denial tend to make things up or interpret things wrongly because of it).
WiS was dead before Incarna was published (because it was always a bad idea). WiS was an example of a small gaming company stupidly over-reaching. Worse than that, it was an example of a small company selling a big dream (EVE as a ‘space life simulation’) which that they had no capability to deliver.
In other words, intentionally or not, it was a lie. And CCP canning the last vestiges of the era in which they lived in a fantasy world where they could deliver everything (no matter how unrealistic) to gamers is a good thing.
The idea that some of you have globbed on to (ie “people didn’t use it because CCP didn’t develop it right, if CCP had just done it right people would have loved it!”) is just grasping for straws. Just like Playstation Home, the whole “social club in a space station” thing would have probably failed regardless of how much work CCP put into it. WiS fanatics (like lore/roleplayer types) can’t understand that many gamers don’t like what they like.
I think this holds true for any group. I’m sure you have aspects of games you’d love to see developed that a large number of people are against. Please stop trying to make us out to be a group of deluded rejects.
Edit: I’m not saying everyone would have loved, but that the numbers might have supported keeping it. We’ll never know.
5 Likes
No one is stopping anyone from feeling bad about anything. But feelings don’t matter in the least.
CCP has nerfed or removed things I was really fond of at one point, and it turns out that nerfing was good for the game, which made me realize that it was dumb and short-sighted of me to feel bad about them doing it.
Lots of thoughts, which I may not get wrote in a logical way…
I’m not actually anti-WiS. But I think that WiS is a completely different game than Eve as we know it. WiS is a (fairly) natural progression of Eve as “New Eden Simulator”, but not for Eve the “Internet Spaceship Game”. I myself even tend to see Eve as the former, while acknowledging that I still love the latter and am glad that CCP is making decisions that will make Eve a better game.
And yes, I think that ceasing maintenance on the entire TPP engine will free resources for features that are more relevant to the game that (metrics-wise) the majority of players are using.
So - and dialing back the snark from previous posts - I too would like to see a third-person game set in New Eden, but I don’t think that CCP should continue to maintain the Dream to the detriment of the rest of Eve.
Cheers.
This is 100% untrue. I take EVE for what it is, I’m not sitting here hoping CCP adds something new that I want. I don’t really care about new stuff, I like what I have now.
It’s Ironic that by posting what you did you proved my point. You really can’t understand that others aren’t like you.
How about all the 100+ page “please open the door” threadnaughts on the old forum? That’s not a clear message that people wanted it to be iterated on?
Is the consensus in CCP itself that summer of rage is considered to be the fault of CQ? Not because of the greed is good, leaked microtransaction “golden ammo” pay-to-win discussion (even if that wasn’t serious, as was the official claim, “just throwing ideas around”), because I’m pretty sure it was more about the P2W rumours and MT-monetization of a subscription model game (which wasn’t that much of an accepted thing back in 2011), altough the lackluster implementation of Incarna coupled with the expense of other development was certainly one cause, but as an outside observer, not even the biggest.
10 Likes
You’re forgetting that I spent ten years as a Guristas Loyalist roleplayer in EVE. I’m still a roleplayer to this day 
I was one of those people who wanted to see it go somewhere, and I was super stoked for Walking In Stations. When it didn’t happen, I was one of the people who were pretty upset.
The reality is though, that we’re focused on core gameplay, and in EVE, that’s spaceships
3 Likes
Actually I can. Apparently in your case I was making an unfortunate assumption based around your own assumptions leveled at myself. If you’re content with things staying as they are then that’s wonderful. You’re happy in a way that most people will never achieve.
2 Likes
No. I’m not. I’m aware of who you are. I’ve met you briefly. I’m not singling you out. I’m addressing the “monolithic entity” of CCP as an organisation. I’m entitled to be disappointed and also agree that it’s probably a better use of resource. I’m complicated like that.
6 Likes
Where will pilots now go to see the news on their screen? Easy way to feed the curiosity. To see who wants to hire them, where incursions are, what happened in last week? How will they admire their clothing from many angles and in different light? How they will be able to admire the scale of their ship from a human perspective? How they will see their characters in homely environment?
This was not featureless desert. It was home for many capsuleers.
7 Likes
Thing is, CCP at one point wished to make EVE a full blown sci-fi simulator, kind of like what Star Citizen strives to be. The “future vision” cinematic wasn’t made just because it looked cool, it was an actual future vision for EVE. You know, the cinematic where DUST, Valkyrie, and EVE players were playing the same game cross platforms and for same or opposite goals.
But, the vision was clearly too grandiose for the time.
2 Likes
That’s sexist! 