The dev work needed to start a new feature (including all the testing protocols) means that you never start developing before there is an actual need for something. That need being formally expressed by your game design team.
What’s more, testing features (or bugs…) in a shared environment like sisi means that you MUST have the lowest possible difference between your testing env and your prod env (because then, another feature can be the one leading to the bug you notice with your new feature). Therefore it’s out of question to put “what if ?” features in a testing environment.
Note that this is “usual” way of dev(when the team has a knowledge of formal test protocols), but maybe CCP has a different one where anything can be thrown in the sisi env . I believe however that there is no recent change on sisi that was not pushed on tq unless acknowledged to require more work/thinking. So it’s possible but statistically very unlikely that a feature pushed to sisi won’t be pushed to tq.
Makes sense, ok.
So now I’m wondering what the deal is with the devs. Why wouldn’t they announce something like that ahead of time instead of players finding out through 3rd parties and why wait to announce it when it’s too late for players to take precautions?
Also, it seems that the cat may be out of the bag. How long are the devs going to wait to confirm or debunk something that obviously has a lot of players concerned and unhappy?
What do they gain from their silence, except more players mad at them?
First you have to differenciate devs and game design team. The game design team … designs the features, devs implement them.
Then, the question is : why would they ? What do THEY get from publishing such detailed information ? The work to make an actual public announcement of the incoming feature is actually expensive, especially since some features can be delayed, modified. There is no point in announcing incoming features unless you are in the marketing section (eg Hilmar) .
I agree however that such an impactful change should be discussed with the CSM before implementation. but CSM is here for consulting, not for research of agreement. If the game designer made a choice, then there is no need to discuss it with the CSM - again even though I think this is bad.
It might not be limited to this change either. On the Halloween Meta Show, one of the CSMs seemed to imply there are other gank changes in discussions, but as you can imagine gave no details because of NDA.
Hi @Brisc_Rubal. I watched your meta show the other day and you were talking about the possible outcomes of this. One thing I thought which didn’t seem to be mentioned is that by having sec status matter gankers have to choose their targets more carefully as there’s now more costs to ganking it terms of sec status effects. Maybe this is part of the aim, to make gankers think twice when they go after unprofitable ganks against newer players.
So how are new players going to learn to play the game?
It’s not profitable for the ganker, so it doesn’t need additional nerfs.
At some point, new players have to learn how to play the game, and avoid someone trying to kill them. So if not in a Highsec venture, then when and where?
Oh. I thought the devs were also involved in the design. Are they then just executors, worker bees?
I don’t know, players’ gratitude? That can go a long way after so many unpopular changes. A sense that the teams work towards players satisfaction and not just on the money-making side of the equation?
I boubt that a simple thread from someone up high confirming and giving some details on what could be and what may not be would be so expensive. Even a thead that adds detail or removes rumors from circulation, one that reserves the right to walk back on certain announcements and changes can’t be that much of an expense.
Well, whoever is qualified to start such a thread would do the community a great service so that at least threads like these may have value.
Aren’t CSM players representatives? Where are they on this? Why aren’t they asking the questions to that marketing team? Why do they stand on the sidelines?
Then why talk if their tongues are tied? And if they’re under NDA then they’re not really players’ representatives but some kind of Patrician spectators watching gladiatorial games without the power to grant life or death to the vanquished.
They of course give a feedback over the implementation to the game designer. Being a good dev requires to have communication skills, but they have their talk about the implementation, not the design.
For example if Musks says “I want twitter to be 20 times faster” (which is obviously an easy task for him) then devs can tell him why it’s not possible, unless they reduce security, or change the architecture, or change appearance, etc. And then he can fire them because he does not want to be told he’s wrong ^^ .
So yes devs have no right to talk about game design choices, but of course they can make a bad implementation that will be rejected by QA team and say “it’s the design that is bad” (and a good dev can make it believable) so you know things are never that simple. That’s why a good team has the designer always talk with lead dev before making any choice. Or another consulting dev (typically senior) and sometimes there are several because the project uses many technologies
In politics, you just need to make a good thing once to overwrite the bad things you did 100 times. No need to do it consistently. But better than me, a dev could give his opinion, which may very well be far from mine.
The thing is, just because for you there is a benefit to it, does not mean there is one for them.
You don’t make thread unless you are given the right to. And when you are given the right to, you need to follow a protocol, including review by other devs, which can take hours of your work and require you to meet at a time altogether, which can be difficult when you have a lot of work. What’s more, adding more meetings may actually discourage the devs from doing another work in that same time frame because switching work focus is expensive when yours is very complex.
What seems simple to you, may actually be an administrative nightmare. In doubt, use the KISS principle : keep it stupid simple. What is not mandatory is not even thought of.
Just so you know, I totally agree. It would be great for us, as a player base.
They are here for consulting. CCP may or may not ask for their opinion. May or may not listen to it, and may or may not give them pointers on the future design.
The best you could do, is ask eg @Brisc_Rubal if he can tell us about this.
Please no personal attacks. Silence is often the mark of the wise.
Another question is : will they be able to use filaments if they can’t set their safety to orange ?
Soooo if there would be no carebears, who would you shoot/ collect tears? CCP is doing you a favor! bringing more content for you just don’t be lazy and find a way around.
Adapt or die.
What killed echoes was insurance
They always did a better job than player GANKERS, and with he bonus of no ■■■■ talk in local and entitlement
Wrong, alpha catalist still puts a punch. If you soloing a covetor, fine if it’s a proc or Indy tanked ship, call more friends
Moar tears!!!
Both do .
Then their goal is complete and you lost, by just giving up cause a patch made you cry. Try a way around, keep your fleet in a safe or bouncing instead of the there’d while watching Netflix
Ok, I have a simplistic view of all that. Never been behind the scenes of a game in development. That would be interesting.
But benefits to players is benefits to the company. If the players are happy they will play more and spend more… unless I’m totally naive about that.
Sounds like a whole program. I understand why it costs money now.
Mysteries… I love a good mystery.
It’s not an attack. The way he went at me like I did something wrong to his whole clan was bizarre and uncalled for so I’m genuinely thinking there is something wrong with his head. I just guessed it’s schizophrenia but it could be generalized bipolarity, paranoia… who knows. It’s his problem and he tried to make it mine.
“But if I claim to be a wise man
It surely means that I don’t know”
I’m not wise but I do know when to ignore a mental patient.
It appears “new” players and their white knights instead are learning to metagame and get rid of granking hazards that way by filling CCP’s ears with their flood of tears and whining. And apparently it seems to be working at least up to some extent as we can see.
Oh hello, sir.
Thanks for chirping in. Glad you’re involved as CSM.
I know you can’t say much so I won’t make you uncomfortable with questions you cannot answer.
Glad the discussion is ongoing.
Thanks for replying.
And apparently it seems to be working at least up to some extent as we can see. 