information vs chatter

I read the Ten Ton Hammer interview yesterday with a bit of disgust.  Perhaps it is the lack of concrete information.  Perhaps it is the use of Dev Blogs as marketing.  Perhaps I am sick of saying perhaps?

Yesterday the article said near the end of the interview  this:  “the feature is in development and we’re going to be blogging about it, as well as posting on our forums and and talking about it, as it evolves.” to which I replied via twitter…. “bullshit”.

I wish this is what CCP does but sadly, they do not.  They do not give us facts.  They do not give us concrete information.  They give us theories, ideas, and some small little bit of data, and call that “talking about it”, they talk AROUND it.

The reason I read  these blogs is for actionable facts.  Part of my job a Director in CEPTA is to make sure we are on the right track for members and ourselves to be able to advance in-game.

I am frustrated by the lack of information that I can actually use.

I hate chatter, or noise or whatever else you want to call it.

To help me, here are the blogs so far for this year:

[table id=16 /]

For clarifications sake there is some interesting information, and just because I think that it is useless chatter surely won’t mean the same to you.

The frustration part of the this whole thing is that they simply do NOT give us the players any information, we have to figure it out, ask for clarification or search for a hidden piece of information somewhere.

I get very heated and grumpy when someone says we are going to give out information when it is simply a theory or a way of doing things or an idea.

Maybe I am going to the wrong place?

I follow all posts by the Dev’s on the boards

I read all the Dev blogs

I keep my eye  on Massively, Ten Ton Hammer, and others

I read interviews transcripts, and watch recorded interviews.

What am I missing?

Advertisements

~ by Manasiv5 on March 5, 2010.

11 Responses to “information vs chatter”

  1. The stakes are high as if they give information (motherships…) it is harder to change course. Despite that, I agree with your sentiment. I want more info all the time!

    The marketers want to seduce us without forcing the coders into a corner. I bet that produces some serious internal drama at CCP!

  2. The dev blogs are generally all theory, this is what we would like to do, this is what we are thinking, early sounding board kinda thing. The forums are where you need to be, specifically the test server feedback forum.

    http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=channe

    The devs are pretty active at responding to questions and concerns there.

  3. I think the main thing about all of this is the fact that they at least have objectives that we can at least point at and say: Yep you achieved it or you failed. Also the one thing that I'm very excited about is that they are getting the player base involved much earlier in the process on sisi then they have in the past. We will have at least 4-6 months before release to break the new features and explore how they could change things before it goes live. I think that will make this a great expansion especially if the player base gets on sisi and really tries to help them.

    • Oh really 4-6 months eh? Think again… The release is scheduled for June… How is that 4-6 months?

      Yes the have a plan, but they do not share it, yes they have features, they do not share them either, yes they have a theory or a vision that they DO share…They do many things well, sharing info with the player base is something they could improve

  4. Thanks all I think you have certainly hit on some salient points. I agree that there may not be much info to give. I also agree that the sprints cloud the issues. Yes CCP does do it better than anyone else. I think my frustration with the lack of information runs in cycles of mass releases of "information".

    Even though this came out as a big Wahh wahhh I want more info, that wasn't what I intended…I guess I could be satisfied with less "fluff" as someone put it, and more substance.

    I do think it is a good thing to explain to the players the direction they wish to go, I just wish that direction didn't seem to be going 5 different ways at once, again maybe a problem of their own creation.

    Thanks all very much for chiming in and leaving your opinions, as always I appreciate the time and effort.

  5. I think its a part of the development process – using sprint the Devs cant be 100% sure what will make it over the finishing line and therefore can only comment on what their general direction is. Combine that with a desire to create some marketing hype (which means being as expressive but as vague as possible) and we get Dev blogs that are 98% fluff 2% substance.

    C.

  6. I think there is a lot of things that can be assume from the information that we have.
    One exemple is that you don't have to worry about your current items production, the planets will not interfere. Other is that colaboration will be the key, that means you gonna have to mix materials from lots of diferents planets to build something. Even another, the more rare the planet, more valuble it will be, keep an eye in plasma planets, not sure, but I think there is none in empire.
    Most likely big 0.0 alliances will be incapable of explore all the planets in their space, so if this expansion came couple with a new treaty sistem that CSM is working on to convince CCP develop, a new door for small alliances get into 0.0, witch means more people for you to shoot. 🙂

  7. I can see your point and it can be very frustrating at times. But I also think CCP is caught between a rock and a hard place, trying to give us ravenous fans some information about a process they haven't even decided on the details of yet, and trying to keep the devs happy all at the same time. If they let something leak that doesn't make it into the final product (and we've seen that happen before) then they disappoint everyone. Honestly I don't know what the solution is, but I think they TRY to be all things to all people. They are more successful at that than many other game developers, but they certainly aren't perfect.

  8. I think the interview at 10tonhammer had lots of indications of what direction they were taking the planetary interaction feature:
    – no direct combat yet
    – all planets including WH space ones
    – generates resources, possibly NPC items currently seeded
    – can't be blocked from any planet but more people means less resources
    – new skills required, low barrier of entry but higher skills means more out of it
    – can't exploit planets in someone else's sov space

    This is information, useful information for people doing rough planning. I agree that its no good for detailed planning but perhaps the issue is that you want specifications and not information?

    I do agree that some Dev blogs are useless chatter, and that more information would be nice. But they are in development and have been burned by saying too much in the past and then having obsessive compulsive player base rail against them for not delivering.

    IN other words, the player base gets the dev blogs it deserves. *shrugs*

  9. I think the issue is there is little real information to give. I have read excerpts from the Ten Ton Hammer interview and it appears that even the version to be put on Singularity in a week or so will be extremely rudimentary. How is CCP going to let us know, if it doesn't even know what is going to be in the expansion? Note the comments about a desire of some in CCP to not say anything at all before a release.

    FWIW, my speculation is that since planetary development will not compete with space-based research and industry, perhaps this will be a revival of the long dead trade goods side of the market. This would remove such items from NPC control and put them into the hands of players. I can see no other existing items that fit the bill and that would lend itslef to the whole new skill tree(s) mentioned. Holovid Production V here I come. 🙂 or not…

  10. Y'know, I kind of agree with you but I wonder if it isn't a result of the design philosophies at work in the software world. My new job has me sitting on some standards boards that deal with software issues, and it strikes me that they take the same tone as dev blogs. They talk about theory and architecture visions and such as if they were an actual product, rather than a part of a process to create a product.

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: