Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The Oceanus Nerf to Beauty

I finished my minutes. I am free! Free to write clever things. Deep, meaningful, clever things.

The problem is, my mind is blank. Maybe tomorrow, when I get over minute fatigue, I'll be better.

For now, I will whine about the Ishtar.

I'm not whining about any of the silly reasons people normally do. Who cares about that? There is a deeper issue. Ishtar are no longer blue.

Behold. This is exhibit one. This is an Ishtar photographed in its corral in six months ago. Note the luscious, rich, dark blue hide. Note the darker, navy accents and the sleek cyan detailing. Exquisite.


On September 30th, 2014, the Eve Online Release Oceanus v8.48 was released. There is a notice about the adjustment of the CreoDron ships to give them back their green tint. The Gallente are well known to enjoy the color green for their spaceships. That is fine but it is not unheard of for a T2 ship to be far away from the base color of its parent. Thus, the Ishtar as I have known it has always been blue.

Until today. One would think that a release named Oceanus would understand a blue blue.


Even if Oceanus is a Titan, come on.... he still liked water so like.. Oceans?

Let me move on.

Exhibit two. The same Ishtar only it seems to have been infected by some type of metallic insectiod color pallet.


The horror.

With this change, Eve has been lost a line of gorgeous blue spaceships. It is a horrific thing and the repercussions are only just starting to be seen. Awful. Just awful.  What an unnecessary nerf to beauty. What a nerf to blue.

What about the blue spaceships? Where is their CSM representation? My plate is full but I am always ready to stand behind a worthy cause. More blue spaceships, CCP! Let not this unjust harm to a primary color go unnoticed. Let not us accept this shimmering green with its yellow accents. Cyan lights are not enough to compensate for this.

Oh no. I will not forget. Do you remember when the Rhea was blue water camo? Well I do. I have not forgotten.


Eve must have blue ships.

28 comments:

  1. Languages were consolidated with Oceanus and only few cried about the loss.
    Shipcolors were consolidated with Oceanus and everyone loses their mind.
    Come on, simply adjust your screen, set your whitebalance to "cold as ice" and you'll find every spaceship being blue.
    If new players can be asked to find chatchannels they don't even know exists, bittervets can be asked to adjust their screens.
    It's not that hard at all.
    Adapt or die, like the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miss your sense of humor much? Apparently that got nerfed in Oceanus as well.

      Delete
    2. Actually instead of adapt or die I've chosen to try to do something as a CSM rep about the language stuff which is why I pointed out that a solution was needed on Sunday.

      That does not stop me from writing other things both serious and silly.

      Delete
  2. Still not over losing orange and grey Navy ships. This might be breaking point :'(

    ReplyDelete
  3. The CreoDron ships were the prettiest. I was training for the Ishtar just for that reason. I hope they don't change my Viator from its sleek grey and bronze in a future patch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Quite a few ships lost their animations today as well... hopefully they fix that new Space Object Factory a bit over the next few days to get everything back to it's proper colors and animating again....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fly a Quafe themed ship (catalyst, for example) - very bright blue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am looking forward to my Quafe mega but I doubt that I will fly it.

      Delete
  6. Of all the problems with Oceanus, [I]this[/I] is the one you decide is worth complaining about?

    Players have some serious issues with Oceanus changes that actually affect gameplay, and the CSMs whine about Gallente ships being painted to look like Gallente ships.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the one In decided to make a silly post about. My CSM posts are tagged with CSM tags. They are posted on Sundays and sometimes during the week but not often. My day in and day out blog is still my blog and I write to amuse myself because I am also a player and a person.

      Delete
    2. Fair enough. Sorry if I came off a bit snarky, but I'm seeing a whole lot of dissatisfaction among the players, and most of the feedback I've seen from CSMs has been largely supportive of the changes in this "expansion." It just feels like the representatives are not on the same page as those they are supposed to represent, and that is what upsets me the most out of all of this.

      I'll wait for your CSM post to see what you have to say on the matter.

      Delete
    3. We are here so which ones? And I'll give you answers.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous,

      Jeesh Anonymous, if you're going to get prickly with Sugar at least get prickly about something. Declaring that Sugar, being a member of the CSM, isn't allowed a moment of whimsical Oceanious observation is a pretty severe restriction (which leads me to ask what you, a fellow human being, are doing about the West African Ebola outbreak - probably not a damn thing you despicable excuse for a person you.)

      I'll also add that though Sugar and I have gotten prickly with each other on occasion we not only displayed the common decency to get prickly about something but also, at minimum, shared the desire to play a beautiful game. So tell me Ebola ignoring Anonymous, why are you opposed to playing a beautiful game?

      Delete
    5. It is fine, Dire. I do not enjoy being growled at but at the same time I am happy for someone to say things to me instead of being unhappy in in silence. This opens discourse and anon, to me, sounded snarky from fustration from perhaps being ignored. The tone changed when anon received a response.

      I hope that anon will share the list of concerns so that I can answer, point out if it is already being adressed by the CSM as a representitive force (such as the langauge issue) or by individual members, or something that has not yet come across my personal plate.

      I will also encourge Anon to flip through my sunday posts. I rarely bring up subjects multiple times. I normally adress it at the start and then when I have a solution or an answer to share. If people wish for comments such as 'no answer to share yet' I can do that as well but that seems futile and fustrating to me. Or, if anon feels that I am not communicating well enough as a CSM member I am open to feedback on improving myself.

      Delete
    6. Ok then, let's start with some of the obvious and big ones. I'll mostly just touch on these, as they've been discussed quite thoroughly in their respective threads (where for the most part, neither dev nor CSM have participated so far) -

      - The module changes have been met with an almost universal dislike - they remove choices and reduce options for players based on fitting requirements, cost, etc. All I've heard from CSM so far on this is either silence or "module tiericide is good". Gamerchick touches on the fundamental issue with this more eloquently than I ever could: http://www.gamerchick.net/2014/09/the-consequences-of-balance.html?showComment=1412017207366#c7081525835048971642

      Adding insult to injury, the naming convention is just bad - it sounds like a poorly done English localization of a Japanese game where no one thought about the actual meaning or implication of the words being used (ample? really?!?). It removes a lot of flavor without really accomplishing the stated goal of giving the names a recognizable meaning, so we give up something enjoyable in exchange for nothing useful.

      Overall, the fact that these changes were announced mere days before they were to go live, with no real opportunity for feedback, testing, or discussion, really reeks of efforts to shut the playerbase out of the process. The whole way this change has been handled has been a terrible example of company-customer communication, and it would be nice to know where our representatives have been during all of this, and what they have to say on the subject.

      - The LML nerf - do we really need more reasons not to use missiles?

      - The Interceptor changes - there's a growing consensus that some of these changes went too far, and the purpose behind some of them aren't understood. What was the goal with these changes? Frankly, some of them don't make a lot of sense (a damage application bonus for a ship using a weapons system that has little trouble in applying damage to most of its potential targets?).

      -You already mentioned the language channel issue, but that seems to be a sore spot for a lot of players whose language-based communities are now falling apart

      There are other issues and annoyances, but from my perspective, those are some of the big ones.

      Delete
    7. HI anon, thank you for listing things out.

      Oceanus was released yesterday. I was still writing minutes from the summit. It may strike you as amusing or not that the last session I wrote involved the module rebalancing. Today I am at work. Sunday I normally post and attempt to reflect upon the week. I am going to try to cram a talk in this weekend.

      CCP started with the modules they are changing beucase they are the first batch instead of wading into guns. The feedback is being read and discussed internally as is the naming convention. I like fun, crazy names as long as you can figure them out. I do not think that a naming convention must also be bland to be regular and understandable.

      The short notice of some dev blogs has been noted and brought up by the CSM as well as the reduced time for feedback before deployment. This was also discussed during the summit. There is and continues to be a push from the CSM to make these things public as soon as possible.

      The LML nerf I will have the fewest words. This is not an area I am strong on. I have not yet spent time as a missile user. I can only ask you to post your feedback so that I may use that to bring your concerns forward.

      The interceptor changes are again a topic disucssed during the Summit. I will seek permission to discuss the reasons behind these changes before the minutes are released.

      The language channel change is a major one. We have brought it forward and seek some type of possible solution. It will also be very sticky to work with becuase it has become an issue of policy.

      I have no problem with you being mad, fustrated, irrtated, or anything else. All I ask you to do is come talk to me about things so that I can answer or tell you, "No, I don't know." Often my answers will be answers not solved problems. Sometimes thou, the problems will also be solved.

      I will still write non-serious posts, however.

      Delete
    8. Sugar,

      I do appreciate you taking the time to touch on these topics, and confirm that they are being addressed. I eagerly await any results of those discussions. I made the mistake of assuming your light-hearted post was an attempt to dismiss the problems that came with Oceanus by ignoring any of the serious issues; I apologize for the misunderstanding.

      I would like to point out in regards to your response to the module changes that the renaming is the least of the issue. The primary concern is that the changes are actually removing choice and options.

      For example, the change to light missile launchers. You mentioned that you don't have much experience with missiles, so you may not be familiar with the various meta options for this module type. I'm practically an exclusive missile user and primarily a frig pilot, so this one hits me deeply. I'll do my best to explain the situation.

      Before Oceanus, there were several options for LMLs. If I wanted the best RoF with decent fitting, of course I'd go for an Arbalest, the meta 4. However, if my fitting was particularly tight (as it often was on frigates), the Malkuth (meta 1) had slightly better CPU usage but a worse RoF. When building a lot of PvP frigates that I expected to lose quickly, cost was often a factor. As the most popular version, the Arbalest was often much more expensive than any of the other meta launchers. For anyone looking to save some ISK, the TE-2100 (meta 3) could usually be had for significantly less than the Arbalest, and it boasted the same RoF (though with a higher fitting cost as a tradeoff). The only really oddball in the group was the Limos (meta 2), which had a RoF worse than the Arbalest but better than the Malkuth, but had fitting requirements worse than all of them. But even that had a place for anyone wanting something better than the basic Light Missile Launcher I (both in terms of RoF and fitting) for dirt cheap.

      Now with Oceanus, there are basically two options: a launcher with reduced fitting, and one with increased DPS (due to capacity increase). Gone is the sliding scale of fitting options weighed against DPS and cost factors that we had before; only the extremes are represented. With the reduced options, some fits will no longer be possible. Depending on how the marked reacts to the reduced variety, it is entirely likely that the now available modules will increase in price compared to some of the lower meta items. Without lower cost alternatives, losses become more expensive, which can be a further deterrent to new players, "risk averse" players, and casual players with limited income streams. How is any of this a good thing?

      To top it all off, at this time missiles are the only affected weapon system. Others will retain all of their choices and variety for an unknown time (but at least until the next patch). This puts missile users at a disadvantage for that time period. The balance of the game would have been better served by changing all weapon systems in the same patch, rather than restricting one at a time.

      Adding insult to injury, in forecasting the module changes, one dev had made the comment that no "important" modules were being altered in this pass. Missiles and the players who use them have taken a lot of crap from CCP over the years, and this sort of remark was really uncalled for. It also does nothing to encourage missile pilots that CCP takes their issues seriously, or ever intends to fix the problems that have haunted this weapon system for years.

      (continued below)

      Delete
    9. (continued from above)

      Back to the core topic at hand though, EVE was envisioned and created as a game of player choice. Over time, we've seen choices and options slowly removed. While it did bring many less-frequently flown ships into more regular use, the ship tiericide removed a lot of options by giving specific roles to T1 ships. Previously, T2 ships were supposed to fill specialized roles, while T1 ships were generalists that could be fit in a variety of different ways. After tiericide, there came right and wrong ways to use ships, and options and variety was removed. Previously, when you encountered another ship in space, you wouldn't know how it was fitted, so there was an element of mystery to every fight. Will they close range to brawl? Will they kite? Are they carrying EWAR? Maxed out for damage or tank? Now, as soon as you see a hull, you have a pretty good idea of how they are fit, and how they will fight; there are no more surprises.

      The changes to modules are following the same path and philosophy as ship tiericide, and I feel that is a mistake. Removing player choice with tradeoffs and consequences is never a good thing. At the risk of overusing a phrase, taking options out of the game is most definitely "dumbing down" EVE. On the whole, it makes the game less interesting and less fun.

      While the new module names are annoying, they take a very secondary position to these problems, and I would much prefer to see the question of balance vs. choice take the forefront of the module discussion.

      Again, thank you for taking the time to consider my opinions. I hope this has at least been helpful in some way.

      Delete
    10. Just to trow in my .2 ISK...
      module changes... & module naming conventions

      Module tiericide... well, we're used to the way things are? It is complex and a little hairy granted, but so what? So is RL right? and isn't EVE supposed to be a Virtual Life... and therefor mebbe a little hairy too? Tweaking here and there I get, same ad ships... but simplifying for the sake of 'just simplifying'... no, doesn't FEEL right to me.

      And I am absolutely in disagreement with CCP on changing the naming conventions. Look at the RW... so many choices! So many different names for the same things based on Brand and Advertising...

      If New Eden is populated by billions, if not trillions of folks... don't they also advertise and try to build a Brand Name? I mean what else is "Quafe"if not a Brand name??

      I always thought of the meta names of stuff as just this in New Eden... and I liked it. I don't live in a real world where EVERY PRODUCT name makes sense and is 'logical' andwhere ther is only one of each type or whatever... and I would very very muchly like my virtual life to continue to mirror this RW "feel"...

      Immersion, for lack of a better term... is good.
      Simplicity for the sheer sake of simplicity is... well, not.

      Delete
  7. To the pitchforks and torches time for Jita to burn \o/| !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I need to shop in Jita for my markets.

      Delete
  8. @DireNecessity
    After the release of an expansion that has generated a lot of discussion, I was expecting CSM members to weigh in on the various topics. When a CSM member puts up a blog post with the expansion name in the title, I just assumed that was her take on it, and that this was the only part of the expansion she had a problem with. I misunderstood the intent, and based on that overreacted.

    As to your assertions, about Ebola specifically, no I'm not doing anything. I am however participating in a project to reduce the use of contaminated water sources in several African nations and thereby help lower the annual death toll due to preventable waterborne infectious organisms in those countries. So what are you doing about the spread of disease in third-world countries?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous,
      Well you’re halfway to understanding my point. To put it another way, your initial post more or less said, “I see you’re talking about Y. What’s the matter with you? Why aren’t you talking about X?” I then deployed my own, over the top version of the trick, “I see you’re talking about Oceanus. What’s the matter with you? Why aren’t you doing something about Ebola?” Sadly, you fell for your own rhetorical trick wheeling around to defend your moral high ground while questioning mine. As I have no wish to play such games (in fact, criticizing them was precisely the purpose of my post), I choose to not participate in the thread hijacking question of Third-World disease prevention.

      We’re all fortunate that Sugar is patient with us and I believe she finds profit in that patience since it creates space for her to tease out player opinion much as she’s done with you above. Me, I just get grumpy which helps to explain why Sugar Kyle is an internet space politician and DireNecessity is not.

      @Sugar,
      Since it appears this thread is turning into a general discussion of Oceanus I’ll hand over my particular concern:
      https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5065257#post5065257

      You’ll note I’m not pointing at my original comment but rather at what a few other players did with it. What developed strikes me as a really promising way to halt the weird competition that currently exists between manufacturers (especially tech 1) and mission runners/ratters to the mutual benefit of both. I think it worth a look/see.

      Delete
    2. @DireNecessity

      Actually, my point was more of "be careful when you go tossing around hyperbole; you might just hit yourself in the face." I recognized your comment was intended as "over the top," but you made it while knowing absolutely nothing about me. Ironically, you just happened to make the comment to someone who could actually address it seriously. The chances of that were pretty small, but it's the risk you run when you try making such ridiculous comparisons.

      More to the point though, your exaggeration was way of the mark. Sugar posted about Oceanus, I specifically addressed Oceanus, so there was a direct correlation between the two. Yes, I misunderstood her attempt at a bit of humor as an attempt to laugh off and dismiss all of the complaints players have made about this patch. I made an assumption, and was wrong, and probably ended up looking a bit foolish for it. I'm actually glad I was wrong, and am grateful that Sugar has taken the time to at least briefly address some of the issues here.

      You also made an assumption about me; that I would have no involvement in fighting diseases in Africa. You assumed that someone playing a computer game must not be spending any time in these sorts of pursuits. You used that assumption to craft your bit of hyperbole in an attempt to ridicule my comments. Your assumption was also wrong, and frankly, you ended up looking foolish for it as well.

      I was not defending any moral high ground, but simply turning your little "trick" back on you. You brought the subject up, I'm sure never expecting any real answer, and that was your mistake. You made an accusation, albeit an over the top one intended to illustrate a exaggerated disparity in topics; I merely pointed out how ridiculous your comparison actually was. My question to you was never intended to be any more serious than yours was; the fact that you seem to have taken it as questioning your 'moral high ground" would indicate that if anyone here has fallen for anything, it is you.

      Delete
  9. I knew something looked different about my Helios too...... same metal eating bacteria.. :)

    ReplyDelete