Gah, I'm tired. Just helped deal with an Agony Empire dick-star last night... By jove! I think I've figured out the current situation with sov warfare. The current sov system is basically recreating trench warfare. At it's finest...
Like others I'm not sure how to fix the issue to make it a more engaging endeavor. But some look at the current situation would probably not be remiss.
1) Trench warfare may be clinically interest but it definitely lacks a certain "fun factor". There are plenty of WWII games out there. How many ground WWI games do you know?... That's a lot isn't it? (your sarcasm meter should need a new fuse now).
2) Fleet engagements are fun, Blockades are not. Plus we've got the issue that we're a game. We can't force people to play 24/7 like the poor saps manning the ships on blockade duty in the real world.
3) Raiding is fun, interesting and useful. But the way things are currently setup the only thing to "raid" are unlucky saps who aren't paying attention to what's going on. The only damage raiding does is minor and indirect.
There are other issues (it's complex) but those are some statements about the current state of the game that I think hold more than just vapor. The problem is sov warfare has degenerated into trench warfare. Now the problem is that the solution to trench warfare (at least on more than the tactical level) turned out to be technological. CCP controls our technology. So until we have something that re-introduces maneuver warfare at the sov level back into the game, we'll be stuck with this simulation of world war I that is the current sovereignty system.
Brain still fuzzy, will work on objectives to get out of this situation later.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Sixty Million SP Man
I hit both Logistics V and 60m SP over the weekend. And much rejoicing was had. So, my skill breakdown looks like the following:
Skill Breakdown
As you can see Science and Spaceship Command take up the brunt of my skill points. With gunnery and missile operations a close 3rd and 4th. I'm still in what I consider to be the "flesh out before getting into capital ships" part of any character development plan. Being a jack of all trades I figure it'll be about a year before I get into capital ships in any big way. I still need to get the Shield transfer and energy transfer skills to 5 before I fly a scimitar in anger. I also need to get up to high sec and get that scimitar hull I've got laying around fit out and ready to rock and roll.
I've also heard rumors that my first post about lack of vision is causing controversy and apparently bitter vet tears over at scrapheap challenge (nope, haven't read it yet). I am amused. That would also explain antithaca's answer to the post. Especially since I had not proposed any specific solutions, just generic objectives to fix up an observed imbalance in the risk reward ratio of certain aspects of industrial operations.
(side note to antithaca: please sink some SP into your blog reading skill to get it beyond level 1)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Slowly getting my PvP on
I'm still having to spend an inordinate amount of time concentrating on ratting and such. And loosing 2 T2 cruisers is not something that you recover from quickly. But on the other hand the isk per night is definitely there and I'm getting there. At this point my objective is to have and maintain a stable of at least 6 PvP BS and various other ships. Once that stable is established we'll see about branching out and doing other things. So for the near future future it looks like running anomalies and what not are going to be the order of the day.
On the other hand, just as I log in last night, we get notification in alliance chat that 3 carriers have just been tackled. So I burn to the staging system, join fleet and comms and then burn 14 jumps to get to the system where the carriers are. While I'm in transit, a Titan and 2 supercarriers jump in to try to save the carriers. Then jump out again as our tackle fails to catch them. Then I finally get in system and help kill the two carriers. Very nice to be part of a successful scramble response. I am pleased my stats are starting to look less carebear like (although being part of the NC obviously that will never go away entirely - but that's fine by me).
Then it was back to he corp home system and make some more isk to be able to afford more battleships and cruisers.
On the other hand, just as I log in last night, we get notification in alliance chat that 3 carriers have just been tackled. So I burn to the staging system, join fleet and comms and then burn 14 jumps to get to the system where the carriers are. While I'm in transit, a Titan and 2 supercarriers jump in to try to save the carriers. Then jump out again as our tackle fails to catch them. Then I finally get in system and help kill the two carriers. Very nice to be part of a successful scramble response. I am pleased my stats are starting to look less carebear like (although being part of the NC obviously that will never go away entirely - but that's fine by me).
Then it was back to he corp home system and make some more isk to be able to afford more battleships and cruisers.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Lacks Vision #1
Call it coming off a break. Call it looking at things from a distance. Call it madness. I am finding that EVE is still like no other game out there. But it's got it's flaws. And warts. And maddening idiosyncrasies. And like most games it ignores some realities of human ingenuity when at war. It also ignores a whole bunch of possibilities and gradations.
This post is part of a series that going to be a look into some of what I see as issues and some possible ideas of ways to implement changes to the game to resolve said issues. Vague semblances of possible plans.
Risk vs Reward.
That right there is one of the major problems with EVE online and the cause of it's population distribution. Specifically it's industrial base in this case. Let me ask you a few questions:
Is manufacturing something in a station safer than at a POS? Then why does it cost less than manufacturing at a POS? When one puts up a POS for any industrial purpose (as opposed to for a tactical or strategic PvP purpose) it represents taking a risk. You need to invest in the infrastructure and you need to invest in defending said infrastructure and there are ongoing fuel costs or it's just an item sink. All of this costs. There are some time savings with POS but in reality that is much less of a consideration than you would think since the time scales are so short and the differences are less than an order of magnitude. Besides for most things the rate of resource extraction is more of a restriction on rate of manufacture than the strict manufacturing time itself. As far as I can tell only super capital construction and T2 ammo are scaled at what feels right-ish time scales.
The point here is that CCP seems to want to have a risk vs reward scale on things. But they fail in a lot of cases to set things up so that riskier stuff has more rewards than safer stuff. And I'm not talking about mission levels either. A Level 4 mission is actually LESS risky to a skilled battleship pilot than a level 1 mission is to a newbie in his first Rifter.
My point here is that a) manufacturing (and researching) in stations is WAY to cheap for the level of safety delivered. The time scales of manufacturing for the most part are too short relative to the materials investment so allow for any change in manufacturing time at the scales that CCP allows to have a significant or even relevant effect.
So, what would I do? Ideally you want some incentive for those carebears to set manufacturing facilities in places that can be attacked. Although I would SERIOUSLY like to totally revise POS ... fuck it while we're on a lets revise things kick let's go all the way.
So lets look at this:
Desired outcome:
1) Industrial work in attackable facilities must either be NECESSARY or CHEAPER than industrial work in stations. This is to provide incentive to industrialist wanting a competitive edge to move out of stations. Stations should primarily be market locations rather than service locations.
2) Attack-able facilities should have as little impact on the physics engine as possible. Look, the current situation where a POS is made up of a whole bunch of separate pieces that are individually anchored in space is bad design. Looks cool, but has a cost since the physics engine must keep track of them all. This can't but help add to lag. This is bad
3) The cost of manufacture needs to go higher. MUCH higher in empire stations. Heck Dr. E was complaining that the new anomalies in 0.0 have caused the balance to tilt too far in the direction of faucets than sinks. Increasing the direct isk sink in empire accomplishes 2 things simultaneously. 1st it provides an isk sink in the one spot where it'll not impact the people directly involved (from the spreadsheet point of view it's simply an increase in cost passed on to the customer). Two it provides incentive for people to get into player corps and put things that PvPers can attack in space.
4) Two the basic station hanger that each pilot gets at each station is currently effectively unlimited in storage space. Provide a minimum. Add extra storage for pilots an ongoing fee. Ditto for docking space. Make it cheaper for corporations to expand storage in stations but charge them as well. Make it cost competitive with exposed storage in space.
The whole idea is to make safe spots more restrictive and more expensive than less safe spots. NOT THE OTHER WAY ARROUND!!! friggen idiots.
So... Let's think about this. How would I change current station/pos/something else design to accomplish this. Hehe, I'm going to save my ideas that for the next post but I'm going to let people think about what we're trying to accomplish here as a thought exercise.
This post is part of a series that going to be a look into some of what I see as issues and some possible ideas of ways to implement changes to the game to resolve said issues. Vague semblances of possible plans.
Risk vs Reward.
That right there is one of the major problems with EVE online and the cause of it's population distribution. Specifically it's industrial base in this case. Let me ask you a few questions:
Is manufacturing something in a station safer than at a POS? Then why does it cost less than manufacturing at a POS? When one puts up a POS for any industrial purpose (as opposed to for a tactical or strategic PvP purpose) it represents taking a risk. You need to invest in the infrastructure and you need to invest in defending said infrastructure and there are ongoing fuel costs or it's just an item sink. All of this costs. There are some time savings with POS but in reality that is much less of a consideration than you would think since the time scales are so short and the differences are less than an order of magnitude. Besides for most things the rate of resource extraction is more of a restriction on rate of manufacture than the strict manufacturing time itself. As far as I can tell only super capital construction and T2 ammo are scaled at what feels right-ish time scales.
The point here is that CCP seems to want to have a risk vs reward scale on things. But they fail in a lot of cases to set things up so that riskier stuff has more rewards than safer stuff. And I'm not talking about mission levels either. A Level 4 mission is actually LESS risky to a skilled battleship pilot than a level 1 mission is to a newbie in his first Rifter.
My point here is that a) manufacturing (and researching) in stations is WAY to cheap for the level of safety delivered. The time scales of manufacturing for the most part are too short relative to the materials investment so allow for any change in manufacturing time at the scales that CCP allows to have a significant or even relevant effect.
So, what would I do? Ideally you want some incentive for those carebears to set manufacturing facilities in places that can be attacked. Although I would SERIOUSLY like to totally revise POS ... fuck it while we're on a lets revise things kick let's go all the way.
So lets look at this:
Desired outcome:
1) Industrial work in attackable facilities must either be NECESSARY or CHEAPER than industrial work in stations. This is to provide incentive to industrialist wanting a competitive edge to move out of stations. Stations should primarily be market locations rather than service locations.
2) Attack-able facilities should have as little impact on the physics engine as possible. Look, the current situation where a POS is made up of a whole bunch of separate pieces that are individually anchored in space is bad design. Looks cool, but has a cost since the physics engine must keep track of them all. This can't but help add to lag. This is bad
3) The cost of manufacture needs to go higher. MUCH higher in empire stations. Heck Dr. E was complaining that the new anomalies in 0.0 have caused the balance to tilt too far in the direction of faucets than sinks. Increasing the direct isk sink in empire accomplishes 2 things simultaneously. 1st it provides an isk sink in the one spot where it'll not impact the people directly involved (from the spreadsheet point of view it's simply an increase in cost passed on to the customer). Two it provides incentive for people to get into player corps and put things that PvPers can attack in space.
4) Two the basic station hanger that each pilot gets at each station is currently effectively unlimited in storage space. Provide a minimum. Add extra storage for pilots an ongoing fee. Ditto for docking space. Make it cheaper for corporations to expand storage in stations but charge them as well. Make it cost competitive with exposed storage in space.
The whole idea is to make safe spots more restrictive and more expensive than less safe spots. NOT THE OTHER WAY ARROUND!!! friggen idiots.
So... Let's think about this. How would I change current station/pos/something else design to accomplish this. Hehe, I'm going to save my ideas that for the next post but I'm going to let people think about what we're trying to accomplish here as a thought exercise.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Manasi's trees
In Manasi's post recently he goes into explaining why he's being bitten by the bitter vet flu that seems to be going around. You know what? I'm going to agree with him about his point of view while still not being disappointed that Incarna is finally coming out.
I will argue that the specific analysis of only 4 new pvp ships introduced since 2007 is a little flawed. There are easily 6-7 functional ship configurations per hull for the 4 strategic cruisers. Minimum. I currently have 3 configured (1 PvE, 1 Recon, 1 PvP) and the utility vs cost is astounding. They are not substantially more expensive than T2 HACs (if you're not faction/officer fitting them they are what? only around twice as expensive). And you can truly fine tune their functionality to what you envision. Manasi mentions that he does not yet have SC unlocked and usable and this may be why he only considers them to be 1 hull, those of us who use them consider them to be an entire ship class like say "T2 Cruisers" in and of themselves.
But on the whole he's correct that the release of new ship types is slow. On the other hand, what functionality ship wise that are not in the current ships would he like to see? I can think of some functionality that is not currently in the mix but what does he want?
Will the T3 frigates introduce new functionality or will it simply new flavors of existing functionality? The current T3 ships only introduced a single new functionality to the eve mix that wasn't there before. The ability to warp out of bubbles. Any other functionality you'd be able to accomplish using other ships in EVE. Prober? cheetah or Recon. Ewar? Specific ships already. Combat? duh, command? got command cruisers for that. So as you can see the only new thing was the ability to warp out of bubbles. Oh and weird combination of other functionality (scout ship with the DPS of a HAC? T3 can deliver, Firepower of a Hurricane with the long range webs of a Huggin? love that ship).
At the end of the day we need some new functionality to hang a new design on otherwise we end up with new ships that are simply different variations on existing ships. So Manasi, what functionality would you like to see that we could hang a new ship design on?
But otherwise yea, I would like to see more ship classes in game if only to give even more things for the indy side to make.
I will argue that the specific analysis of only 4 new pvp ships introduced since 2007 is a little flawed. There are easily 6-7 functional ship configurations per hull for the 4 strategic cruisers. Minimum. I currently have 3 configured (1 PvE, 1 Recon, 1 PvP) and the utility vs cost is astounding. They are not substantially more expensive than T2 HACs (if you're not faction/officer fitting them they are what? only around twice as expensive). And you can truly fine tune their functionality to what you envision. Manasi mentions that he does not yet have SC unlocked and usable and this may be why he only considers them to be 1 hull, those of us who use them consider them to be an entire ship class like say "T2 Cruisers" in and of themselves.
But on the whole he's correct that the release of new ship types is slow. On the other hand, what functionality ship wise that are not in the current ships would he like to see? I can think of some functionality that is not currently in the mix but what does he want?
Will the T3 frigates introduce new functionality or will it simply new flavors of existing functionality? The current T3 ships only introduced a single new functionality to the eve mix that wasn't there before. The ability to warp out of bubbles. Any other functionality you'd be able to accomplish using other ships in EVE. Prober? cheetah or Recon. Ewar? Specific ships already. Combat? duh, command? got command cruisers for that. So as you can see the only new thing was the ability to warp out of bubbles. Oh and weird combination of other functionality (scout ship with the DPS of a HAC? T3 can deliver, Firepower of a Hurricane with the long range webs of a Huggin? love that ship).
At the end of the day we need some new functionality to hang a new design on otherwise we end up with new ships that are simply different variations on existing ships. So Manasi, what functionality would you like to see that we could hang a new ship design on?
But otherwise yea, I would like to see more ship classes in game if only to give even more things for the indy side to make.
TeaDaze's trees
I want to talk some more about the various responses I'm reading on various blogs to the Captain's Quarters, Incarna and the direction CCP is taking EVE. I've decided to write a series of posts regarding these issues.
After reading a bunch of FUD and what not, I'm slowly coming to the feeling that the CSM lacks vision. You're going to ask "WTF are you talking about Let?". This is actually something that CCP itself was complaining about when the CSM started. CCP has adapted to this reality and is using the CSM interaction to guide it's proofing of certain things. But the reality is that MOST EVE players tend to concentrate on issues from a very limited point of view. How can anyone who boasts that they've never put a mining laser in a ship ever have any valid input on various aspects of mining? The truth is they can't because they are only looking at it from a very limited point of view. A lot of the CSM feedback is highly valuable on the nuts and bolts mechanics side of things. Sort of like some strange extension of the QA/Balancing side of things. However I am becoming convinced it is actually less valuable from the point of view of the expansion of the game into new territory or serious re-balancing of existing mechanics.
Let's take TeaDaze's post explaining his reasoning for quitting EVE online. Let's take a good look at what he's saying "ccp promised that we would not be forced to interact with avatars". Umm, unless they promised you something under NDA, I never saw any promise like that I ever read in any publicly available material. I did see a promise about how the new system would not take any more time to accomplish certain things than the current system takes. What does this mean to me? This means the following: Can I dock up, change ships, refit the new ship and undock in the same amount of time under the new system? How to test this out?
First we look at the purpose of the maneuver: To change ships and refit the new ship in anticipation of combat conditions that will be prevalant between the moment one undocks until the next moment one finds oneself docked back up.
Example that covers the current situation:
Now this operation should be functionally identical once Incarna (more specifically the captains quarters part of it) is in place. According to CCP there will be a new mirror made next week so I expect to see the new CQ up on Sisi within a week or two of that (to make it up before Fanfest). Once the CQ is on Sisi we can test this out and see if we get the same results time wise. If not THEN we can say that CCP is not delivering. If the time is close to the same, then we can say that the interface is irrelevant to the functional objective of the procedure. The truth is that the current station environment imposes a certain cpu and interface constraint already. There's a session timer when you get into a station and when you undock. Cosmetically changing the interior from the ship spin to an avatar with a view up to the ship may not change the functionality or time sink at all.
This is why I say "wait for Sisi". Now I can respect TeaDaze's decision to stop playing EVE. I don't have a problem with that. From his point of view EVE was drifting too far from what his vision of what EVE's mechanics should be. But that's a personal analysis and decision. Personally I'm not married to particular mechanics so long as the functionality is there. For that I'm willing to wait. My decision to cut short my break was based on a failure to deliver functionality in another game. Not a failure in mechanics.
You can criticize CPP for breaking the established lore of EVE. Course you have to ask yourself if that lore is there because of the way the game was designed to get around limitations of not having ambulant avatars from day 1. But unless they break the functionality I'm willing to wait and see.
I really get the impression though that Mynxee and TeaDaze specifically are disappointed from the lack of progress in improving low-sec traffic for pirates to go after. I can't say I'm surprised because the current situation (lack of use of lowsec) is a direct result of the ratio between the inexpensiveness of PvP ships vs the lack of defensibility and relative high cost of industrial ships in low sec. Unless CCP is willing to address that issue (and so far none of the proposals address it) low sec piracy will allways be the victim of it's own successes.
After reading a bunch of FUD and what not, I'm slowly coming to the feeling that the CSM lacks vision. You're going to ask "WTF are you talking about Let?". This is actually something that CCP itself was complaining about when the CSM started. CCP has adapted to this reality and is using the CSM interaction to guide it's proofing of certain things. But the reality is that MOST EVE players tend to concentrate on issues from a very limited point of view. How can anyone who boasts that they've never put a mining laser in a ship ever have any valid input on various aspects of mining? The truth is they can't because they are only looking at it from a very limited point of view. A lot of the CSM feedback is highly valuable on the nuts and bolts mechanics side of things. Sort of like some strange extension of the QA/Balancing side of things. However I am becoming convinced it is actually less valuable from the point of view of the expansion of the game into new territory or serious re-balancing of existing mechanics.
Let's take TeaDaze's post explaining his reasoning for quitting EVE online. Let's take a good look at what he's saying "ccp promised that we would not be forced to interact with avatars". Umm, unless they promised you something under NDA, I never saw any promise like that I ever read in any publicly available material. I did see a promise about how the new system would not take any more time to accomplish certain things than the current system takes. What does this mean to me? This means the following: Can I dock up, change ships, refit the new ship and undock in the same amount of time under the new system? How to test this out?
First we look at the purpose of the maneuver: To change ships and refit the new ship in anticipation of combat conditions that will be prevalant between the moment one undocks until the next moment one finds oneself docked back up.
Example that covers the current situation:
- Dock up
- Switch ships
- Strip all modules and cargo from new ship
- Open up fitting tool
- Refit all modules and fill cargo (including fixing up groupings)
- Undock
Now this operation should be functionally identical once Incarna (more specifically the captains quarters part of it) is in place. According to CCP there will be a new mirror made next week so I expect to see the new CQ up on Sisi within a week or two of that (to make it up before Fanfest). Once the CQ is on Sisi we can test this out and see if we get the same results time wise. If not THEN we can say that CCP is not delivering. If the time is close to the same, then we can say that the interface is irrelevant to the functional objective of the procedure. The truth is that the current station environment imposes a certain cpu and interface constraint already. There's a session timer when you get into a station and when you undock. Cosmetically changing the interior from the ship spin to an avatar with a view up to the ship may not change the functionality or time sink at all.
This is why I say "wait for Sisi". Now I can respect TeaDaze's decision to stop playing EVE. I don't have a problem with that. From his point of view EVE was drifting too far from what his vision of what EVE's mechanics should be. But that's a personal analysis and decision. Personally I'm not married to particular mechanics so long as the functionality is there. For that I'm willing to wait. My decision to cut short my break was based on a failure to deliver functionality in another game. Not a failure in mechanics.
You can criticize CPP for breaking the established lore of EVE. Course you have to ask yourself if that lore is there because of the way the game was designed to get around limitations of not having ambulant avatars from day 1. But unless they break the functionality I'm willing to wait and see.
I really get the impression though that Mynxee and TeaDaze specifically are disappointed from the lack of progress in improving low-sec traffic for pirates to go after. I can't say I'm surprised because the current situation (lack of use of lowsec) is a direct result of the ratio between the inexpensiveness of PvP ships vs the lack of defensibility and relative high cost of industrial ships in low sec. Unless CCP is willing to address that issue (and so far none of the proposals address it) low sec piracy will allways be the victim of it's own successes.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Tempest in a teacup - the CQ
Ah, EVE, you are such a controversial game. There are a metric tonne of people weighing in (we're in space so microgravity conditions apply - parse my meaning now you semantic dominatrices) on the issues of the Captains Quarters. From the ecstatic to the horribly, horribly disappointed. Mostly the later. From all the breast beating and corset tearing going on you'd think the death of EVE was coming. Can I have your stuff?
Reality check time people. A few observations:
1) WAIT FOR IT TO HIT SISI YOU IDIOTS. At this point in time there is so much F.U.D. floating around there's no way anyone can get a clear picture of how this will turn out.
2) The EVE mob's passions have been inflamed. This alone tells me things will turn out better than the doomsayers have predicted. The previous times we've had these levels of reaction have been: The "need for speed" adjustment (a.k.a. the nano nerf), The supercarrier nerf (that ended up being a boost). The ECM changes. The "go vote for us" incident (CCP refocuses on lag).
3) The truth of the matter is that for the true attack on lag CCP needs to work on distributing the physics engine of a solar system between multiple nodes. Until that technical hurdle is overcome, we won't see a true attack on lag past incremental improvements here and there. Incidentally the problems they need to resolve to accomplish this is NOT FRIGGEN TRIVIAL! The type of programmers that need to be thrown at this problem however are not the run of the mill programmer. They need to throw some eggheads of the programming world at this problem. Just throwing more bodies won't do it.
4) Growth pains. CCP is well on he way to becoming a larger developer. But they are no where near there yet. They also need to overcome their rapid growth pains. It looks like they are getting there but there is still a ways to go.
5) Think long term people. we will be at the 2003 level in terms of content once the next 2 releases of Incarna happen. Not in terms of quality, but in terms of scope. It took years of development for the space ship side of things to get where it is. Also CCP is THE ONLY major developer that does not charge extra for expansions. Sure you can bitch that they don't put out as much content as WoW does on each expansion but I'd like to point out: a) they don't charge you for the expansion and b) they are 1/10th the size of blizzard.
The above are the major reasons why I think the current hubaloo about a single feature of Incarna is much ado about nothing. Seriously, we're going to get a balcony view instead of an overhead view. We currently have a session change when we dock up, we'll have a session change after incarna comes out when we dock up. So long as you can do all your interaction from the balcony, not much except the decor will have changed as far as functionality goes. We'll see once it hits Sisi. Until then, everyone needs to take a chill pill.
Reality check time people. A few observations:
1) WAIT FOR IT TO HIT SISI YOU IDIOTS. At this point in time there is so much F.U.D. floating around there's no way anyone can get a clear picture of how this will turn out.
2) The EVE mob's passions have been inflamed. This alone tells me things will turn out better than the doomsayers have predicted. The previous times we've had these levels of reaction have been: The "need for speed" adjustment (a.k.a. the nano nerf), The supercarrier nerf (that ended up being a boost). The ECM changes. The "go vote for us" incident (CCP refocuses on lag).
3) The truth of the matter is that for the true attack on lag CCP needs to work on distributing the physics engine of a solar system between multiple nodes. Until that technical hurdle is overcome, we won't see a true attack on lag past incremental improvements here and there. Incidentally the problems they need to resolve to accomplish this is NOT FRIGGEN TRIVIAL! The type of programmers that need to be thrown at this problem however are not the run of the mill programmer. They need to throw some eggheads of the programming world at this problem. Just throwing more bodies won't do it.
4) Growth pains. CCP is well on he way to becoming a larger developer. But they are no where near there yet. They also need to overcome their rapid growth pains. It looks like they are getting there but there is still a ways to go.
5) Think long term people. we will be at the 2003 level in terms of content once the next 2 releases of Incarna happen. Not in terms of quality, but in terms of scope. It took years of development for the space ship side of things to get where it is. Also CCP is THE ONLY major developer that does not charge extra for expansions. Sure you can bitch that they don't put out as much content as WoW does on each expansion but I'd like to point out: a) they don't charge you for the expansion and b) they are 1/10th the size of blizzard.
The above are the major reasons why I think the current hubaloo about a single feature of Incarna is much ado about nothing. Seriously, we're going to get a balcony view instead of an overhead view. We currently have a session change when we dock up, we'll have a session change after incarna comes out when we dock up. So long as you can do all your interaction from the balcony, not much except the decor will have changed as far as functionality goes. We'll see once it hits Sisi. Until then, everyone needs to take a chill pill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
