Shipwright Archive
Thread: Silly Dev's, Chassis are for cars!
Page 2 of 2
ObiQuixote
Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:11 pm
#14
cars have chassis
ships have hulls
planes have airframes
the question is should it be a airframe or a hull
ships have hulls
planes have airframes
the question is should it be a airframe or a hull
Trebs
Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:07 pm
#15
Actually, I preferred the "Make chassis's require subcomponents so we can apprentice others" whine - heh, esp since I was one of the advocates.
Sadly - this was very short-lived when it was apparent that it wasn't gonna change. 
ObiQuixote
Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:32 pm
#17
I don't care if the devs change it, I'm calling it a hull.
Brilyn wrote:
Why the hell are people *still* going on about this, when it's been clearly stated that it's not going to change?
I just think it's a good indicator that they had very little vision while creating a twitch based space sim.
But I guess your right, why do people continually complain about bugs that have been in since ground beta, they obviously aren't going to fix them.
Brilyn
Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:06 pm
#18
< I don't care if the devs change it, I'm calling it a hull. >
*Good* for you.
< I just think it's a good indicator that they had very little vision while creating a twitch based space sim. >
Yeah, stupid devs. I mean, they *so* should have listened to your vastly superior knowledge.
I mean..... Calling it a chassis.... Honestly.... that just ruins the whole game, totally. For everyone. Including the Dancers......
< But I guess your right, why do people continually complain about bugs that have been in since ground beta, they obviously aren't going to fix them. >
No, sorry, have to stop you there, I've reached my 'willing to listen to crap' quota for the day.
A bug is when something is *not* working as intended.
Seeing as the devs intend this, then it's not a bug.
I *know* this is hard to believe when the devs are so obviously stupid, and you obviously know better, but please try.
Because I can be patronising all day, but it does get tedious..... 
ObiQuixote
Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:44 pm
#19
Damn, you sure are getting worked up over this but to clarify,
I don't think the devs are stupid, think they're pretty smart. But I also think SOE has a major quality problem.
The reason the game ships with so many bugs is not because they don't know they're there, not because they're incapable of fixing them, it's because they choose not to fix them. I'm hooked on this game but will never buy another SOE product for this reason. Sooner or later this quality problem will catch up with them.
As for the hull chassis issue I really don't care about it. All the references to space craft with chassis are for unmanned probes and satellites. In which case they are correctly using this definition chassis:
You also seem to be making these two assertions which I disagree with.
1. Only stupid people can make bad games or bad game design.
2. Only smarter people can tell they are bad games or bad game design.
If a rocket blows up on the launch pad I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know something went wrong. It's only helpful in determining what went wrong.
That being said, and game design not being as black and white as rockets exploding or not, the general philosophy of don't point anything out because the devs wont do anything about it isn't helpful. In this particular case it's obviously a low priority issue at best, especially compared to the problems that will most likely pop up in the next few weeks, but if no one points out problems or areas that could be improved the game wont improve.
I don't think the devs are stupid, think they're pretty smart. But I also think SOE has a major quality problem.
The reason the game ships with so many bugs is not because they don't know they're there, not because they're incapable of fixing them, it's because they choose not to fix them. I'm hooked on this game but will never buy another SOE product for this reason. Sooner or later this quality problem will catch up with them.
As for the hull chassis issue I really don't care about it. All the references to space craft with chassis are for unmanned probes and satellites. In which case they are correctly using this definition chassis:
The framework to which the components of a radio, television, or other electronic equipment are attached.Dev's can call them peacocks for all I care. Never said it was bug, never said it was major issue requiring immediate dev attention, just saying by definition and common usage the term is wrong. The Dev's can do what ever they want with that.
You also seem to be making these two assertions which I disagree with.
1. Only stupid people can make bad games or bad game design.
2. Only smarter people can tell they are bad games or bad game design.
If a rocket blows up on the launch pad I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know something went wrong. It's only helpful in determining what went wrong.
That being said, and game design not being as black and white as rockets exploding or not, the general philosophy of don't point anything out because the devs wont do anything about it isn't helpful. In this particular case it's obviously a low priority issue at best, especially compared to the problems that will most likely pop up in the next few weeks, but if no one points out problems or areas that could be improved the game wont improve.
Message Edited by ObiQuixote on 10-31-2004 08:59 AM
Trebs
Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 am
#20
ObiQuixote wrote:
Damn, you sure are getting worked up over this but to clarify,
I don't think the devs are stupid, think they're pretty smart. But I also think SOE has a major quality problem.
The reason the game ships with so many bugs is not because they don't know they're there, not because they're incapable of fixing them, it's because they choose not to fix them. I'm hooked on this game but will never buy another SOE product for this reason. Sooner or later this quality problem will catch up with them.
<snip of more, that actually was decent, but it's this first part that's most pertinent>
There is also the concept of prioritization and what CAN be accomplished. And (to me) wasting the devs time on an issue that has been hashed and buried already, rather than actual game breaking (or even game affecting) issues is to the detriment of the overall game. In ANY item (whether it be an onlinegame or any other product in this age of the Internet) with this MUCH feedback, decisions are always going to have to be made, and sometimes to the disgust of a large segment of the customer base. You don't like their decision and others agree - but unlike many other discussions around here, this one actually did rise to the top enough to be addressed and as far as I am personally concerned, put to bed. Name your chassis's hulls - go wild, enjoy and create your own content. But personally I truely fail to see this as any aspect of a quality problem at SOE. Note - I am not saying such a problem doesn't exist - all I'm saying is I feel this is a stretch...
Jedialex04
Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:43 am
#21
chassis is the right name the hull would just be the outer ship the chassis is the skeleton of the ship that holds everything together
GraySeven
Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:11 am
#22
Say what you want about this topic but I can give some clear answers here and now:
- Dev's have changed their minds before on "closed" subjects
- No Sci-fi book ever referred to a ship chassis
- Its not a bug, just a poor design decision
- I can waste my time however I want, so stop wasting yours trying to get me to stop pushing this
- Changing "chassis" to "hull" would require very little time and would save the game 3 bits of DB space
- Game immersion problems, while not game-breaking or stopping, still need to be addressed. Feel is important
- I don't care what happened in Beta, I wasn't there for most of it. I am here however, and will continue my crusade.
Brilyn
Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:34 am
#23
< The reason the game ships with so many bugs is not because they don't know they're there, not because they're incapable of fixing them, it's because they choose not to fix them. I'm hooked on this game but will never buy another SOE product for this reason. Sooner or later this quality problem will catch up with them. >
Yes, the reason is that the sales/marketing department determines when things ship.
Same as with every other company in the world.
And, as per usual, it's the Dev-type people who get shouted at.
And no, by the *letter* of what you wrote, you neither called this a bug, nor referred to the Devs as stupid people.
"good indicator that they had very little vision" strongly implies the stupidity part.
"But I guess your right, why do people continually complain about bugs that have been in since ground beta, they obviously aren't going to fix them"
If you're not calling the chassis a bug, please don't make irrelevant points. It obviously confuses the rest of us. Again with the implication.
< but if no one points out problems or areas that could be improved the game wont improve. >
A lot of people don't see this as an area that needs to be improved.
A lot of people do.
The devs appear to be in the former group. Given that they have clearly said so.
You have definitions that back up your side. They have definitions that back up their end.
But we *all* know that definitions win debates, right? /rolleyes
"The main bit of the ship" in this game is defined as the Chassis.
I think 'LightSaber' is a pretty stupid name for a plasma-sword, but I'm not going to waste my, or anyone else's, time lobbying for change.
To people that argue that it's "immersion breaking":
Try immersing yourself in *this* game. Not the other Sci-fi books.
You'll find that it's *only* referred to as 'Chassis' here. Which makes it internally consistant, which is what maintains immersion.
If you are referring to other, non-SWG sources for your definitions, then you are breaking immersion, to seek change because of external definitions.
Page 2 of 2