These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Unified Inventory Changes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Crunchy Crunchy
#1061 - 2012-05-26 12:26:12 UTC
Maybe CCP should support some UI testing on TQ. Beta Clients that still connect on to the live server would give you a larger test base and still be able to segregate the development parts. I understand sisi being used to test game changing elements but a UI change doesnt have to be locked to this.
Maraner
The Executioners
#1062 - 2012-05-26 12:27:11 UTC
Its not the time or the money that is really the issue to be honest, CCP is burning its credibility with it's player base...again.
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1063 - 2012-05-26 12:27:28 UTC
MORE BUGS ::
In addition to this issue, here in another one:
--> If you set a jet can to icon mode, the in-station ships and items (merged) will also inherit the icon mode.

This is an issue of object inheritance. I know you guys want specifics (see above). But you have a fundamental generic problem with object inheritance, and fixing tiny little pieces of that bigger issue will not solve the root cause.

Simply stated (generically) : windows fail to correctly save their states as unique objects should. They also trade states with other unrelated windows, which pushed the limits of the bizarre. Spawning a new window in general is okay, but subsequent user invoked state changes are not saved correctly.

Performance:
a generalized UI degradation of 4X is noted by my testing. I think we all believe this is due to the extra calculations of market stuff, but God knows what you are doing on the back end that is NOT visible at the presentation layer.

If I had to troubleshoot this code, I'd be looking at high level design issues that have max affect downstream. I would not be putting out the million little fires because many of those issues will get solved by repairs at a higher level. Start by reviewing your object inheritance algorithms and see if you can identify why there is so many bizarre little problems.

I am of the opinion that this should be rolled back. The more I test it, the more I find deeply buried flaws manifesting as a million little problems. You seriously need to take this back to Beta, or alpha, as at this point the user community has shredded it and challenge the very design, not just the bugs and problems. And this time, design it with actual human usage in mind.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1064 - 2012-05-26 12:32:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba wrote:
Maybe CCP should support some UI testing on TQ. Beta Clients that still connect on to the live server would give you a larger test base and still be able to segregate the development parts. I understand sisi being used to test game changing elements but a UI change doesnt have to be locked to this.



They got 1 month long feedbacks from Sisi. We told them dont push to TQ this unfinished alpha state inventory because this will increase the playerbase anger.
They dont listen to us. Now, you are the alpha and beta tester in TQ with annoying problems.
Brutal Red
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1065 - 2012-05-26 12:35:25 UTC
Urgg Boolean wrote:
MORE BUGS ::
In addition to this issue, here in another one:
--> If you set a jet can to icon mode, the in-station ships and items (merged) will also inherit the icon mode.

This is an issue of object inheritance. I know you guys want specifics (see above). But you have a fundamental generic problem with object inheritance, and fixing tiny little pieces of that bigger issue will not solve the root cause.

Simply stated (generically) : windows fail to correctly save their states as unique objects should. They also trade states with other unrelated windows, which pushed the limits of the bizarre. Spawning a new window in general is okay, but subsequent user invoked state changes are not saved correctly.

Performance:
a generalized UI degradation of 4X is noted by my testing. I think we all believe this is due to the extra calculations of market stuff, but God knows what you are doing on the back end that is NOT visible at the presentation layer.

If I had to troubleshoot this code, I'd be looking at high level design issues that have max affect downstream. I would not be putting out the million little fires because many of those issues will get solved by repairs at a higher level. Start by reviewing your object inheritance algorithms and see if you can identify why there is so many bizarre little problems.

I am of the opinion that this should be rolled back. The more I test it, the more I find deeply buried flaws manifesting as a million little problems. You seriously need to take this back to Beta, or alpha, as at this point the user community has shredded it and challenge the very design, not just the bugs and problems. And this time, design it with actual human usage in mind.




Can't give you enough like's for this , excellent Smile
Spanking Monkeys
ZC Omega
#1066 - 2012-05-26 13:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Spanking Monkeys
lol you deleted my reply.. so here without the naughty words

ill quote dusk til dawn again

' are you that stupid you dont know you won? '

you won the public relations after the door. just to chuck it all away on a window.
Capsuleer Newton
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1067 - 2012-05-26 13:17:49 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
WE want a clear answer from CCP!!!

This inventory system will be part of the Dust 514 ? This is why they dont want to change it and roll back the old one ?
This inventory system need for console controllers ???

We want a direct answer.


No, Dust will be getting its own inventory system specifically tailored for that game. This revamp was not made for Dust 514.


....and i'm the fairy god mother...TwistedTwistedTwisted
Leocadminone
Gem Concordance
#1068 - 2012-05-26 13:34:32 UTC
Yet another "not thought out MAKE THINGS A PAIN hard to use" change for no bloody reason.

Trying to do inventory management with everything in one window is a ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS.

The whole CONCEPT is stupid - there are far too many times folks NEED to move things between 3 or 4 places, need to SEE HOW MUCH SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN EACH PLACE, or want to make specific size stacks AS they're moving stuff around.

"One Integrated WIndow" does NOT help inventory management in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, it just makes it SLOWER and HARDER.


It's also a LOT harder to "hit a tab" to move items than it is to move items to a WINDOW, and makes it a lot more likely stuff will end up in the WRONG PLACE.


I'm not sure if this is the DUMBEST concept CCP has inflicted on Eve Online - but it's mighty high up in the ranking.


For reference - I don't know of ANY other game that tries to inflict a "unified inventory management system" on their players. Mabey that should be a HINT, CCP, that IT IS A TOTALLY BROKEN BAD CONCEPT.


And no, it's NOT just the cargo window. COnsider folks that use CONTAINERS in their items for item management, consider folks in CORPS that have to deal with delivery and office cargo management AS WELL AS items window management AND cargohold management......


ROLL THIS CRAP BACK OUT. IT IS BROKEN BY CONCEPT, much less by design or implimentation.

The framework IS THE ISSUE. THE FRAMEWORK is a broken concept. DO NOT BOTHER SAVING THE BROKEN FRAMEWORK.
Josef Djugashvilis
#1069 - 2012-05-26 14:01:47 UTC
This is not the first time CCP have badly misjudged an 'improvement'.

They were told repeatedly on SiSi that the new inventory system was not fit for purpose.

For me, this begs the question, is there something about the work culture in CCP that causes them to screw up so often?

Does CCP need new blood at the top?

This is not a signature.
Dragule
Dragule Enterprises
#1070 - 2012-05-26 14:02:36 UTC
How many posts does it take for ccp to realise this UI is total crap.It makes the game so i dont even want to play.You ccp people sure are stubborn to keep this junk UI When all of eve is screaming at you.I know im beating the ccp dead horse but im mad as hell still.Im real close to cancelling 2 accounts and ill bet alot of people are cancelling theres to.What better way to protest when ccp wont listen.
Leocadminone
Gem Concordance
#1071 - 2012-05-26 14:04:28 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:


We have a few performance fixes coming out on Tuesday as well. That should help, especially with towers.



You want to fix the performance?

Roll back the whole broken "framework" and return to the old inventory system that WORKED FOR EVERYONE.


Then start LISTENING to your players that waste THEIR time on SiSi giving you feedback about "THIS IS BROKEN" and DON'T release broken garbage to TQ that.


Oh yeah, we're running into the "we SAY we want to listen to our customers" but then you turn around and DON'T do so.
Dennie Fleetfoot
DUST University
#1072 - 2012-05-26 14:09:42 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Mentet wrote:
Strange how CCP have gone very quiet.



It's the weekend, we won't be able to reply at the same pace as we can during the weekdays.

In general though, I'll happily push changes to the inventory out every single week until we're happy. That's something I don't think we've ever done before, but if that's what it takes to make this good, then so be it.


Tacit admission that the UI is all you'd hoped for I think right there Soundwave. Big smile

CEO Dust University

CPM 1&2 Member

www.twitter.com/DennieFleetfoot
Kblackjack54
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1073 - 2012-05-26 14:56:34 UTC
(Quote): This feature is not what we want it to be, for that you have our apologies and we'll do everything we can to fix it.


CCP.. We have a new feature your really going to like this one.

Player.....No, it's rubbish, impedes game play and reduces efficiency.

CCP..... But you really do want this.

Player.....No, told you it was rubbish on SISI, why did you not listen like you said you would.

CCP...... But our Dev's say you really want this, you really, REALLY want this.

Player.....What part of the word NO do you not understand.

CCP..... But you really do want this, you will soon change your mind.

Player....About the Unified Inventory or playing EVE.???

CCP.. Playing EVE. But you really want this.

Player.. What?



CCP Spitfire, does any of the above sound at all familiar to you or again are you not hearing this also. ???

Keep it simple....Keep it workable....or keep it out of game.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#1074 - 2012-05-26 14:57:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Chokichi Ozuwara
I will repeat this for the 3rd time.

They are going to wait you out. There is no rollback coming. As Soundwave mentioned, they are going to iterate this piece of crap until the players have fatigue from complaining about it, because only a fool would believe they are going to be able to restore the old functionality or anything close with this UI.

It's a fundamentally different system. That fundamental difference is the entire goddamn problem.

If CCP was smart, and they are not, because pushing stuff onto players and waiting them out helps them avoid accountability short term but destroys long term goodwill (goodbye Incarna make good and Crucible credibility) , they would have iterated in minor features into the existing UI until players were comfortable with it.

It's called boiling the frog. It works.

Anyway, I just checked my accounts and they don't expire until the end of the year. I have come to dislike this company, and because of that, I am starting to dislike this game. I can't see myself returning.

But that's not the real cost. CCP lost the dozen or so players I have recruited to the game,and any future recruitment. And I will be sure to tell anyone who asks, what I think of CCP. It's not much good.

These aren't threats or whining. Those are the consequences of ruining my gaming experience and what I can do about it as a paying customer. I am posting this to remind CCP that their game isn't unique. It still has to conform to the standard time immemorial. Make your customers happy as quickly as possible.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Signer Tracker
Villan55
#1075 - 2012-05-26 15:07:04 UTC
This toon is to be sold as I want to leave in peace and use one account this toon has 39,600,000 SP + its still training and if they want to contact me that would be great before time runs out not sure which forum so Sorry if its the wrong one and just post the site here for me thanks all and fly safe... yes skills are still running BearShocked
Signer Tracker
Villan55
#1076 - 2012-05-26 15:09:00 UTC
Kblackjack54 wrote:
(Quote): This feature is not what we want it to be, for that you have our apologies and we'll do everything we can to fix it.


CCP.. We have a new feature your really going to like this one.

Player.....No, it's rubbish, impedes game play and reduces efficiency.

CCP..... But you really do want this.

Player.....No, told you it was rubbish on SISI, why did you not listen like you said you would.

CCP...... But our Dev's say you really want this, you really, REALLY want this.

Player.....What part of the word NO do you not understand.

CCP..... But you really do want this, you will soon change your mind.

Player....About the Unified Inventory or playing EVE.???

CCP.. Playing EVE. But you really want this.

Player.. [ Can it be optional?? ;)



CCP Spitfire, does any of the above sound at all familiar to you or again are you not hearing this also. ???

Keep it simple....Keep it workable....or keep it out of game.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1077 - 2012-05-26 15:23:50 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Gnast wrote:
I did a big logistics run yesterday evening on TQ, and the lag was still there in heaps which put the nail in the coffin for me with regards to industry.


We have a few performance fixes coming out on Tuesday as well. That should help, especially with towers.

Tranq is not test server. Put this junk back to sisi and let us play with something that work. You know what that is.

I'm done with this bullshit.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Lord Loco
LOCO TRUST
#1078 - 2012-05-26 15:31:48 UTC
So, from my side the first account will expire in 8 days. (4 others a few days later)
After this time i will never ever login to eve or subscribe an account.
So roll it back in this time or make it optional. Im not willing to waste my money and time.

.
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1079 - 2012-05-26 15:39:44 UTC
Lord Loco wrote:
So, from my side the first account will expire in 8 days. (4 others a few days later)
After this time i will never ever login to eve or subscribe an account.
So roll it back in this time or make it optional. Im not willing to waste my money and time.


They won't.

See you.

How to Improve Quality Assurance at CCP

Professional Programmer, DBA, Game Developer and Systems Analyst
cenourinha
Doomheim
#1080 - 2012-05-26 15:54:07 UTC
Jebediah MacAhab Dallocort wrote:
Lord Loco wrote:
So, from my side the first account will expire in 8 days. (4 others a few days later)
After this time i will never ever login to eve or subscribe an account.
So roll it back in this time or make it optional. Im not willing to waste my money and time.


They won't.

See you.



And this is why eve will never grow to WoW subscription levels..

And this is why WoW will out last eve...