Test Server Feedback

I feel another unified inventory moment coming on.

Oh look... a feature that removes a current option from the game that has not been asked by the player base to be changed.

At the very least the fleet hanger REQUIRES a private / public tab.

I realise CCP wants to make the whole game accessible via a game pad controller interface.

The vast majority of the EVE player base never gets on the test servers and do not check out the test server feedback threads, this change is going to have a RAGE effect upon the player base that have to manage and access corp hangers on a cap on a routine basis. Super cap pilots are just going to love managing their **** with containers (oh and are these containers going to magically appear ready for use in the afore mentioned super cap hangers from day one of this change?)

How exactly are all of the supers out there going to get freight containers in their fleet hangers? Doesn't this require oh a freighter...to bring them out to a super - might not be an issue for the bigger alliances, generally however people tend to try and avoid low sec with their freighters.

Implement a private / public section on the fleet hanger, give us at least two divisions.


Oh and btw, forget the whole idea and leave it as it is. OR learn from the unified inventory debacle and finish what you are doing before you force it on the rest of us and Soundwave ends up having to post a thread that promises to fix what was not broken before an unwanted change is foisted on us. STOP IT. Put new stuff in the game and stop removing the functionality we have now.

Go stick your containers.

It's clear to anyone reading the thread that the thing that matters most to everyone is granularity of access control within hangars, the suggestions of using containers and such is quite frankly rediculous. You're planning to release something that you full well know the EVE players - your customers - not only do not want, but will be negatively affected by.

As has been said earlier in the thread, the separation of hangar access from corporation roles is a much needed move, nobody's arguing that fact. You really do need to consider taking the feedback on this thread seriously though - nobody wants what you're offering so far. We don't want to mess around with cans, we don't want on/off access for the entire hangar, we want to be able to control access like we can currently, but better.

Being a developer myself I understand the issues around having to deal with legacy code but in this case it sounds like most of the legacy code around hangars is being removed - why isn't this opportunity being taken to provide the players with a system that would actually make their lives easier? Is there a real and honest technical limitation that means you can't provide a better solution than "use cans", or are you just trying to rush a release?

I think I speak for pretty much everyone who's replied to this thread so far in saying that in an ideal world this is what the replacement for the current system would look like:


A "Configure Hangar/Bay" interface where divisions/folders/sub-hangars - whatever you want to call them - can be specified on a per-ship basis. While we're here, why not let the user create as many divisions as they want (within reason), the number shouldn't matter - the ship's overall hangar capacity would govern the total space available. Each division could then be configured independently, to allow fleet/corp/alliance give and take permission.

I obviously don't know anything about how EVE is coded, and forgive me if I'm missing something, but why couldn't it be implemented like this:

1. Player accesses the public hangar on another players ship
2. List of user configured divisions for the ship are pulled from the database, along with their access permissions. Something like this if it was in XML:


Dream World Hangar Permissions wrote:

‹DIVISIONS›
   ‹DIVISION›
      ‹DIVISION_INDEX›0‹/DIVISION_INDEX›
      ‹DIVISION_NAME›Fleet Mods‹/DIVISION_NAME›
      ‹ACCESS_PERMISSIONS› Where 0 = No Access, 1 = Give Access, 2 = Take Access
         ‹FLEET›2‹/FLEET›
         ‹CORPORATION›2‹/CORPORATION›
         ‹ALLIANCE›0‹/ALLIANCE›
      ‹/ACCESS_PERMISSIONS›
   ‹/DIVISION›
   ‹DIVISION›
      ‹DIVISION_INDEX›1‹/DIVISION_INDEX›
      ‹DIVISION_NAME›Sekret Stuff‹/DIVISION_NAME›
      ‹ACCESS_PERMISSIONS›
         ‹FLEET›0‹/FLEET›
         ‹CORPORATION›0‹/CORPORATION›
         ‹ALLIANCE›0‹/ALLIANCE›
      ‹/ACCESS_PERMISSIONS›
   ‹/DIVISION›
‹/DIVISIONS›




3. For each user configured division, compare the access privileges to the player accessing the hangar's relationship to the ship owner (fleet/corp/alliance) and apply the relevant UI updates to each division - greying out divisions with no access, not displaying the contents of give only divisions etc.

Just my thoughts on how I'd approach the issue from a design point of view, surely something like this would be possible with a bit of time and effort. You seem to under estimate how much love you'd get from the player base for listening to them and providing a truely well thought out improvement to the current hangar system. Bonus points if you could implement something like the above on a per-hangar basis in POS's too - perhaps with a "Copy access configuration from (list of hangars in POS)" option too

The fact that these ships are likely going to become more ripe targets than usual is hurting my appetite for purchasing my first Orca.

I don't think that's really the the result CCP wants.

And I certainly am getting sick of hearing about highsec ganking. If a freighter gets ganked, and loses 1.5 billion worth of cargo, and the party responsible for the loss isn't punished sufficiently for it, then there is a problem.

This is empire space. Not Wild Space.

Empire Space carries with it a particular connotation, suggesting that those who operate in HighSec should be comfortable in the knowledge that if they are victimized, that there would be an end-result enforced upon the aggressors involving punishment equivalent to the losses incurred by the victim.

However, this has never happened at all in EVE, and I am not the type that appreciates enabling highsec piracy. I want to be able to mine and haul in peace while I work on my homework, for ****'s sake.

Dude, really???

Empire space is protected by the police force who attend a crime scene when an incident is occuring. If you want to mine safely, (and i'm not taking the quafe here) then join an industrial alliance out in nullsec, preferably one you have researched and protect their tennants assets. In reality, I personally believe that concord/security reflects the police of the real world: The police respond to a crime, sometimes they arrive in time to thwart the criminal but sometimes they arrive too late for the victim.
Luckly they have a high rate of success in bringing justice to the agressors.
on the other hand, null-sec alliances are equivalent to national armed forces: If they can't stop an enemy incursion then everyone is equally humped :D

I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they have different contexts.

Personally speaking though I really can't wait for the new bounty system to tie high, low and null together... Till the CBs QQ and it's nerfed back ;)

If there are modules to scan cargo, why can't there be mods that prevent scanning. Such technology certainly exists in real life, why not in the future.

If you're going to provide players with option A, there had better be a counter. Currently the only counter to the scanner is a corp hanger (so in HighSec - an Orca. If you are removing the counter, there needs to be a replacement option. Heck make it a low slot module so you can either go larger or safer or whatever.

The only down side is that this would probably end up being a nerf to freighters, which can't fit anything.

Or leave the corp hanger with its current lead sensor proof encasement. But do leave an option.

Why do the bad guys get all the options in EVE? Give good players some options too.

Has CCP reverted to their pre-incursion mindset? Devs know best I guess.

When devs are quite they are changing things. I have hope for this release yet.

We must make it loud and Clear.


NO CONTAINERS! DIVISIONS ONLY!

That doesn't work, FYI. Freighter gankers have browser tools that allow them to take a result from a cargo scan, enter it into a text field, and have it parse results from the scan combined with market data dumps to determine the total value of the cargo.

I don't believe, by the way, that the Orca should have had this expansive second cargohold (indeed bigger than its actual cargohold) that's entirely immune to cargo scans. I doubt that was really particularly intended, anyway.





Although I must agree with the outcry against containers to replace divisions. If necessary these changes should be delayed to work on a proper implementation, but removing functionality and replacing it with something significantly inferior is NOT the way to go about this. We went through this with the Unified Inventory, which is something you're still fixing 6 months later.

Repeating as active capital pilot: getting rid of divisions and "configure" is the second worst thing for me in this upcoming expansion.

The worst: scannable hangars.