These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Seeing lot's of Dev activity here any chance we could get

First post
Author
Skex Relbore
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-09-06 15:07:58 UTC
An acknowledgement of the nerf to the in game fitting management tool? Specifically on the stupidly small 50 saved fitting limit (this is ridiculously small given the number of ships in existence and the need for multiple fits for different purposes).

I understand that the ability to save fittings server-side seemed like a good idea and it would be if the saved fitting limit wasn't so low, as it stands now we're actually worse off than we were before. There was actually a fairly straight forward work around that only had to be done once if you moved to a new PC in order to access your saved fittings now there is absolutely no way to restore the lost functionality from the end users side. Having to save them in an outside tool and then recreate the fits manually completely undermines the use of the tool.

Also could we get the functionality to install RIGS restored?

Ballz Diesel
Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing
Renaissance Federation
#2 - 2011-09-06 15:10:58 UTC
Don't worry. They are going to sell you extra saved fittings later. Save up that Aurum!
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#3 - 2011-09-06 15:11:46 UTC
What's this about rigs now?

The Drake is a Lie

Skex Relbore
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-09-06 17:44:11 UTC
Before the "upgrade" to server-side storage the in game fitting management tool would fit rigs as well. So, assuming you had all the stuff in your inventory all you had to do was assemble ship, make active go to the fitting tool pick the fit you want, then click fit, at that point you just grouped your guns and added ammo and charges and you were ready to go.

Now you have to manually hunt down and add rigs one at a time, just seemed like a pointless change. Then again the whole change was kind of pointless particularly when it took away functionality, I mean seriously all the data this game tracks and it can spare a little extra storage for say a more reasonable number of saved fittings or even unlimited after all it's not like huge bloated picture files here.

Kerppe Krulli
Doomheim
#5 - 2011-09-07 13:08:08 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
Before the "upgrade" to server-side storage the in game fitting management tool would fit rigs as well. So, assuming you had all the stuff in your inventory all you had to do was assemble ship, make active go to the fitting tool pick the fit you want, then click fit, at that point you just grouped your guns and added ammo and charges and you were ready to go.

Now you have to manually hunt down and add rigs one at a time, just seemed like a pointless change. Then again the whole change was kind of pointless particularly when it took away functionality, I mean seriously all the data this game tracks and it can spare a little extra storage for say a more reasonable number of saved fittings or even unlimited after all it's not like huge bloated picture files here.



If you've read the leaked memos and such you would know CCP has addressed this point. They truly plan to sell you back the functionality they took away.

The logic is this: They need to make extra money with micro transactions to replace the falling subscription numbers. They can't increase the sub price anymore so they have to use an alternative route. Apparently not many are willing to pay for clothes for barbie dolls locked away in the closet of captain's quarters so they had to find another item players would pay for.

The easiest to code is ship fittings, just change the database variable limit on ship fitting from 100 to 50. Now suddenly CCP creates a demand for moar ship fittings and forum request pile on. CCP being the company that just 'cares' about you will respond and give you the ability to get those fitting slots.....and it will only cost you 5,000 AUR or $200 for those extra 20 slots (see what I did there, you will chew through those 20 and want another 20). The fitting limit is the same for corps or personal so corps will need to pay AUR as well to get the fitting slots they need too.

Now if 1 person buys the fitting slot CCP has remade the revenue missing from 2-3 subs. They can then take that revenue and burn it in the barrel of Dust or Sparkly Vampire Online.

What? You thought they would spend it on EVE development since the money came from eve players? LolLol
Aethlyn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2011-09-07 13:41:17 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
Before the "upgrade" to server-side storage the in game fitting management tool would fit rigs as well. So, assuming you had all the stuff in your inventory all you had to do was assemble ship, make active go to the fitting tool pick the fit you want, then click fit, at that point you just grouped your guns and added ammo and charges and you were ready to go.

It's not just positive/negative (depending on your side). Honestly I was actually annoyed by the rigs being stored there: Every time I wanted to do a quick switch from missioning to exploring (to name an example) I had to click away that notice caused by the rigs and sometimes this even caused the equipping process to stop. And using a non-rigged ship or the import/export feature to get fittings without rigs? No, I prefer the new way (actually I didn't even notice that change but it's a nice change IMO).

Another thing to note: Do you really need more than 50 fittings in your list? I don't think you have to switch fittings that often. And if you'd like to archive fittings, how about exporting them and importing them when needed?

Looking for more thoughts? Follow me on Twitter.

CCP Prism X
C C P
C C P Alliance
#7 - 2011-09-07 13:50:56 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Prism X
Out of interest, what cap would be acceptable. There has to be a cap or people will never bother with cleaning up the fittings they never use and nobody likes having useless data in our DB if we can avoid it.

I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and:
Out of ~310k characters only ~102k have more than 10 fittings saved or a little less than a third of all people using fittings.
Looking at the rest of the gap there are ~58k characters with twenty or more fittings saved, 37k with thirty or more, ~23k with forty and a little less than 8k pilots are already on the limit of fifty.

On the corporation side (Max of 100 fittings) we have a total of ~35k corporations saving their fittings.
~11k of those have more than ten fittings, ~6k with more than twenty, ~4k with more than thirty, ~3K with more than forty and moving to ~1.5K, then ~500, ~250, ~150, ~100 and then finally ~35 with all 100 slots filled.

So seeing as corporations must have fittings for all the different operations they are in as well as probably some baseline skill requirements per operational type and only 35 of those find themselves limited by the current 100 maximum: Would you be happy with that max on characters as well? Without even hinting at a promise of doing anything I can tell you that this change is essentially trivial. However, if you really want to remove personal fittings from the DB and back to the client then you're back in ClientLand. I don't really do ClientLand so I cannot speak to the complexity of that. But I sure don't mind removing your data from the database. I love removing data!

At any rate, just thought I'd pipe in on the discussion as that's what I'm doing these days. Blink
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2011-09-07 13:53:58 UTC
If the fittings would be local, the dB usage would be pretty much 0 bytes / 1000 fittings.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#9 - 2011-09-07 13:54:44 UTC
CCP Prism X wrote:
Out of interest, what cap would be acceptable. There has to be a cap or people will never bother with cleaning up the fittings they never use and nobody likes having useless data in our DB if we can avoid it.

I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and:
Out of ~310k characters only ~102k have more than 10 fittings saved or a little less than a third of all people using fittings.
Looking at the rest of the gap there are ~58k characters with twenty or more fittings saved, 37k with thirty or more, ~23k with forty and a little less than 8k pilots are already on the limit of fifty.

On the corporation side (Max of 100 fittings) we have a total of ~35k corporations saving their fittings.
~11k of those have more than ten fittings, ~6k with more than twenty, ~4k with more than thirty, ~3K with more than forty and moving to ~1.5K, then ~500, ~250, ~150, ~100 and then finally ~35 with all 100 slots filled.

So seeing as corporations must have fittings for all the different operations they are in as well as probably some baseline skill requirements per operational type and only 35 of those find themselves limited by the current 100 maximum: Would you be happy with that max on characters as well? Without even hinting at a promise of doing anything I can tell you that this change is essentially trivial. However, if you really want to remove personal fittings from the DB and back to the client then you're back in ClientLand. I don't really do ClientLand so I cannot speak to the complexity of that. But I sure don't mind removing your data from the database. I love removing data!

At any rate, just thought I'd pipe in on the discussion as that's what I'm doing these days. Blink

100 per char would be a good start. I personally have 30, and am admittedly holding back a bit adding more since I want to save room under the cap.
Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2011-09-07 13:55:26 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
If the fittings would be local, the dB usage would be pretty much 0 bytes / 1000 fittings.

But if the fittings were local, and your comp decides to go on vacation, or you use more than one computer... you're doomed.
Lens Thirring
#11 - 2011-09-07 13:56:18 UTC
CCP Prism X wrote:

I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and:
Out of ~310k characters etc.

This is an interesting number.
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
#12 - 2011-09-07 13:56:30 UTC
CCP Prism X wrote:
Out of interest, what cap would be acceptable. There has to be a cap or people will never bother with cleaning up the fittings they never use and nobody likes having useless data in our DB if we can avoid it.

I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and:
Out of ~310k characters only ~102k have more than 10 fittings saved or a little less than a third of all people using fittings.
Looking at the rest of the gap there are ~58k characters with twenty or more fittings saved, 37k with thirty or more, ~23k with forty and a little less than 8k pilots are already on the limit of fifty.

On the corporation side (Max of 100 fittings) we have a total of ~35k corporations saving their fittings.
~11k of those have more than ten fittings, ~6k with more than twenty, ~4k with more than thirty, ~3K with more than forty and moving to ~1.5K, then ~500, ~250, ~150, ~100 and then finally ~35 with all 100 slots filled.

So seeing as corporations must have fittings for all the different operations they are in as well as probably some baseline skill requirements per operational type and only 35 of those find themselves limited by the current 100 maximum: Would you be happy with that max on characters as well? Without even hinting at a promise of doing anything I can tell you that this change is essentially trivial. However, if you really want to remove personal fittings from the DB and back to the client then you're back in ClientLand. I don't really do ClientLand so I cannot speak to the complexity of that. But I sure don't mind removing your data from the database. I love removing data!

At any rate, just thought I'd pipe in on the discussion as that's what I'm doing these days. Blink


Give us the option back to keep them on our own hard drive, please.

I don't play on more than one machine, can't trust anyone else's PC to be clean of keyloggers and rubbish like that.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#13 - 2011-09-07 13:57:29 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
If the fittings would be local, the dB usage would be pretty much 0 bytes / 1000 fittings.
Optimally, you'd be able to store in both locations — things you want to make sure you have everywhere (and, obviously, corp fittings) go into the cloud; fittings you're just toying around with and/or you will only ever use one computer goes local.

So the question is: how hard would that be — to read and write fittings to two different locations?
CCP Prism X
C C P
C C P Alliance
#14 - 2011-09-07 13:58:09 UTC
Lens Thirring wrote:
This is an interesting number.

Yeah I'd have thought more people would use the "Save Fitting" feature. Ugh
Aethlyn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2011-09-07 13:58:28 UTC
Especially considering your usage stats 100 sounds perfectly fine to me (I'm happy with the 50 anyway, but if some people really want more). Just don't want to miss out any future ideas or features due to those few additional bytes. :)

Looking for more thoughts? Follow me on Twitter.

Lens Thirring
#16 - 2011-09-07 14:01:36 UTC
CCP Prism X wrote:
Lens Thirring wrote:
This is an interesting number.

Yeah I'd have thought more people would use the "Save Fitting" feature. Ugh


I'm referring to the "~310k characters".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#17 - 2011-09-07 14:02:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
CCP Prism X wrote:
Lens Thirring wrote:
This is an interesting number.
Yeah I'd have thought more people would use the "Save Fitting" feature. Ugh
And I think that's kind of the problem: those who use it and make it a part of their regular game interaction will use it a lot; those who don't use it… well, they don't use it.

So one size doesn't really fit all — quite the opposite, you have a classic bath-tub curve with two extremes and very little in the middle — and hard-coding a per-character limit based around some average number becomes something of a disservice for both ends of the spectrum (or… well… perhaps not a disservice at the low-end; more of a non-service).
Tethys Atreides
The Audacity of Huge
#18 - 2011-09-07 14:03:31 UTC
100 remote fittings would be supreme, and, given the numbers you quoted, wouldn't load the server much at all...
Jovan Geldon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2011-09-07 14:06:12 UTC
Lens Thirring wrote:
CCP Prism X wrote:
Lens Thirring wrote:
This is an interesting number.

Yeah I'd have thought more people would use the "Save Fitting" feature. Ugh


I'm referring to the "~310k characters".


Only ~310k characters have at least 1 fitting. That isn't "interesting", at least not in the way you're implying it to be.
KaarBaak
Squirrel Team
#20 - 2011-09-07 14:09:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
If the fittings would be local, the dB usage would be pretty much 0 bytes / 1000 fittings.
Optimally, you'd be able to store in both locations — things you want to make sure you have everywhere (and, obviously, corp fittings) go into the cloud; fittings you're just toying around with and/or you will only ever use one computer goes local.

So the question is: how hard would that be — to read and write fittings to two different locations?


This makes the most sense. If there were a third option...ie "Personal (max 50)" "Corp (max 100)" "Local (max unlimited)"

See how the usage changes with that, then look into adding additonal slots.

I'm a multi-computer user, so I prefer using the server-side storage. But as the quoted post above says, sometimes I'm just looking at fits temporarily or something and would use whatever machine I'm currently on for that.

KB

Dum Spiro Spero

123Next pageLast page