These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Odyssey 1.1 now on Singularity - general feedback thread

First post
Author
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#21 - 2013-08-13 11:55:28 UTC
we need a dedicated section of team super friends new custom formations on the probing, it looks good so far but theres some aspects that need tweaking and some confusion on anchor points for probes that need clarification.

plz ask sum1 from Team SuperFriends to make a stickied thread for this in either Test server sub forum or F&I sub forum.

thankoooooo! <3
uyguhb
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2013-08-13 12:03:27 UTC  |  Edited by: uyguhb
oops posted in the wrong thread

So i noticed some things about the new drone stuff that could really use some changes.

When dragging drones from "drones in bay" folder to "drones in local space" they need to be dragged to the actual "drones in local space" folder, so my question would be is there any way it can be changed so they can be dragged to the empty space below the "drones in local space" folder itself as well ?

Also when dragging drones from "drones in local space" to "drones in bay" is there any way to make it so they can be dragged onto any space below "drones in bay" without placing them in whatever folder the cursor is on?

I think most people would find quick drag and drops to deploy and recall drones to be more useful than recalling and organizing your drones in space into a folder in one click. because right now, 1 wrong click and ya just recalled and placed drones into to the wrong folder, good luck finding and reorganizing those little buggers in the heat of battle once dropped into wrong folder when you meant to just recall them.


Also i noticed some serious lag when deploying and recalling drones. could be for everything not just drones. noticed this during the last big patch i was testing. But it was fixed shortly after tranquility release, so i am not terribly worried about.

Still lag is rather detrimental to the testing process. Would love you long time if it was sorted before hitting tranquility :)

edit : so after more testing holy lag batman.. Maybe i will leave the testing to those with more patience than myself, spent more time waiting for windows to load than i did testing stuff.


keep up the good work ladies and gentleman. 07
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#23 - 2013-08-13 12:55:24 UTC
Xurr wrote:
I'd love to hear about the process where you determined the bestower required 10 too many units of isogen.


I'd like to understand the argument as to why CCP have determined that for all the ships they have 'rebalanced' with massive amounts of 'extra materials' that are immune to ME research. It is now next to pointless to do any ME research on a LOT of bpo's.

Also, why adjust the cost of some ships by 10-12 units of a single mineral. Seems next to useless, other than to mess with the industrial base because now they'll have to buy more things to build what they've been building for years.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#24 - 2013-08-13 12:57:41 UTC
uyguhb wrote:


Still lag is rather detrimental to the testing process. Would love you long time if it was sorted before hitting tranquility :)

edit : so after more testing holy lag batman.. Maybe i will leave the testing to those with more patience than myself, spent more time waiting for windows to load than i did testing stuff.

I've spent more time waiting for the client to come back from locking up ("not responding") than anything else...

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

CCP Paradox
#25 - 2013-08-13 13:00:49 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
we need a dedicated section of team super friends new custom formations on the probing, it looks good so far but theres some aspects that need tweaking and some confusion on anchor points for probes that need clarification.

plz ask sum1 from Team SuperFriends to make a stickied thread for this in either Test server sub forum or F&I sub forum.

thankoooooo! <3


We're actually working on a dev blog which should be out pretty shortly. We're still reading feedback in this thread, so dump it on us.

CCP Paradox | EVE QA | Team Phenomenon

Space Magician

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#26 - 2013-08-13 13:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
CCP Paradox wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
we need a dedicated section of team super friends new custom formations on the probing, it looks good so far but theres some aspects that need tweaking and some confusion on anchor points for probes that need clarification.

plz ask sum1 from Team SuperFriends to make a stickied thread for this in either Test server sub forum or F&I sub forum.

thankoooooo! <3


We're actually working on a dev blog which should be out pretty shortly. We're still reading feedback in this thread, so dump it on us.


alrighty!

one of the most requested combat based custom formations people are looking for is the 4 probe spread that allows us to probe 2 different places, im glad its possible to make that formation now and save it for later use.

As far as i can tell the resizing anchor points work well and resize both the position and range of the probes well. However one aspect of the custom formations that will become a pain point is getting custom formations to be accurate to not create inconsistencies when changing from large 32AU spreads to 0.5AU spreads.

the way probes appear in the system map screen is the problem. they for the most part appear there in a pre-formed formation as opposed to their 'actual' location in space at the time.

1) So, when setting up a new formation we have to re-collect the probes into 1 place in the system map screen and arrange the probes from there, which can become messy unless u do it from the most zoomed in shortest range perspective, which is less than convenient.

2) the other pain point is that when applying a custom formation, said formation tends to place the probes in the location in system where the custom formation was made, which can be wildly off axis or on the other side of the system to your current location.

both these issues are to do with anchor points.

When launching probes initially we need the probes to be positioned on the system map screen where they currently are, not only for quick orientation but also for a more accurate starting point for custom formations.

Secondly we need the custom formations to anchor initially to the location where the probes were launched, so that when we open the system map screen we dont have to go hunting for phantom probe locations in the heat of the moment.



last bit is more of a want, but would add so much flexibility and functionality.

allow probes to be grouped in the probe list at the top of the UI window, with the ability to set formations to the group as opposed to the entirety of the probes in space. if this can systematically allow independent control of the movement of these groups of probes (so i can move 1 group of 4 probes without that movement affecting the other group of 4 probes out) that would be the Pièce de résistance

thanks for all your continued hard work! <3
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-08-13 16:17:31 UTC
Could you subgroup the specialty haulers. There are 5 hauling ships under the Gallente category, 2 general haulers, 3 specialty haulers. Could a category under gallente industrial (and minmatar industrial) be put in, saying (specialized haulers).

It would be confusing for people to figure out which ship of the 5 gallente ships a person wants without just memorizing their names.

Yaay!!!!

CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
#28 - 2013-08-13 16:56:22 UTC
Short update: The lag issues on Singularity are resolved for now.

CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five 0 | (Team Gridlock)

Bug reporting | Mass Testing

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2013-08-13 17:58:39 UTC
I'm excited to get in there

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#30 - 2013-08-13 18:56:49 UTC
Are the new Marauder looks out yet? New Paladin model? Golem?

Katrina Oniseki

Shinzhi Xadi
Doomheim
#31 - 2013-08-13 19:49:20 UTC
No, they aren't on SiSi yet.

Mac Pro dual 6-core Xeon 3.06ghz, 24gig ecc ram, EVGA GTX 680 Mac Edition, Intel SSD, OS X Yosemite and Windows 8.1 Pro.

Sable Blitzmann
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2013-08-13 23:47:12 UTC
For the new Navy Mindlinks, were they added to ALL racial FW stores?
Allandri
Liandri Industrial
Liandri Covenant
#33 - 2013-08-14 07:59:40 UTC
Panhead4411 wrote:
Xurr wrote:
I'd love to hear about the process where you determined the bestower required 10 too many units of isogen.


I'd like to understand the argument as to why CCP have determined that for all the ships they have 'rebalanced' with massive amounts of 'extra materials' that are immune to ME research. It is now next to pointless to do any ME research on a LOT of bpo's.

Also, why adjust the cost of some ships by 10-12 units of a single mineral. Seems next to useless, other than to mess with the industrial base because now they'll have to buy more things to build what they've been building for years.


Short end of the stick is that they wanted to prevent people from buying up all the stock prior to hitting TQ and then reprocessing all items for a profit years down the line
Allandri
Liandri Industrial
Liandri Covenant
#34 - 2013-08-14 08:00:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Allandri
.
Ben Fenix
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#35 - 2013-08-14 10:56:04 UTC
Regarding the new arrangement of information in the information window:

The attributes-tab:

STRUCTURE

  • Structure Hitpoints
  • Capacity
  • Mass
  • Volume
  • Inertia Modifier
  • EM dmg resistance
  • Explosive dmg resistance
  • Kinetic dmg resistance
  • Thermal dmg resistance


ARMOR

  • Armor Hitpoints
  • Em Armor Damage Resistance
  • Explosive Armor Damage Resistance
  • Kinetic Armor Damage Resistance
  • Thermal Armor Damage Resistance



SHIELD

  • Shield Capacity



Just half the work has been done. Shield Resistances are sorted under STRUCTURE instead of SHIELD. Resistances named differently.
Shield Resistances: "dmg resistance"
Armor Resistances: "Damage Resistances"

Should be given a second look in my opinion.

#Soup

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#36 - 2013-08-14 14:36:28 UTC
Sable Blitzmann wrote:
For the new Navy Mindlinks, were they added to ALL racial FW stores?


They were added to all the FW stores as well as all the LP stores for other corporations belonging to the four major factions. Make sure you have "Show All" selected from the drop down, as you can't technically afford the offer unless you have one of each of the two T2 mindlinks it combines in your hangar.

If you find a store that is missing the navy mindlink offer let me know.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

uyguhb
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2013-08-14 15:12:50 UTC
So is there any chance drones can be deployed by dragging to the empty space within the drone window rather than just the tiny "drones in local space" folder?
Sable Blitzmann
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2013-08-14 17:02:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Sable Blitzmann wrote:
For the new Navy Mindlinks, were they added to ALL racial FW stores?


They were added to all the FW stores as well as all the LP stores for other corporations belonging to the four major factions. Make sure you have "Show All" selected from the drop down, as you can't technically afford the offer unless you have one of each of the two T2 mindlinks it combines in your hangar.

If you find a store that is missing the navy mindlink offer let me know.


Good to know, just needed that information so that it's quick and painless to update my lpDatabase project. =)

Thanks Fozzie!
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
#39 - 2013-08-14 18:41:57 UTC
Ben Fenix wrote:
Regarding the new arrangement of information in the information window:

The attributes-tab:

STRUCTURE

  • Structure Hitpoints
  • Capacity
  • Mass
  • Volume
  • Inertia Modifier
  • EM dmg resistance
  • Explosive dmg resistance
  • Kinetic dmg resistance
  • Thermal dmg resistance


ARMOR

  • Armor Hitpoints
  • Em Armor Damage Resistance
  • Explosive Armor Damage Resistance
  • Kinetic Armor Damage Resistance
  • Thermal Armor Damage Resistance



SHIELD

  • Shield Capacity



Just half the work has been done. Shield Resistances are sorted under STRUCTURE instead of SHIELD. Resistances named differently.
Shield Resistances: "dmg resistance"
Armor Resistances: "Damage Resistances"

Should be given a second look in my opinion.


This part did not change, as far as I can tell. The resistances in the structure category are the structure resistances, but I agree that their name should be improved. Smile
you should be able to find the shield resistances as usual in the shield category.

CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five 0 | (Team Gridlock)

Bug reporting | Mass Testing

Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2013-08-14 18:48:18 UTC
Why can't you just group 4 resistances into 1 field? Info would look way better.