These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Oceanus Feedback Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marc Durant
#101 - 2014-10-01 07:59:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Marc Durant
The new meta names are pure shite, I don't mind changing them to make it less of a mess but these are terrible. Also the new cloaking mechanism is very crude and the Ishtar looks bad, that colour just isn't right (not because it's different but because it's terrible).

Yes, yes I am. Thanks for noticing.
Strom Crendraven
The H8teful Eight
#102 - 2014-10-01 08:06:44 UTC
Ample should never be used to describe anything other than boobs, ever.
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
#103 - 2014-10-01 08:12:02 UTC
Is it just me or is it a real pain to figure out into what class of system a wormhole leads now with these new visuals.

I don't get, as so often, what was the need to mess that up as well. The nebula around all nice and shiny (but one could tell by the class it leads to what mass it can take anyway) but no point touching the color code for the class it leads to. Just a pain... again.
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#104 - 2014-10-01 08:15:44 UTC
Oh look! Another nerf to w-space income... sleepers now RR like crazy.
You guys really don't want people to play your game do you?Shocked
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#105 - 2014-10-01 08:32:11 UTC
New wormholes look pretty but it seems much harder now to see where they lead to.

Wormhole nebulae... I had only a few minutes to look at them so far, but first impression is that they are too dark and too similar to kspace. I liked the more colorful look in wspace. I was in a c2 and it wasn't even really blue anymore - although it was a Pulsar. But I guess I will get used to it.

.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#106 - 2014-10-01 09:11:14 UTC
Triipod wrote:
Wow, new paint jobs on ishkur / ishtar / sin look like crap!!! Gimme back the Black that was so cool about them...


Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Things I'm not a fan of:
• The cloaking effect when fully engaged. Granted, I'm running an older graphics card - but the cloak basically appears as a fixed grid of "u" shaped squares. It wouldn't be that bad if it actually rotated with the ship, but it appears as a flat texture that's just been applied to a 2D object as opposed to wrapped around a 3D object.


You guys must be running old outdated graphics cards, the new effects and paintjobs look great on my system.
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
#107 - 2014-10-01 09:25:13 UTC
A name is a name. It can be descriptive but doesn't need to be necessarily so. But the way you changed the module names in this update comes down to throwing away the name entirely and replace it with a description.
That's bad, that's really bad!

One of the stronger points of EvE imho is that it tries (and in many aspects manages) to resemble a living and breathing world. Now imagine a world where all cars from all manufacturers were called 'Car, big' or 'Car, fast'. Planet wide.......Sad
The info needed to find out what fits and what not, what you would need and what not, are trivially easy to find in the info screen. Especially since it got greatly improved in the recent past. Not to speak of the very handy easily accessible compare tool!

From past experience I know you very seldom revert a decision to implement this or change that, no matter how bad that decision turns out to be (sometimes even in your own eyes). But please, stop this 'renaming' nonsense. Revert it, make this the exception to your rule.

Please?

Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#108 - 2014-10-01 09:39:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
(Copied from "Dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, One Module At A Time")

The Module Tiericide fails in delivering it's objective of making all modules have a purpose. Why don't we take a step back and just think for a second, what exactly is the role should a T1 manufactured item should fill.

In my opinion, meta 0 items should be the baseline, and then the meta 1-4 modules improve one aspect of the meta 0 item at the cost of another.

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 15
meta 1-4 : "Compact" Rector Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 10
meta 1-4 : "Overcharged" Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

So in the case of the reactor control, the meta 0 is the base, compact offers reduced CPU cost but at the expense of giving less PG boost, and "overcharged" gives a larger PG boost than the meta 0, but at the cost of 5 extra CPU.

The T2 version is just a straight upgrade, although requires higher skills and more expensive components to build.

Again, the same idea could be applied to missile launchers.

meta 0 : Light Missile Launcher I : PG 6, CPU 16, ROF 14.4s, Capacity 40
meta 1-4 : "Compact" Light Missile Launcher : PG 5, CPU 12, ROF 16.0s, Capacity 40
meta 1-4 : "High Capacity" Light Missile Launcher : PG 6, CPU 21, ROF 14.4s, Capacity 48
meta 1-4 : "Rapid Fire" Light Missile Launcher : PG 6, CPU 21, ROF 13.6s, Capacity 40
meta 5 : Light Missile Launcher II : PG 7, CPU 24, ROF 12.8s, Capacity 53

So to put simply, Insert "" with descriptive names, with a Sci-Fi feel to them. Then you use the meta 0 version as the base line module. Then the meta 1-4 modules improve one aspect of the meta 0 item at the cost or additional aspects.
Chris Digitalus
The Pirates Of Orion
#109 - 2014-10-01 09:40:57 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
You guys must be running old outdated graphics cards, the new effects and paintjobs look great on my system.

No. Video card is less than a year old. It may look great to you, but it looks terrible to us.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#110 - 2014-10-01 09:42:44 UTC
Chris Digitalus wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
You guys must be running old outdated graphics cards, the new effects and paintjobs look great on my system.

No. Video card is less than a year old. It may look great to you, but it looks terrible to us.

Fair enough, guess it is personal preference then.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#111 - 2014-10-01 10:34:38 UTC
yet another missile nerf.
Bob Bedala
#112 - 2014-10-01 10:41:20 UTC
MuppetsSlayed wrote:
Instead of doing more useful stuff you have given us:-

A french localized client when the frenchies speak better English that most of the English do.


Casual racism, always hilarious.

MuppetsSlayed wrote:
A cloaking effect that is cosmetic and adds nothing useful.


With some ships it's hard to see which way you are pointing when cloaked and this can kill you, that's why it was added.

MuppetsSlayed wrote:
A general dumbing down of the module naming.


Well, it seems an attack on the learning curve to me. For the benefit of the zillion posters here who don't read skim-read devblogs;

Quote:
The “named module” names that will be used in our Oceanus changes are:

Upgraded- Used for named modules where no specialization is possible
Compact- Used for named modules that specialize in reduced fitting cost
Enduring- Used for named modules that specialize in lower cap use or otherwise longer running time
Ample- Used for named modules that specialize in extra capacity
Scoped- Used for named modules that specialize in longer range
Restrained- Used for named modules that specialize in reduced drawbacks


Impossible to get a set of names that's going to appeal to everyone, or even make sense to everyone, but the alternative is even more bland. It makes more sense to say "Meta 4 TP" than an "Extron" anyway (less ambiguous).

If you are lucky enough to be comfortable with all the named modules in existence then congratulations! But hopefully you can see this is a net-win as losing them is a great help to new pilots who no longer have to look every module up and can instead focus on something fun.

MuppetsSlayed wrote:
you seem to want me to sit in a belt and mine to get minerals instead which actually involves far less warping, locking and pressing F1.


Eve has a really cool "Market" feature, you should check it out.
Bob Bedala
#113 - 2014-10-01 10:52:16 UTC
And for those who didn't see the "Space Object Factory" devblog

Quote:
That said, we have taken the opportunity to retweak some of the red files that have gradually evolved over the years of manual faction and race adjustments. We finally tended to the Gallente CreoDron ships, for one. They are now back to the greenish look they used to have when New Eden was young.


tldr; is, as a move to improve client performance and pave the way for more customisation in the future there has been a reset on CreoDron ships, apparently by design. But if I am reading it right, it indicates that it still leaves to door open to change some back and still benefit from increased efficiency.

I fly space ships not drone ejector units, so I'm afraid I am underwhelmed by the upsetness.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2014-10-01 10:57:46 UTC
Bob Bedala wrote:
Impossible to get a set of names that's going to appeal to everyone, or even make sense to everyone, but the alternative is even more bland. It makes more sense to say "Meta 4 TP" than an "Extron" anyway (less ambiguous).

If you are lucky enough to be comfortable with all the named modules in existence then congratulations! But hopefully you can see this is a net-win as losing them is a great help to new pilots who no longer have to look every module up and can instead focus on something fun.




There is nothing fun about the new names.

The naming of modules should also be "cool" and mature. This is a game aimed at a mature audience.

Also, People, even vets, tend not to know if the module is the best option from the name. They look it up and find out.

The naming system and the route tiercide is taking is actually failing it's primary objective.

T1 modules are a waste of time for fitting to ships and simply become industry items. Why? Because the upgraded version is better in every single way.

Meta modules can't be built by players. This is a long standing complaint. Capsuleers should be able to build everything. People have made very good suggestions on how to achieve this.

The meta modules themselves aren't getting balanced very well either. You need to lose something to gain something and this isn't happening.

The only thing they've gotten right is realising that Deadspace and officer modules can actually be tiered and those worked as a "tiered" module system (C-type, B-type, A-type etc)
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#115 - 2014-10-01 11:00:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessica Duranin
Bob Bedala wrote:
tldr; is, as a move to improve client performance and pave the way for more customisation in the future there has been a reset on CreoDron ships, apparently by design. But if I am reading it right, it indicates that it still leaves to door open to change some back and still benefit from increased efficiency.

Be glad they didn't make them pink like the new w-space nebulae.
Afton Beda
CONSORTIVM MERCATVRA ARMORVM IMPERIALIS
#116 - 2014-10-01 11:21:16 UTC
The cloaking effect mechanism is cool.

However the chosen graphic effect elements are hurting my eyes. It looks like an old digital cam where the digital focus was
maxed out.

Or take any picture and zoom in to pixel level.

Please change it.
Indeo Moth
Last Days of Essence
#117 - 2014-10-01 11:47:56 UTC
CCP, please revert everything back to the way it was before Oceanus and the player base will know you are listening and care.
In my ~4 years of playing the game, I have never seen a patch or expansion so undermine my enjoyment of the game.

The cloaking effect is so painful I have to look away for fear of a seizure, and that is no lie.

Taking away language channels seems like an overt attack on non-english players, does it save you money somehow to shut them down?

The tiericide and especially renaming really subtracts from the immersion and is going to kill so many, most even, saved fits, it makes the game have no point really if all your previous work and tinkering was for nothing. This was bad enough after ship tiericide, give us a break already, I feel ilke a hamster on a wheel basically.

Also, the changes to T2 gun training, drones, 100MW MWD, rigs, anything that makes the game vastly easier for noobs ends up benefiting the isboxer the most, because they can get to 90% effectiveness in 1/2 the time it took the veteran.

I don't really know where you guys are trying to take this game, but in a lot of ways, its not my direction. At some point, these slights will add up and people will quit banging their head against the bulkheads and play something else that makes more sense, and is more rewarding in the long run.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#118 - 2014-10-01 11:50:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Terrorfrodo
This is a wormhole leading from a c4 to a c2:
http://imgur.com/o6LOxge

While I admit that the wormhole looks very nice, it doesn't really look like an actual hole leading to another place, but rather just an object floating in space. The center of the hole looks almost exactly like the background of my c4. It looks like if I enter the wormhole, I will just fly through it and still be in my current system.

Also, it is quite impossible to tell that it leads to a c2, which is the most essential information a wormhole should visually convey. I don't really know yet how these new sphere effects can tell me about the size of the hole, but that is secondary information anyway. The class of the system is far more important, and it needs to be visible at a glance to the trained eye. That is unfortunately no longer the case.

edit: For comparison, this is a c4 to c4 wormhole:
http://imgur.com/zMuAXX1

Even in direct comparison of the pictures, I find it impossible to really tell them apart. Judging a new wormhole in-game, without other wormholes to compare to at that moment... no way. This is a big step backward.

.
St'oto
Hell's Death Squad
#119 - 2014-10-01 11:56:47 UTC
Mindo Junde wrote:
Cloak transition very cool, Cloak effect nope sorry try again. (I use Dx9 as I don't have an uber card, I suspect a lot of people are in this situation)

Wormhole mass effect is very annoying it makes it hard to see the destination constellation. FFS CCP did you try this before you released?

Vomit Green Ishtars...Really?

Over all fail, not as epic as the last one but still not good. You are aware of the competition out this year? Because currently I'm waiting for that launch then my subs will lapse.

Oh and the new module names...LMFAO, they are pathetic.

Arbalest sounds mean and well Arbalesty. Ample sounds like a joke from a carry on film. CCP you need to hire more competent people.


Uber card? Dude it's 2014. The first DX11 based cards were the GTX 300/400 series. If you can't afford even a GTX 560Ti, how on earth are you even affording to play EVE? The cards are DIRT CHEAP! Sub $100 now. You can easily get a GTX 560Ti (which can even run BF3 at max settings at a reasonable framerate) for $50 on ebay. WOW!!! Now isn't that an "uber card."

Again, if you can't afford a $50 video card, something is horribly wrong. Just going to work every day usually costs more then that in GAS! So if you can afford to work, you can afford a GFX card. Likewise, if you can afford the internet your connecting to in order to play EVE, you can afford a DX11 card. Heck if you absolutely need to, unsub your internet account for a month! BOOM! There's the money to buy a shiny new DX11 card!

About the patch : Hate the module renaming, cloak effect is pretty cool. Even though as others have stated, the effect doesn't scale. Other than that, I see no problems. Besides of course EVE feeling a bit slower. And my rig hasn't changed at all. This patch has definitely bogged EVE down a bit. (Again my rig can handle EVE without breaking a sweat. It's the code not the shiny effects.)
BLACK CHIEF
ACME Corporation
#120 - 2014-10-01 12:41:28 UTC
can not connect to game on port 26000 or 3724 - uninstalled and installed game 3 times....same results! HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I HAVE BEEN A PAYING USER FOR OVER 7 YEARS!!!! SOMEONE FIX THIS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Running Windows 8 64 bit
- Windows Firewall: Port 26000 TCP (open for in/out)
- Routers Port 26000 open
- EVE Pref.ini file: Port 26000

As of 06:37 am (Central time) - I have the same problem!
I WANT CREDIT TO EVERY DAY I CANNOT CONNECT! (THIS PROBLEM IS YOURS...OWN IT)

Cannot connect to 97.237.39.200 on port 2600

As of 1 October 2014 06:37 am (Central time) - I have the same problem!

ping to 97.237.39.200 loss of all packets

DAMIT SCOTTY GET THOSE ENGINES STARTED, Your upgrade is a FAILURE in my CASE!

CAN I GET A LITTLE HELP HERE??????????????????????????????????