These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Coming to EVE Online in the Proteus Release on January 13th

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#101 - 2014-12-21 10:13:46 UTC
Can we also get the annoying fade up, fade down, fade up, fade down, fade up, ad nauseam effect removed from window backgrounds in Proteus, if not much, much sooner?

Every time you switch window focus, or have a popup window appear, this effect happens and it really causes eye strain when working with a lot of windows, such as when you are updating a lot of market orders. I feel like I'm watching an old CRT monitor which has a seriously bad phosphor persistence problem.

At the very least, add an option to disable it.

Thank you.

And, yes, I've posted this same request in the other forum threads, but no one from CCP appears to have read it yet, since this simple-to-fix UI bug has not yet been fixed.
Cpt Gini Seal
Bergbau und Schutz KEG
#102 - 2014-12-21 11:27:34 UTC
Deutscher Text steht unten an

If even the Corps to be revised , then I would have some suggestions:

1. Money transfer to the main account should also be simplified for the members here , which means that you can transfer money from his account. What my Noobs only about detours is possible!

2. Hangar sale permit , I've Equipment , Skills , and ships are for Noobs in my hangar and must take everything into their own hands if I want to sell it to them. Why not just allow the corp hangar , as a sale , just for the Corp ?

Can sort or classify 3. Hangar better, the seven main hangars, should be able to be classified under way , according to need , we have a lot of stuff lying on station and tens of thousands of containers where everything is in it!

4. Pos: Persönhnliche hangars should be appreciated as well as the station hangars members , whenever I need to break down what I destroy one probably unintentionally something , one probably should also be possible that you can remove the stuff out of the hangar as a package as CEO and the Members may determine as contractual .

5. mailing system , one probably should be revised times so you can for example set instances to write mail to the entire Corp 's easy. But one probably should not consider a title related mailings.

6. revise the entire Corp. system , my director for the Corp has made to award the title , had already complete a half EVE - study so that we at all times by a look which had for what items are fixed . Where are the Info button , dammit. And please no official German course when it comes . We do not want to study play !

7. Corp Logo , the possibility also upload their own thing ? nothing against the kits but they are probably a bit poor . Then you could make a lot more drauß if you sometimes can even ran .

8. Colors of vessels can be one probably a color designer to create? For example, the ships Corp uniformly plate? must not be much yes, STO can design all compatible with each other .

so that it was only once , as far as I think.




Wenn schon die Corps überarbeitet werden, dann hätte ich noch einige Vorschläge :

1. Geld auf das Hauptkonto überweisen, sollte hier auch für die Member vereinfacht werden, das heißt das man von seinen Konto aus überweisen kann. Was für meine Noobs nur über umwege möglich ist!

2. Hangar verkauf ermöglichen, ich habe Ausrüstung, Skills und Schiffe für meine Noobs im Hangar liegen und muß alles in die Hand nehmen wenn ich es ihnen verkaufen will. Warum nicht direkt vom Corphangar, als verkauf, nur für die Corp ermöglichen?

3. Hangar besser sortieren oder einteilen können, die sieben Haupthangars, sollten nach Möglichkeit gegliedert werden können, je nach Bedarf haben wir viel Zeug auf Station liegen und zig tausend Container wo alles drin liegt!

4. Pos : Persönhnliche Hangars sollten genauso einzusehen sein wie die Stationshangars der Member, wenn ich mal was abbauen muss, zerstöre ich vllt ungewollt etwas, vllt sollte auch die Möglichkeit bestehen das man als CEO das Zeug aus dem Hangar als Paket entfernen kann und dem Member als Vertrag zustellen kann.

5. Mailling System, sollten vllt mal überarbeitet werden damit man zum Beispiel Instanzen setzen kann, Post an die gesamte Corp zu schreiben ist ja einfach. Aber vllt sollte man noch eine Titel bezogene Postsendungen erwägen.

6. Das gesamte Corpsystem überarbeiten, mein Direktor für die Corp der die Titelvergabe gemacht hat, mußte schon ein halbes EVE-Studium absolvieren damit wir überhaupt mal einen durchblick hatten für was welche festen Titel sind. Wo sind die Info-Buttons, verdammt. Und bitte verständlich kein Beamtendeutsch wenn es geht. Wir wollen spielen nicht studieren!

7. Corp-Logo, besteht die Möglichkeit auch was eigenes hochzuladen? nichts gegen die Bausätze aber die sind ja wohl etwas dürftig. Da könnte man viel mehr drauß machen wenn man auch mal selbst ran kann.

8. Farben der Schiffe, kann man vllt ein Farbdesigner erstellen? Um z.B. die Corpschiffe einheitlich zu Kennzeichen? muß ja nicht viel sein, bei STO kann man ganze Design aufeinander abstimmen.

so das war es erst mal, soweit denke ich.
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#103 - 2014-12-21 15:48:09 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Mara Rinn wrote:
Morihei Akachi wrote:
CCP Terminus wrote:
… usually of the Restrained type …

But you're not going call them that, right?


"Dear newbies … despite their name, the Hobbled Overdrive Injector System is actually better than the basic Overdrive Injector System I."

(Elements of this story have been exaggerated for dramatic effect)

So as stated earlier we've revised the naming system taking everyone's feedback into account.
More specifically the naming style will now consist of three parts [flavour] [specialization] [module type]. So you will see Restrained modules, but they'll be Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors for example. This will also be retroactively applied to modules which lost their flavour names in the last tiericide pass so everything should be consistent.
Also note this naming scheme is only for the named modules (meta 1-4), we aren't touching the other names.

There will be a dev blog out about the module tiericide most likely on Tuesday.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#104 - 2014-12-21 17:35:57 UTC
when are you going to do modules that actually matter?
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2014-12-21 18:16:27 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in.
With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.


I really hope this doesn't mean changing our ability to mine as a relaxed activity where intel, scouting, and logistics are the mainstay of the workload, into some high activity operation that favours the wants of those who don't actualy mine now. Unless of course your intent is to completely destroy the economy with massive mineral shortages due to all the current miners unsubbing, and those who cry for something different failing to pick up more than a fraction of the slack.

If you're talking about ADDING new ways to mine, or new stuff to mine, like moving moongoo into an actively mined item (PLEASE THIS), sure, just don't wreck the playstyle of many of us who like it how it is now.
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#106 - 2014-12-21 18:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Morihei Akachi
CCP Terminus wrote:
… they'll be Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors …

Roll (I'll save the long version for the dev blog.)

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)
Justin Zaine
#107 - 2014-12-21 19:54:07 UTC
Really loving all the new ship models coming out lately CCP, good work on the Exequeror.

Now please redesign the Celestis, it looks like a green piece of **** and I don't want to be embarrassed taking it out in public after these upcoming recon changes.

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#108 - 2014-12-21 19:56:05 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors …

Excellent - nicely balances simplification with flavour and lore. The best solution I think.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
skandra Kishunuba
Have I Got Moos For You
#109 - 2014-12-21 21:05:46 UTC
No mention of revisiting the UI changes made in the last patch.

Is this something that is going to be looked at or are people with issues just going to be ignored?
Angmar Udate
#110 - 2014-12-22 09:10:01 UTC
CCP Seagull wrote:


..

We are doing design work and preparing for big changes to structures overall in EVE--including structures involved in sovereignty mechanics. As input into that work, we are running a survey on structure related gameplay in EVE, including a number of questions around sovereignty structures and gameplay. Please give your thoughts and perspective by participating here: http://structures.questionpro.com

..



In de survey there is talk about
Quote:

Starbase management
Outpost deployment
Outpost upgrading
Outpost Management


As a player in null I know about POS (player owned structures or starbases) and Stations (technically outposts). What is what?
Is my assumption that outposts refer to stations and starbase to POS correct? Why are there three separate options for one and just one option for the other?
Typically a very small player group deals with managing and building outposts or stations. I imagine a bit of a larger group deals with POSses. Is directing these questions at the general EVE public effective?
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2014-12-22 18:06:30 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in.
With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.


It's to be hoped CCP redact the travel nerfs or they will have precious few players left willing to play, takes so much time now just moving around or moving anything around that they often as not run out of play time, 4 jumps to Empire will now consume over a full hour of game time jst spinning in stations waiting for timers to run down, for someone who's time online is limited this is unacceptable, result they do not engage with those activities.

Similar with people simply moving around a region, using JB's to reduce travel time and increase security for there expensive assets is now something they rarely consider doing, instead they remain locked into single systems with vast areas under utilized that were once thriving with players, now there all turtled up in one place unable to move for fear of catching ''SPACE AIDS'' crippling there ability to travel in Alliance fleets at a later time.

Sorry guys but you really screwed the pooch on that one, less time on looking more un-required changes, lot more time looking at the ramifications of what you just did to the game, for most it,s not been good.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#112 - 2014-12-22 19:06:32 UTC
Then there's lots of folks like me who love the Jump Fatigue changes, it is a necessary evil...and one of many needed steps to a newer, more vibrant Nullsec. Hopefully CCP's occupational sov rings the Death Bells for coalitions, because if CCP really wants to see an environment where new entities can stake a claim in space, they are going to have to roll a hard six.

And while I would like to see coalitions die, the objective CCP really needs is to implement a system where they are just plain irrelevant. Forced localisation will mean that systems will only be held by whatever local inhabitants live and defend there. It must be quick and easy to conquer systems, and just as quick and easy to take them back. It must be so easy to do, that if an aggressing force wants to take and hold a system, they have to actually stay there or risk losing it almost immediately.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2014-12-22 21:31:13 UTC
marly cortez wrote:
It's to be hoped CCP redact the travel nerfs or they will have precious few players left willing to play,

Except you're in a vanishingly tiny minority of players that actually dislike the changes. Everything I've seen on the forums is people celebrating the changes wildly and a few people upset about them because probably spells the beginning of the end for cluster-spanning coalitions.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#114 - 2014-12-22 22:49:26 UTC
The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics:

1) Bouncing ships: simply put, when ships collide with each other, or with other objects, they look like balloons or toys. Breaks the illusion of massive starships for me every time.

2) Lots of ships undocking from station at same time: interpenetrating and bouncing ship models look completely unrealistic.

For (1), I'd like to see something more realistic - an image of a Nyx crashing into a station comes to mind. Ships should take massive damage when colliding, with appropriate explosion effects. However, if this is simply too complicated to implement, or would excessively unbalance the game, then I'd at least suggest that ships always veer off from hitting other objects, rather than bouncing off of them.

For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station.
Justin Zaine
#115 - 2014-12-23 04:26:05 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics:

1) Bouncing ships: simply put, when ships collide with each other, or with other objects, they look like balloons or toys. Breaks the illusion of massive starships for me every time.

2) Lots of ships undocking from station at same time: interpenetrating and bouncing ship models look completely unrealistic.

For (1), I'd like to see something more realistic - an image of a Nyx crashing into a station comes to mind. Ships should take massive damage when colliding, with appropriate explosion effects. However, if this is simply too complicated to implement, or would excessively unbalance the game, then I'd at least suggest that ships always veer off from hitting other objects, rather than bouncing off of them.

For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station.


1. It's a game

2. It's a game

3. You realize that we warp through planets, that our ships somehow turn and maneuver with only one point of thrust, that celestials don't have orbits and so on?

4. This would be interesting but would never be able to be done. Would also bring new meaning to the phrase "Don't bump the ******* titan."

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#116 - 2014-12-23 05:08:23 UTC
Justin Zaine wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics...
1. It's a game

True enough - sometimes the "realism" in EVE Online does reminds me of Minecraft... lol.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2014-12-23 10:00:24 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station.

There are already several stations that very clearly have multiple docking ports, although some of them are very large and look like they could (or were, in fact, meant to) house freighters or capital ships.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Vala Ancalagon
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2014-12-23 15:30:00 UTC
I don't like the new Exeq model, it lacks the un-symmetric aspects that made the original so interesting. It lacks that organic feel of Gallente ships. And it simply looks like a Caldari vessel now. =(
Niraia
Starcakes
Cynosural Field Theory.
#119 - 2014-12-23 17:16:52 UTC
It would be fun if we could choose which language Aura uses, regardless of the language setting :)

♥
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#120 - 2014-12-23 18:49:23 UTC
Sarmatiko wrote:
ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness Sad


Yes, symmetry must stop.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.