These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Team Pink Zombie Kittens Presents.....

First post
Author
CCP Konflikt
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-01-05 11:49:39 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Habakuk
Team Pink Zombie Kittens has been hard at work making new features for your entertainment pleasure.

These include:
* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare.
* The New Neocom
* Corporation Locations (Bookmarks) can now be saved directly into the Corporations folder.

When Singularity next starts these will be available to you. Your feedback and bug reports would be invaluable to us.

CCP Konflikt Quality Assurance Engineer Team Trilambda

McFly
Peanut Factory
#2 - 2012-01-05 11:58:26 UTC
CCP Konflikt wrote:

* Corporation Locations (Bookmarks) can now be saved directly into the Corporations folder.


Thank You.
Rixiu
PonyTek
#3 - 2012-01-05 12:10:00 UTC
CCP Konflikt wrote:
* The New Neocom


Curious about this, is it an improvement or a redesign like that ... thing we got a year ago?
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#4 - 2012-01-05 12:33:31 UTC
Oh my! :O
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#5 - 2012-01-05 12:49:20 UTC
Quote:
* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare.
Inevitable I guess.

Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind?

(Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-))
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#6 - 2012-01-05 13:12:04 UTC
shift overload works great, tested toggling... perfect.
neocom is cool too, customizable, integrated skill progress, area for minimized windows... I like it very much.

small improvement could be made with the blinking neocom animation. its currently hard to see. But this is only cosmetics.

great work overall!

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

CCP Konflikt
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-01-05 13:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Konflikt
Arkady Sadik wrote:
Quote:
* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare.
Inevitable I guess.

Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind?

(Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-))


All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained.

A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance.

Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW.

Feel free to ask more.

CCP Konflikt Quality Assurance Engineer Team Trilambda

Rixiu
PonyTek
#8 - 2012-01-05 13:33:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rixiu
Jesus ******* christ, third time I'm writing this now. These forums are ******* ****.

The new neocom is nice and pretty.

Some early feedback:

- The "click once to open twice to minimize" behaviour for the icons need to be changed back to "click once to open, twice to close" since it makes more sense in the way we use eve windows. I rarely want to minimize and if I do I click the minimize button.

- "Accessories", "Business" and "social" need their own unique icons in the eve-menu that still show that it's a group. The time it takes to open the menu need to be shorter. Animation is fine but the delay before the animation starts and the fact that the beginning of the animation itself is a bit slow need to be fixed.

- Right clicking on a icon should bring up more things than "remove" (remove should not be there when the necom is locked), mail should have "new mail", people and places "add location", wallet "give money" etc. Either via a regular right click menu or something like what you get when right clicking on the task bar on windows 7 (latter would probably be more inline with the rest of the new neocom design).

- Dragging the fitting icon to chat windows could share your fit much like dragging the name of the ship in the fitting window itself to the fitting window would do.

Edit: The blinking animation for the chat icon is too faint.

Edit: http://piclair.com/data/ltc52.jpg

- The in-space icons hide behind the neocom.
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
#9 - 2012-01-05 13:35:16 UTC
/me stares dubiously at the new neocom.

Damn nature, you scary!

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Greater D.U.S.K. Coalition
#10 - 2012-01-05 14:47:59 UTC
Sweet. Will bug report the following after the next release if not fixed.

Right-click mod changes to Neocom do not work with the new neocom.
Ships and Items still show in the Neocom even if they show in station services.
Drag and drop of icons on the Neocom that are in lower folders would be nice.
Option to show name tabs of folders at the bottom of the screen if minimized needs to come back. Option to turn on or off would be nice to.



If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Seriphyn Inhonores
Elusenian Cooperative
#11 - 2012-01-05 15:42:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Seriphyn Inhonores
If an alliance holds sovereignty, can they still join FW?

Because if they can, that means you'll have massive, supercap-hotdropping alliances who play nullsec sov wars being able to come in and play FW at the same time. How is this balanced? Current corps to FW don't have access to supercaps and all this 300-man blob fighting. You're basically allowing monolithic entities like PL being able to have their foots in both camps, and you're also adding to the mission running endemic.

"Hm, nothing going on? Let's clonejump to empire and carebear up the missions with 0% risk to our ships"

Or "No new sov to take? let's go **** up some FW subcap fleet". They can sit on the periphery and do their nullsec thing, then intervene on a rainy day when they feel like it.
Rona Atani
Delta G scientific
#12 - 2012-01-05 15:44:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Rona Atani
Interesting. On the one hand, not all alliances will be able to join the amarr/caldari side, since they will then incur faction standing penalties when shooting at each other. On the other hand, if some of them join the gallente/minmatar side, then they lose access to the jita/amarr trade hubs (at least on their mains).

Konflikt, could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)?
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#13 - 2012-01-05 15:50:57 UTC
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
Current corps to FW don't have access to supercaps
This is (sadly) wrong. :-/
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#14 - 2012-01-05 15:55:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
As one of the principle people trying to organize and funnel feedback from the FW community to the CCP Devs, let me say right now I think that this proposal for adding Alliances to Faction Warfare is completely premature. I also think it demonstrates a lack of consideration for the FW community and their list of top issues that need to be resolved.

I'll say it again, as have hundreds of us before, time after time -

The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.

Adding more pilots to an already broken system will not "fix" Faction Warfare.

The goal is NOT simply to add more pilots to militia rosters. It is to make the gameplay fun enough and meaningful enough that people will be attracted to it.

This is precisely why most of us soundly rejected Soundwave's proposal to extend FW boundaries into highsec - expanding a stagnating warzone doesnt deal with stagnation.

I personally have always been open to adding Alliances into Faction Warfare, and I understand historically it was ratified by CSM and placed on CCP's official agenda, but that was years ago. A lot has changed since than, CCP's approach should be to listen to those of us trying to organize the feedback about the way Faction Warfare is TODAY, and not just plow forward on an itemized list of fixes from the past without considering the current community or how this affects them.

My own opinions about Alliance participation aside, I want to state for the record that majority of the current FW community is strongly opposed to simply allowing Alliance participation into FW given its current state. Numerous reasons have been cited - the missions are still broken and easily farmable, meaning Alliances will be attracted to mission income, not to the warzone PvP, and again, adding more pilots doesnt give them any reason to fight. Without reworking plexes or station gun mechanics to discourage "blob warfare", Alliance numbers could potentially kill the small fleet feel of Faction Warfare that is the reason most current pilots participate.

CCP should STRONGLY reconsider the timing of this, and very much consider waiting to allow Alliances into Faction Warfare once it has been truly iterated upon and has a solid mechanical base to build from, the current system is simply not engaging enough to support a large influx of players who may be disappointed in what they find and leave as quickly as they joined. The goal should be LASTING improvements to the system, not simply implementing items that are easy to program first without considering how this will affect current players.

Faction Warfare pilots are already teetering on the edge in terms of subcription commitments given the years of neglect - and I personally know many that will unsub immediately if this becomes implemented before a REAL set of Faction Warfare fixes is taken care of first. CCP should pay heed here, and respond to these issues before simply waving a wand and allowing Alliances in.

Think of the bottom line here CCP - I've heard far more pilots who currently fly in a militia say they'll unsub over this change than I ever have heard an Alliance pilot say "I'm going to unsub if I cant stay in my Alliance AND join FW". You could stand to lose isk (the real kind) over this if not handled respectfully towards the FW community.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#15 - 2012-01-05 16:06:39 UTC
Rona Atani wrote:
...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)?

A fix for that has just gone in for testing today.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#16 - 2012-01-05 16:19:04 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Rona Atani wrote:
...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)?

A fix for that has just gone in for testing today.


Excellent news! THIS is a step in the right direction....the Alliance issue, however, needs some serious evaluation from developers before moving forward onto Tranquility.

Keep in mind that with the Alliance changes Singularity will NOT appropriately model the effects of this change. We're not talking module stats or combat performance, we're talking waves in the social fabric of New Eden that doesnt exist on the test server.

I strongly suggest that the developers review this very important poll on Shalee Lianne's popular "Sov Wars" blog that highlights the FW community and acts as a voice for those of us who participate. The poll is divided, but developers should keep in mind that even amongst those that are open-minded about allowing Alliances in, it is with certain caveats and protections (such as forgoing Soveriegnty in nullsec) that are not currently being considered, unless Konflict has more to share with us.

Please devs, I URGE you to respond to the community's concerns about this change, and not simply move forward because its one of the oldest "fixes" on the list or one of the easiest to implement.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

mkint
#17 - 2012-01-05 16:44:12 UTC
Hooray for the final death of Faction Warfare!

Can we have the final death of Sov Warfare next?

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-01-05 16:57:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Andre Vauban
CCP Konflikt wrote:
Arkady Sadik wrote:
Quote:
* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare.
Inevitable I guess.

Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind?

(Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-))


All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained.

A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance.

Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW.

Feel free to ask more.


I would suggest you change the standing requirement dramatically. I would say all corps in a FW alliance must have in the neighborhood of 3.0 to 5.0 standing or higher with their faction. This might keep it to alliances being formed between existing FW corps and existing RP alliances, both of which already have good standing to their respective factions. 0.5 will allow every alliance in the game to join a faction, because why not?

Also, you need to add the cannot hold sov requirement as well.

.

Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-01-05 17:04:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Hrett
I was going to post on our corp boards today to comment about lack of targets since it seems many caldari have moved on. I appreciate the addition of possible new targets, but this is a bit overkill. ;). Thanks for the attention though.

Keeping an open mind...

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!

Pyre leFay
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-01-05 17:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Pyre leFay
-The updated Compare Tool should be added to new neo-com accessories list and given a shortcut. Its too nice of a feature to be buried under ship/item info windows and tabs to use.

- Once I move Items or Ships button from bottom of neo-com, it slides to the top and cant be pined to the bottom anymore. Perhaps autopin to the upper or lower column closest to mouse.

- Items or Ships button also persist after you undock and are useless.

- A duplicate of Items and Ships will appear at redock if the original buttons were moved.
123Next pageLast page