These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE: Citadel expansion - Issues

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#401 - 2016-04-30 03:17:24 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:


EDIT: Incidentally, all reports I have seen so far use the old camera - it is possible that using the new camera might be a workaround for this issue, maybe give that a go?


The new camera needs to have feature parity with the old before I touch it.
Val Mech
New April Moon
#402 - 2016-04-30 03:31:01 UTC
CCP, are you scoff?
You lacked 2 days before long holidays to fix an error of an old camera focus after a stargates jump?
I think you intentionally don't correct this bug, forcing players to pass to a new camera, mistakenly believing that it suits one and all.

I didn't expect from you so big meanness :(
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
#403 - 2016-04-30 03:49:38 UTC
Val Mech wrote:
CCP, are you scoff?
You lacked 2 days before long holidays to fix an error of an old camera focus after a stargates jump?
I think you intentionally don't correct this bug, forcing players to pass to a new camera, mistakenly believing that it suits one and all.

I didn't expect from you so big meanness :(

Why not give it a try? I like the new camera very much. My favorite feature is that you can look at ships that are over 1000km away.

"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)

"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#404 - 2016-04-30 04:23:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Zorn Cosby
Double Post
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#405 - 2016-04-30 04:51:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Zorn Cosby
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:

No, I admit I like SP as much as the next guy. Sometimes I fly with regular +4s for a total value of 80 mil. When there's a good chance we'll whelp the fleet I'm in an empty clone. So while yes, more often than not I'm flying empty, I know I'm missing out on some SP. I'm a terrible slacker ;-)

Thing is ..... you choose to jumpclone every other day. CCP doesn't force you to. Maybe now is a good time to reassess whether you want a cheaper pod you actually dare undock, or cough up the ISK for some small gains. I mean ... the way I see it, permanently residing in +3's will be cheaper than going back-and-forth between +5's and no implants.


I normally run +3 for all my accounts as the standard setup, the issue is that I and many others have purchased +5 sets purely for SP gain. These were 1 time capital purchases that could only be financially justified over the long term as they are not portable and liquid. Now CCP changes the rules and screws all those who have purchased +5 sets for JCing into to gain SP, UNLESS you happen to have a pile of cash to fuel your habit (for those cash rich players, CCP's actions have no material impact except to continue to provide that group with an increasing level of advantage, as if the rich don't have sufficient advantages in this game). Now the +5 sets that I spent months earning per character are virtually useless to me due to the cash operating costs that CCP has unilaterally imposed without warning, discussion, or documentation. Now I am out a billion+ per account, months of time spent earning that cash that is no longer accessible, months of time that may have been spent achieving some other goal, and my entire multiyear effort for jack-of-all-trades characters using JCs regularly (something that has always been permitted so long as you had standing in the past) has been made irrelevant by the imposition of per use fees. No, CCP did not force me to use JCs, they DID change the rules in a hugely major way to make those +5 sets virtually useless to me now and to monetarily discourage the regular use of JCs that assist the building of jack-of-all-trades characters. That is just wrong, CCP has materially impacted my play and the play of others by these extra fees assessed in a way to PENALIZE the regular use of JCs.

CCP refund my +5 set costs, give me 20 extractors per account, and maybe, just maybe, I may come out even (cause now you have clearly established that jack-of-all-trades characters are monetarily discouraged, so I need to extract some of the SP to give to new alts that I need to setup). Or better yet, refund my account that I just setup + the 1 account that I just added a year of time to, and I will just leave the game entirely with my other 6 accounts. (Honestly CCP, contact me via email and I will happily close all my accounts were you to refund my added time and the new account I setup just last week, this per use JC fee makes casual play using JCs with single characters per account just a waste of time)

The per use fee for JCs is total BS and incredibly deceptive. CCP you can disavow per use JC fees to recover somewhat (as these recurring fees are not consistent with previous actions and supplied documentation), but you do need to do it sometime soon before too many get hit with the fees and demand refunds for their cash output. Immediately closing opened bug tickets with no comment on these fees is not a good solution either....
Bellasarius Baxter
Zilog Enterprises
#406 - 2016-04-30 05:47:06 UTC
I am still having the issue with Ship Hangar, Item Hangar & Deliveries windows not staying open when I dock at a station.
I have found that the windows seem to be open at the time of docking, but then they snap closed immediately after the station environment is displayed.
It does not happen everywhere, I THINK it might be related to whether I have Ships/Items at the station already.
The bug does not seem to affect the Corp Hangar window
Val Mech
New April Moon
#407 - 2016-04-30 06:07:19 UTC
Mark O'Helm wrote:

Why not give it a try?

Because it is impossible.
Eric de'Locke
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2016-04-30 06:51:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Eric de'Locke
So still no fix for the buggy camera? Are you even going to fix it? And what about the overview not updating? I mean, it's not like these are the most important parts of the game or anything?
Lew Dicrous
4th Line
#409 - 2016-04-30 07:48:40 UTC
New one: Being cargo scanned by customs with contraband in your hold now prevents you from activating gates, even when the option to surrender the goods is refused.

It burns when I PVP
vanderlog
Suicide and Redemption
#410 - 2016-04-30 07:57:47 UTC
hi! writes that there is not enough space in the container, but his a lot http://clip2net.com/s/3xwJz5J ! and please, return all drones in the container at the POS (Gecko, Fighter, Warrior, Valkyrie, Bouncer, Berserker) - they flew in Hemin at the station!
Steijn
Quay Industries
#411 - 2016-04-30 08:55:22 UTC
since the update, EVERY TIME i open the launcher its taking upwards of 10 minutes to check the resource cache. EVERY TIME you do an update you introduce this bug which lasts for a few days until you fix it and then it goes back to been able to log in as soon as the launcher opens.

FIX IT!!
Moonlight Mernher
CBC Interstellar
Goonswarm Federation
#412 - 2016-04-30 09:07:49 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:

If using the old camera, occasionally the camera can detach from ship after a jump. Workaround - Right click in space and select Look at own Ship

For me it happens every jump. :<
Desash
The Extremely Norty Gankers Union
#413 - 2016-04-30 09:41:08 UTC
Arbalest Compact XL Torpedo Launcher Blueprint build requirements include 1 x XL Cruise Missile Launcher I. I would have expected it to require 1 x XL Torpedo Launcher I.



TE-2100 Ample XL Torpedo Launcher Blueprint build requirements include 1 x XL Cruise Missile Launcher I. Again, I would have expected it to require 1 x XL Torpedo Launcher I.



Ample Gallium Quad 800mm Repeating Cannon Blueprint should probably be called Gallium Ample Quad 800mm Repeating Cannon Blueprint to match the other 2 blueprints in that group of 3. Same change applies to the actual turret.



Compact Carbine Quad 800mm Repeating Cannon Blueprint should probably be called Carbine Compact Quad 800mm Repeating Cannon Blueprint to match the other 2 blueprints in that group of 3. Same change applies to the actual turret.
Servanda
Liga Freier Terraner
Northern Coalition.
#414 - 2016-04-30 10:35:12 UTC
Doomsdays keep preventing cloak even after 300s timer is up you need to unfit and refit the DD to fix it
Jump/Cloak penalty isn't afected by the dd rapid firing skill but item description states "... and will be unable to dock, activate your jump drive or cloaking device until the module cycle completes."
So either the timer or the description is wrong
PAPULA
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#415 - 2016-04-30 11:54:50 UTC
Can you see the problem with this blueprint ?

http://www.netsky.org/eve/heavyboostercapital.png
Oops
Thuggish BluntBlowin
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#416 - 2016-04-30 12:59:45 UTC
still **** remaining on grid that are 26 au away come one people I warp and there are 6 versions of my alt on overview COME THE **** ON CCP!
Sabastian Cerabiam
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#417 - 2016-04-30 14:10:07 UTC
Logged on today to rat and I am also unable to recall fighters to the launch bay. This is gona make it impossible to rat today.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#418 - 2016-04-30 14:16:54 UTC
I know no one wants to hear it, but it is the weekend, so unless they had some emergency hotfix ready to rock and roll, we won't likely see further patches until Monday or Tuesday. In the mean time, I urge you guys to keep those bug reports coming. Believe it or not, they can't reliably fix what they don't know is broken.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
#419 - 2016-04-30 14:36:35 UTC
Val Mech wrote:
Mark O'Helm wrote:

Why not give it a try?

Because it is impossible.

Explain!

"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)

"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#420 - 2016-04-30 16:43:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
Mark O'Helm wrote:
Val Mech wrote:
Mark O'Helm wrote:

Why not give it a try?

Because it is impossible.

Explain!


Apparently he doesn't like the camera like you do. Most I've talked to would agree. So would I.

If you need an example of why some dislike it, some like myself dislike the lack of familiarity with it. It's still rough around the edges too; zoom and pan controls feel unnecessarily dampened in places while oddly sensitive in others (zoom especially feels off being overly stiff close in then suddenly overly sensitive a little further out, making it ungainly and inconsistent), tracking camera -- if that's what it's meant to emulate -- does so poorly with no control over where the camera positions itself with respects to your ship and the selected object. Neither of these two issues plague the current classic camera, though these and a few other issues still make the new one less than encouraging for some players to utilize beyond turning it on briefly to see if they fixed this or finally added that, then back again to what we know works better. At least, it has been better so far until now.

For what it's worth, the new camera does have some neat features, but most players would likely favor function over neat. Features that are a cool idea are, and rightfully so, seen as secondary to practical value and ease of use. While a little off topic, though the remark has some bearing, it is rather unfortuitous that CCP is seemingly not the only company that feels we wouldn't have a problem with something that's unfinished or unpolished so long as it's pretty and shiny. I'm sure over time the new camera will grow on us, but it will take some time indeed at this rate. It's not a bad system, just neither the same nor as good in many players' eyes. Those are two big point losses unfortunately.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."