These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Bidding Farewell to the In-game Browser

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Damocles Orindus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2016-06-21 06:44:26 UTC
So supposedly IGB is only used by a small amount of players in game ... except, you know, for one of the largest alliances/coalitions using it to track in game participation. But hey, I'm sure we don't need that handy tool. Big smile

CCP PAP link please. Big smile
Bawb Zennshinagas
Zennshinagas LLC.
#202 - 2016-06-21 07:10:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Bawb Zennshinagas
nezroy wrote:
Quick note for all those talking about overlays. You don't need anything nearly that complex or annoying.

If you are running EVE in Fixed Window mode, which is equivalent to every other game's Fullscreen Windowed mode (and doesn't everyone do this already anyway for a million other reasons?), then you can use any kind of always-on-top flagger to just set a chrome/safari/whatever window to be always on top of the EVE client. For example, see the one-line autohotkey script mentioned here.




Does not work for Mac users.

Julian Aldurald wrote:

Get all the overlays odds including a proper overlay browser you'll love it.
Ill try to test out a couple configurations for people like you as well and ill try to show you something thats decently handy to use.



Please enlighten me to a Mac overlay, because I've been looking all night and only found one that required not only compiling a piece of software but disabling SIP which is absolutely not an acceptable solution.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#203 - 2016-06-21 07:33:13 UTC
nezroy wrote:
If you are running EVE in Fixed Window mode, which is equivalent to every other game's Fullscreen Windowed mode (and doesn't everyone do this already anyway for a million other reasons?), then you can use any kind of always-on-top flagger to just set a chrome/safari/whatever window to be always on top of the EVE client. For example, see the one-line autohotkey script mentioned here

It is not because Fixed Window Mode requires even more power than just Window mode, completely impeding dualboxing for a great many people. Not to mention that I do not need the out of game browser always on top, I need it on places ingame where I can also see other things, without having to completely mess my out of game UI layout just because.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
KarrPai Diem
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#204 - 2016-06-21 07:35:21 UTC
This makes me very sad. For a game that you can spend so much time in, the IGB allowed me to work and do other things without leaving new eden. I get that there are overlays and other options (but they wont be a part of eve), I would of liked the development to go the other way and find even more ways to enhance the UI so that we never have to minimize the game... like the addition of external mail accounts in mail and mapping local drives so you can browse the system hard drive and move and copy files (all with eve's cool interface), essentially allowing EVE to sit on top of the OS. and external calendar subscriptions.. (then i would be unstoppable)

this probably seems crazy to everyone, but if I can be in eve, check my mail, browse the hard drive, browse the web and use the calendars and calculator then I could do most of my tasks without ever coming back to non space ship pilot reality... i could live in that beautiful, futuristic looking OS replacement FOREVER....

....

When I joined eve so many years ago, truthfully, the fact that it had a web browser in the game, was the first thing that made me say wow THAT'S COOL....


totally respect the decisions you have to make, and still think EVE is fantastic... just wanted to share my opinion, because i wanted you to know how being productive inside that user interface made me and i hope some other people feel :)

Good luck.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#205 - 2016-06-21 08:46:34 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Definitely 100% against this.

For the past couple of years, decisions like this have been slowly killing the game.

Gotta say I've definitely lost all respect for you but hey, don't worry, I'll still pay my subscription fee each year so I can say :

"I was there ................. when CCP killed Eve."



DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Cleanse Sin'led
Lonesome Capsuleer
#206 - 2016-06-21 09:10:51 UTC
I'm playing 2 accounts with 2 monitors.
I used to have tripwire in the IGB while Probing, while a was doing other stuff with the other account...
Now i'll have to wether buy a 3rd monitor, or stop doing what i was doing with the second account at worst, at best, i'll be forced to be less effective with the second account..

That's a real downgrade to the confort of playing.

I've always seen the IGB like a advanced feature like any other game had. I was impressed at the time to be able to navigate the web while playing, it felt like a technology CCP had over the other games.

Now i'm really really sad #2. :(
Turtle Udan
Dropbears Anonymous
Brave Collective
#207 - 2016-06-21 09:13:39 UTC
Damocles Orindus wrote:
So supposedly IGB is only used by a small amount of players in game ... except, you know, for one of the largest alliances/coalitions using it to track in game participation. But hey, I'm sure we don't need that handy tool. Big smile

CCP PAP link please. Big smile


One would think "one of the largest alliances/coalitions" had the IT people to write SSO/CREST based pap links.
Ossprey
ISK REALLOCATION SERVICE
SONS of BANE
#208 - 2016-06-21 09:23:44 UTC
Having been playing eve since Beta, I have always used the IGB for my gameplay, especially when I'm mobile and have to check links and Real world items, and on a 14" screen alt+tab is not really a option. will Crest allow us to run browsers in game from other suppliers so that those of us can continue to work while in eve. I'm surprised the network team hasn't flagged this up as a stupid idea.
Victor CheckMate
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2016-06-21 09:30:06 UTC
The key feature of IGB was opening fittings and info windows in-game.
Can't you just register some kind of "eve://" magnet link, so that external browsers could open those links in Eve (if the client is already running).
CCP Bugartist
C C P
C C P Alliance
#210 - 2016-06-21 10:04:44 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Sered Woollahra wrote:
@CCP FoxFour a few people have asked about an option to use a locally installed browser as in game browser but I don't think I have seen any responses to that. Is it something you see as feasible or not?


That isn't really a simple task unfortunately.

Sered Woollahra wrote:
Second, the existing Third Parties Policies documentation on overlays mentions 'unfair advantage' and other, rather (out of necessity) vague language. Some things are not explicity allowed but condoned, unless they give you an 'unfair advantage' et cetera. It is not inconceivable that, one day, someone using an in game overlay browser has an advantage over someone who has to alt-tab out of game. Would that be considered 'unfair'? If CCP actively pushes us towards overlays for internet browsing, you may want to check up on your existing third party policies and verify whether they still fit the new situation.


Not going to speak for the security team, I will however pass this along to them. When I talked to them about this they said browsers in an overlay were perfectly allowed. As with policy changes in the past if they happen notice will be given.


Thanks for poking us FoxFour. We actually explained the ruling on the topic in detail in one of our recent dev-blogs: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/overlays-isk-buyer-amnesty-and-account-security/

Quote:
3. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) is not something we plan to actively police at this time.
This is an example of something we do NOT consider unfair, for now. This also includes other in-game overlays which do NOT grant you any unfair advantage. We do not consider it an unfair advantage if you can see who is currently talking in your voice communication tool via the means of an in-game overlay. We also do NOT consider it unfair if you use other comfort overlays which do not affect how the game is played. This includes overlays for chat and IM applications, the Steam overlay, and Web-Browser overlays for example.
Cismet
Silent Knights.
LinkNet
#211 - 2016-06-21 10:13:12 UTC
Airi Cho wrote:
Lt Shard wrote:
Just because you dont use it daily doesn't mean others dont


yes and you should have worked for months if not years to make yourself less reliant on the IGB. so start now to port your things to crest. ask the devs of your tools to start using crest. and then give constructive feedback to the devs.

things like "we tried to port XYZ from the IGB to crest using resources X and Y. but we run into a problem. was our way the right one?"

but it doesnt matter how much time you give people there will still be people complaining at the next announcement or when the deadline finally hits.


I don't think you really understand how this works, you don't get to tell people how they SHOULD play their game. CCP *CAN* do that, and seem to be, but that just costs them custom. It may cost them a lot, it may cost them a little, the amount may be noticeable or it may not, but they technically can do that.

The question here is *SHOULD* they, and the majority here believe no they shouldn't. Most developers that I'm aware of don't take away functionality from their products, certainly not functionality that their customer base is screaming at them to leave alone. Doing so by most developers is just suicidal. Game developers seem to be the exception to this concept, as a lot of game developers seem to love taking content away, just like CCP are doing right now.

Okay, it's difficult to maintain it; frankly deal with it. There are so many people that use it for legitimate reasons that its removal hurts a large portion of your player base.

Much more than the benefits given by the likes of third person walking around stations, how much dev time did that dead end take up? If I accidentally click the wrong button I can spend a couple of minutes waiting to get out of my spaceship and walk around a place with a more clumsy interface than the one I normally use, which is really saying something.

When you have something that works for a large number of people, and that does no harm to the people that do NOT use it, there is no reason to remove that something.

If you don't wish to use the IGB then you are free to not use it, but telling other's how they SHOULD play their game isn't your right.
Cismet
Silent Knights.
LinkNet
#212 - 2016-06-21 10:17:42 UTC
CCP Bugartist wrote:


Thanks for poking us FoxFour. We actually explained the ruling on the topic in detail in one of our recent dev-blogs: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/overlays-isk-buyer-amnesty-and-account-security/

Quote:
3. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) is not something we plan to actively police at this time.
This is an example of something we do NOT consider unfair, for now. This also includes other in-game overlays which do NOT grant you any unfair advantage. We do not consider it an unfair advantage if you can see who is currently talking in your voice communication tool via the means of an in-game overlay. We also do NOT consider it unfair if you use other comfort overlays which do not affect how the game is played. This includes overlays for chat and IM applications, the Steam overlay, and Web-Browser overlays for example.


There are two words here that are a massive problem: FOR NOW. Likewise WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT. The problem with these statements is that they are ambiguous and they can lead to your changing your mind. At any point in the future you can consider overlays and the access they bring to offer an unfair advantage. I understand why the terms are written in such a way, but this is a problem when you're removing the IGB as the IGB was part of the client and therefore by definition was allowed.

Anything outside the client *CAN* be interpreted as offering an unfair advantage, to say nothing of running another program with the problems and risks inherent to such. If anything, that quote just makes the situation worse simply because of the way it's worded. There's no certainty there, just a vague promise that we might not decide at some nebulous future point that overlays are bad for the game.
CCP Bugartist
C C P
C C P Alliance
#213 - 2016-06-21 10:39:37 UTC
Cismet wrote:
CCP Bugartist wrote:


Thanks for poking us FoxFour. We actually explained the ruling on the topic in detail in one of our recent dev-blogs: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/overlays-isk-buyer-amnesty-and-account-security/

Quote:
3. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) is not something we plan to actively police at this time.
This is an example of something we do NOT consider unfair, for now. This also includes other in-game overlays which do NOT grant you any unfair advantage. We do not consider it an unfair advantage if you can see who is currently talking in your voice communication tool via the means of an in-game overlay. We also do NOT consider it unfair if you use other comfort overlays which do not affect how the game is played. This includes overlays for chat and IM applications, the Steam overlay, and Web-Browser overlays for example.


There are two words here that are a massive problem: FOR NOW. Likewise WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT. The problem with these statements is that they are ambiguous and they can lead to your changing your mind. At any point in the future you can consider overlays and the access they bring to offer an unfair advantage. I understand why the terms are written in such a way, but this is a problem when you're removing the IGB as the IGB was part of the client and therefore by definition was allowed.

Anything outside the client *CAN* be interpreted as offering an unfair advantage, to say nothing of running another program with the problems and risks inherent to such. If anything, that quote just makes the situation worse simply because of the way it's worded. There's no certainty there, just a vague promise that we might not decide at some nebulous future point that overlays are bad for the game.


As with most things in life there is not just black and white. EVE Online changes every day, and so does the technology around it. We cannot set a ruling (our policies) in stone about a technology we have no control over (third party overlay software). We can only provide information and put rules in place for what we know at a given point in time and grant ourselves the right to correct our rules in the future if required.

It would be bad and unfair to all of you to communicate today that overlays for web-browser are fine forever without limitation. In a few days the technology behind said overlays for browsers might change in a way we cannot predict and we have to change the ruling again.


let me end this post with a quote:
Quote:
“Let go of certainty. The opposite isn't uncertainty. It's openness, curiosity and a willingness to embrace paradox, rather than choose up sides. The ultimate challenge is to accept ourselves exactly as we are, but never stop trying to learn and grow.”
― Tony Schwartz
Stoop Paz
Victory or Whatever
Nourv Gate Security Commission
#214 - 2016-06-21 10:55:06 UTC
As a player with a middle of the road pc, I am not happy with this choice. There are multitutes of websites I refer to using the IGB as a small window on my game client to trade, determine routes, setup industry, read up on stuff I probably should memorize (but haven't).

losing the IGB will be a hindrance to how I play, and I am not looking forward to it at all
Cismet
Silent Knights.
LinkNet
#215 - 2016-06-21 10:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Cismet
CCP Bugartist wrote:


As with most things in life there is not just black and white. EVE Online changes every day, and so does the technology around it. We cannot set a ruling (our policies) in stone about a technology we have no control over (third party overlay software). We can only provide information and put rules in place for what we know at a given point in time and grant ourselves the right to correct our rules in the future if required.

It would be bad and unfair to all of you to communicate today that overlays for web-browser are fine forever without limitation. In a few days the technology behind said overlays for browsers might change in a way we cannot predict and we have to change the ruling again.


let me end this post with a quote:
Quote:
“Let go of certainty. The opposite isn't uncertainty. It's openness, curiosity and a willingness to embrace paradox, rather than choose up sides. The ultimate challenge is to accept ourselves exactly as we are, but never stop trying to learn and grow.”
― Tony Schwartz


Exactly. That's the whole point. You can't. But you CAN leave the IGB in place which renders such a stance irrelevant for people that would use overlays, something you openly admit you cannot set a stone ruling allowing, for the things for which they currently use the IGB. The IGB is allowed regardless of any future changes as it's part of the client.

In addition, the changing technology is another reason why it's irresponsible to just tout overlays, that you refuse to support and have no control, as a replacement for in-game technology that currently works and is used extensively for many different legitimate uses.

While I'm on the subject, Foxfour made a comment earlier regarding having seen the numbers for use of the IGB, would he or she mind sharing those numbers and statistics?
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2016-06-21 11:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Elenahina
Lt Shard wrote:
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Not quite sure what all the outrage is about.


People who use the IGB upset when a feature is unnecessarily removed instead of ccp managing their development properly?


OMFG - they are removing it so they CAN manage their development properly. It's not rocket science people, and it's pretty much the same reasoning behind why the jukebox was removed. CCP wants to focus on the core game - the IGB, while a useful tool, is not part of that vision. Adapt or don't, but stop whinging about it and acting like CCP just kicked your puppy or something. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big of a deal, and if losing it causes you to quit the game, nothing of value will be lost.

Cismet wrote:


Okay, it's difficult to maintain it; frankly deal with it. There are so many people that use it for legitimate reasons that its removal hurts a large portion of your player base.


What are you willing to give up so CCP can "deal with it"? Rorqual rebalance? The new event system? General updates to the system? Proper direct x 11 integration?

There's an old axiom in software development:

You can have it quickly, cheaply, or correctly. Pick two.

It may be a joke, but the point it makes is valid. When you're developing software, you only have so much time and so much budget to get things done. So you have to decide what matters to the end product, not individual users. In games development that means asking what is the vision of the game - what's the future state going to be, and can we achieve that with the resources we have while maintaining the current code base. If the answer is no, then something has to give, and stagnation will kill a game a lot faster than removing something that already has other, better (in terms of software quality, not usability) options to support that functionality. Because, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, software quality trumps usability, especially in areas where client security is a concern.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#217 - 2016-06-21 11:10:10 UTC
Bit confused, we use external sites with fleet doctrines, u can open the page igb, and click the fit. It will open ingame your fitting window. Whihs is amazing to then buy all, fit all. Seconds later you are flying. Which is what you like.

As fc that feature lowered dramatically my fleet up times, and questions i got. There is no allaince fitting section. And this worked around that. Now 60 corps will need too work with mailing fits, saving, and any coorelation between them, to form a dctrine, is gone as well.

Its possible i miss a feature, but a igb version that opens your ingame fitting with a saved fit, is now replaced by ?
Ahuraa
Tyde8
#218 - 2016-06-21 11:13:41 UTC
I dont understand any of this.

You are removing a function in the game and then say you want third-party devs to take over with CREST.

I have googled and i have not found any software named Crest that does the function of checking Jita prices.

Where is this CREST you talk about all the time, are you creating this software into the game or are you contracting other to crate this Crest Software that i can use to check prices?

Wouldn't it be better to use the money you spent on Project discovery, that does nothing for the game, to keep up the IGB so we can use it for TRADING, THAT IS PART OF THE GAME?
Jiradus Tazinas
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#219 - 2016-06-21 11:14:16 UTC
nezroy wrote:
Quick note for all those talking about overlays. You don't need anything nearly that complex or annoying.

If you are running EVE in Fixed Window mode, which is equivalent to every other game's Fullscreen Windowed mode (and doesn't everyone do this already anyway for a million other reasons?), then you can use any kind of always-on-top flagger to just set a chrome/safari/whatever window to be always on top of the EVE client. For example, see the one-line autohotkey script mentioned here.

Then just put your always-on-top browser window wherever you normally would put the IGB and you are done. Depending on your win/chrome themes you can even get transparency too (I believe Safari can do transparency just via its options even).

If you need to minimize it regularly that can be a bit more of an issue. My preference is to just run my fixed windowed mode EVE client a bit smaller than my actual desktop size; as long as your taskbar is on the right or the bottom this works since EVE's fixed window anchors to the upper-left. So I can always see my windows taskbar to grab any minimized stuff quickly, which is super useful for a lot of other reasons anyway.


This is not a solution for individuals who are NOT running windows.

The installer you are pointing to is a windows-centric installer product. While I'm sure that you meant well, this doesn't fix the issue that this isn't a fix for Mac/Linux users.

While there _may_ be a command line option somewhere that does some kind of 'transparency' that isn't a standard feature and isn't accessible by any kind of standard menu in Safari.
Cismet
Silent Knights.
LinkNet
#220 - 2016-06-21 11:35:40 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Lt Shard wrote:
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Not quite sure what all the outrage is about.


People who use the IGB upset when a feature is unnecessarily removed instead of ccp managing their development properly?


OMFG - they are removing it so they CAN manage their development properly. It's not rocket science people, and it's pretty much the same reasoning behind why the jukebox was removed. CCP wants to focus on the core game - the IGB, while a useful tool, is not part of that vision. Adapt or don't, but stop whinging about it and acting like CCP just kicked your puppy or something. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big of a deal, and if losing it causes you to quit the game, nothing of value will be lost.

Cismet wrote:


Okay, it's difficult to maintain it; frankly deal with it. There are so many people that use it for legitimate reasons that its removal hurts a large portion of your player base.


What are you willing to give up so CCP can "deal with it"? Rorqual rebalance? The new event system? General updates to the system? Proper direct x 11 integration?

There's an old axiom in software development:

You can have it quickly, cheaply, or correctly. Pick two.

It may be a joke, but the point it makes is valid. When you're developing software, you only have so much time and so much budget to get things done. So you have to decide what matters to the end product, not individual users. In games development that means asking what is the vision of the game - what's the future state going to be, and can we achieve that with the resources we have while maintaining the current code base. If the answer is no, then something has to give, and stagnation will kill a game a lot faster than removing something that already has other, better (in terms of software quality, not usability) options to support that functionality. Because, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, software quality trumps usability, especially in areas where client security is a concern.


Give up? The game has been developed WITH it for years and development has continued. Let's not jump down the hyperbole "OMGNODEVELOPMENTBECAUSEIGBTAKESITALL" hysteria. The software is quality and rebalancing is not development work. It's tweaking numbers in a database.

You also seem to think that this is just individual users, have you not read the rest of this thread, plus the previous thread on this matter sometime last year? This isn't a small number of disgruntled users impacted, no matter how much you might like to pretend otherwise. I'll reiterate again, the development time for the IGB to keep it up to date pales in comparison to the development time on the abortion that was the station-walking nonsense. The vomit-inducing new cameras.

Noone asked for those; when you have something that works, don't change it is a truism of almost every industry. Stagnation is a problem, but only if it's NOT WORKING, if it's working then leave it the hell alone.

Again, something that is outside of the client is outside of the control of developers and is therefore subject to banning at any point in the future. If CCP have no control over it then touting it as a viable alternative is reckless and irresponsible and introducing another companies additional product could come with its own attendant security risks.

I'll admit that I don't know how they wrapped the IGB into the software, but they didn't write the IGB from scratch, so it's hardly like CCP are developing the browser itself, and depending on how they've wrapped it in they can insert the relevant security updates.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/3.0.195.27 Safari/532.0 EVE-IGB is the browsers identification, let's not pretend that CCP have created a browser from the ground up.