Test Server Feedback

yes

Not to sound mean, but, have you actually read all of the posts in the different threads why the unified window should at the least be optional? For manufacturers, Traders, POS Management it's going to add alot more unnecessary clicking. Improvements should improve, not scrap something and start over. There have been many constructive posts, especially in the dev blog comment page made by Tippia and quite a few others.

This is going to affect alot of people, and not for the better. After last summer, I am not shocked that you guys actively ignore critical posts and feedback and just push on your changes that to many of us are fundamentally flawed.

I hate that and never use it. I didnt like the idea when they first put it out, and I keep my ships and hangar windows open side by side in every station, like I like them...

Yes, we do. Except we have to jump through extra hoops to do it.

Instead of double-clicking on one can to open that, then double-clicking on another can, which is the fast and efficient way to do such a thing, you have to double-click on one can, go rummaging through the tree list, find the can you want (which is already RIGHT THERE next to the one you just double-clicked if you'd use the station hangar interface!), then shift-click it to open a new window.

... Yeah, that's totally more efficient than the current system. Sorry, no. Four clicks in quick succession will always be faster than double-click + move mouse to new window, navigate through tree list, shift-click. If I'm trying to look at containers in other stations, fine, maybe it's more efficient. But not if they're in the same station.

It still doesn't address the problem of the new system wasting screen real estate that's already at a premium comparable to water in the middle of a desert.

I like the concept. I do not like the implementation that forces me to have more wasted screen real estate to do things I don't want to do.

When I am in space:
- I want to see my ship's cargo.
- I want a quick reference of what's in my cargo, how much space it takes up, and how much space I have remaining.
- I do NOT want to see every container I have everywhere.
- I do NOT want this window to suddenly take up more space than it did before because someone thinks that the capacity bar needs to be 2-3x as thick, or that the filter box needs to be bigger, or that for some reason I actually care how much ISK is in my hold.

When I am in a station:
- I do NOT want to have to move this specifically-for-my-cargohold window around and resize it 50 zillion times a day because I tried to open a can by double-clicking - the STANDARD EXPECTED ACTION FOR OPENING SOMETHING - and the interface decided that my tiny window being used for my cargo hold should suddenly try to display the contents of a can I use to store all sorts of ammunition or modules.
- I do NOT want to have to take that tiny cargo window, open up the tree view, find the can I want to open, and then shift-click it to open it in a new window when I could just DOUBLE-CLICK the damn thing in my hangar and have it open in a new window already. And then, to top it off, turn off the tree view and re-shrink the window back to where it was.

This is a HORRIBLE user experience. You have removed existing functionality and replaced it with a horrifically inefficient mechanism to imitate that functionality.

It's very simple, but it seems we have to repeat ourselves multiple times to make it clear how poorly this new system has been thought out from that end:
- If I double-click on a container, I want that container to open in a new window. With this new system, I cannot do this anymore. This is lost functionality. Now I have to jump through hoops to open multiple inventory windows.
- I want windows to stay at the size I want them to be at. No larger, no smaller. With this new system, I cannot do this anymore. This is lost functionality. Now I have to deal with windows that cannot be made as small as I need them to be, and that have to be constantly resized as a side effect of the first point.
- I want these windows to show information I need in a tasteful, space-efficient manner. With this new system, I cannot do this anymore. This is lost functionality. Now I have to deal with ISK values I don't give a flying **** about, capacity bars that are three times larger than they need to be as if I couldn't read them before, and filter text entry fields that were arbitrarily increased in size.

Again: I like the concept of the new interface. But the implementation is terrible, removes and/or obscures existing functionality, and is one step forward visually but two steps backwards in terms of usability for many people.

Either allow us to say "**** no, I'm not using this" and have the option to continue using the old system, or actually pay attention to and address our concerns.

CCP. I don't have the luxury of looking over this and deciding if this is a game that I want to get into and spend my time on. I have already invested some 9 years with you guys, I have wasted time, and I am invested. I have been doing things a certain way for 9 years, and you are about to force me to abandon all my current workflows. If this was a brand new game that I had never played, I would probably not get into it because of the unified inventory alone. (its a nice game, too bad its a B!7CH to use) Do not implement changes that interrupt business as usual. You are not a new game, this is not a time to reinvent the wheel and throw it out there on everyone's cars. People have developed habits and procedures that work and serve them well. You cant just kill that off now without serious repercussions.

You guys are going from Windows 95 straight to windows 7, and it looks like you are not including the option to use an old style interface. Windows at least implemented that stuff slowly over the course of 20 years, and included the option to revert to old ways. Hell, you can still get windows 7 to look and act mostly like windows 95... (not sure about windows 8, but I have heard you can get that to use an older style interface too)


Is CCP aware that this is not nearly ready to go live soon, and needs a lot of work to allow it to more closely emulate the current system?

Look at his tagline, He's the QA Director. That should answer your question quite thoroughly. I mean, look at all the past expansions that were bug ridden and seemed to escape QA even though they were pointed out months in advance by players on the test server. I'm quite sure an official email has already been sent saying "Everythign is great, we are good to go for the expansion. Some minor issues have cropped up but they can fixed in a future(tm) patch!"

Charming. FYI I've been at CCP since August of last year, and in my current position for 1 month. Also, there's not a game in the world that doesn't ship/release with bugs. If you don't have an understanding of QA process and software lifecycle I would thank you to keep your opinions and conjecture on the matter to yourself.

++++++1 This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about

I'm getting an Incarna sized vibe to this I really am.

The work that's been done on the inventory, I've no problem with this at all. The tree system works in the right context.

BUT, your forcing us to use it in all situations and that IS wrong.

But I'm banging my head against the wall here. CCP are clearly set on forcing unified inventory on us because their convinced that its better when, according to the vast majority of feedback your're getting here and on the dev blog comments, its so far away from being better its not even in the same universe.

You tried forcing something onto us we told you wouldn't work last year.

How did that work out for you exactly?

Unless you heed the many suggestions on these feedback threads, when this thing hits Tranquility the proverbial is gonna hit the fan.

So in other words you're willing to rename tomato to Tomato but not willing to do anything about it being a tomato.

Your said that "They have selected the design direction". Who are they? Are they the end users? If so - why the feedback is like this?

If you really don't see the problems in big picture here - please take the time to study some history