These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Unified Winferno is now live - and it sucks as much it did on test server

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#101 - 2012-05-17 07:25:40 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I'd just like to confirm that "winferno" is indeed going to be awesome.



Devs shitposting about crappy updates is win?

Signature removed - CCP Eterne
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#102 - 2012-05-17 07:26:38 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I appreciate that Tippia. Im just being argumentative. I too can create alliances though im not sure about the cost to do so. I did train the skills however.
1bn… the 100M is just me trying to fleece you for the service. P
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#103 - 2012-05-17 07:31:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Takseen wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

It comes down to this. All attackers are being viewed as unjust and deserving of more risk while all defenders are being viewed as noble and deserving of every ease of execution that can be given. Every attacker is also being treated as more skilled or greater in number and every defender as smaller or less competent.


Why else would you declare war on someone if you didn't think you were better than them?


Well lets start with VersaEx. At one time a 45-50 man Russian Corp. These indignant twats had the audacity to tell my corpmate he owes them 250 mil for suicide ganking a hulk of theirs. Outraged by this unjust blackmail we counter offered them to live in peace for a sum of 500 million. They refused.

5billion isk in losses for them and 50% of their corp members having (from 45 to 22) quit we retracted the war having felt the injustice settled.

Thats just one injustice from EVE shennanigans. Tell me what would you have done but honorably declare war on those tyrants?

A 45 man corp demanding a 5 man (at the time) corp to pay that extortion? War I tell ya was necessary.

Now they want to give these guys a free ally? Where's the justice?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-05-17 07:38:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I appreciate that Tippia. Im just being argumentative. I too can create alliances though im not sure about the cost to do so. I did train the skills however.
1bn… the 100M is just me trying to fleece you for the service. P


I don't considerate it a fleece. Ive contemplated sending you isk gifts for each wonderful post you make on these boards but i'd go broke doing it and someone of your intellect isn't in need of cash anyway. I figure eventually someone will try you in game one day for voicing your opinion and ill have the pleasure of joining you in combat.
knulla
Doomheim
#105 - 2012-05-17 08:34:48 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Takseen wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:


The key word in your fanboy smugness is "might". There isn't going to be a might. Its a each and everytime you try and focus aggression to one corp you are automatically going to deal with two. You also neglect to address any other point, im sure its convenient.


That's how wars work in real life though. You declare war on someone, they bring their allies in to fight for them. Using them as a war to grief a specific person was always a bit suspect.


Curiously, I remember the United States bringing in the Brits, the Australians and 3 Polish guys to attack Iraq. If were going to bring in real life it would seem I have a point.

It comes down to this. All attackers are being viewed as unjust and deserving of more risk while all defenders are being viewed as noble and deserving of every ease of execution that can be given. Every attacker is also being treated as more skilled or greater in number and every defender as smaller or less competent.

For something thats promoting war it seems to make some very nuanced assumptions that will stagnate alot of high sec conflict.



You forgot the 1 danish guy.

 [u]Malice Redeemer[/u] - "Post if you are unsubing over the new inventory"  Posted: 2012.05.23 01:39

    lol
knulla
Doomheim
#106 - 2012-05-17 08:42:03 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Takseen wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

It comes down to this. All attackers are being viewed as unjust and deserving of more risk while all defenders are being viewed as noble and deserving of every ease of execution that can be given. Every attacker is also being treated as more skilled or greater in number and every defender as smaller or less competent.


Why else would you declare war on someone if you didn't think you were better than them?


Well lets start with VersaEx. At one time a 45-50 man Russian Corp. These indignant twats had the audacity to tell my corpmate he owes them 250 mil for suicide ganking a hulk of theirs. Outraged by this unjust blackmail we counter offered them to live in peace for a sum of 500 million. They refused.

5billion isk in losses for them and 50% of their corp members having (from 45 to 22) quit we retracted the war having felt the injustice settled.

Thats just one injustice from EVE shennanigans. Tell me what would you have done but honorably declare war on those tyrants?

A 45 man corp demanding a 5 man (at the time) corp to pay that extortion? War I tell ya was necessary.

Now they want to give these guys a free ally? Where's the justice?



The ally is not free and what stops you from attacking with more than a 5man corp? In reality, even the ISK sink dec on goons is not that much, if you declare war on them you should expect to pay A LOT more and not have an issue with it.

You know, like how it works now pretty much.

all I see is a better system and hopefully a way for wars to escalate further and I think it might even create more wars, yeah!

anyway, I think the bigger issue now is, can wardecc be more meaningful than now and what this expansion will bring.

 [u]Malice Redeemer[/u] - "Post if you are unsubing over the new inventory"  Posted: 2012.05.23 01:39

    lol
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2012-05-17 09:24:54 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Takseen wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

It comes down to this. All attackers are being viewed as unjust and deserving of more risk while all defenders are being viewed as noble and deserving of every ease of execution that can be given. Every attacker is also being treated as more skilled or greater in number and every defender as smaller or less competent.


Why else would you declare war on someone if you didn't think you were better than them?


Well lets start with VersaEx. At one time a 45-50 man Russian Corp. These indignant twats had the audacity to tell my corpmate he owes them 250 mil for suicide ganking a hulk of theirs. Outraged by this unjust blackmail we counter offered them to live in peace for a sum of 500 million. They refused.

5billion isk in losses for them and 50% of their corp members having (from 45 to 22) quit we retracted the war having felt the injustice settled.

Thats just one injustice from EVE shennanigans. Tell me what would you have done but honorably declare war on those tyrants?

A 45 man corp demanding a 5 man (at the time) corp to pay that extortion? War I tell ya was necessary.

Now they want to give these guys a free ally? Where's the justice?


Whats stopping current corps that are war dec from paying someone to war dec you and defend them? I mean right now on TQ.

Isn't just adding a formal interface to something corps already do to defend themselves? And it's not free...

Also as the attacking corp, you could pay someone or ask someone to war dec the defending corp with you. Right? I mean, why not? Am I missing something?

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2012-05-17 09:31:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The only real issue with the wardec change is that the pricing structure is still wrong-headed because it goes against the stated goal of getting rid of the sillier war avoidance strategies. It also risks rendering some of the additions DOA since wars will still just be a matter of beating up the small guy (who won't have the cash to buy mercs).


As a member of Huang for years, we always helped out people who were too small to deal with war decs. Oh wait, we didn't follow your exactly version of eve is suppose to be played. Sorry.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#109 - 2012-05-17 09:37:36 UTC
The real problem with wardecs remains though: there's no real reason to fight in hi-sec.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#110 - 2012-05-17 14:24:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The real problem with wardecs remains though: there's no real reason to fight in hi-sec.


... and rarely reason to spend the ISK to do a war dec if you are based (and primarily fighting) in Null. That's why I think for Sov to officially change hands a war dec should need to be involved.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#111 - 2012-05-17 14:31:45 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The real problem with wardecs remains though: there's no real reason to fight in hi-sec.


... and rarely reason to spend the ISK to do a war dec if you are based (and primarily fighting) in Null. That's why I think for Sov to officially change hands a war dec should need to be involved.


The only law in null is player law. That's the whole point of it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#112 - 2012-05-17 14:35:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Tippia wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Holy christ that video from Tippia is infuriating, why does he keep closing the tree
Because it's a waste of space and doesn't help me with any of the things I need to do. It only helps me in opening new windows which I shouldn't have to do to begin with. Yes, I can use the tree view to switch inventories and thus have it replace the current tabbed setup I use, but it's a very bloated and cumbersome way of doing that — I have to scroll around to get the inventory I want rather than have immediate access to it.

The tree view is handy in the personal and corp hangar, and would be useful in the corp and personal asset view (which it doesn't support) and S&I interface (which it doesn't support). It serves next to no purpose for small and temporary inventories such as cargo holds and cans.

Quote:
that simply clicking on a particular tree marker erases the need to clutter your screen with windows, you don't NEED to have that **** open all over the place like that, its all neatly bundled into one package.
The tree view doesn't let me see multiple locations at the same time. It only lets me click between them, which is the exact opposite of what I want. I have better things to do with my mouse and keyboard than fiddle with the inventory screen — it should just sit there and show me what I want it to show me. So no, I still NEED to have all those windows open, and they're not all over the place — they're neatly bundled in one corner… which is another thing the new UI doesn't let me do. In fact, it's the new UI that makes the windows appear all over the place rather than neatly bundled.

What you're saying is that it would be a good thing if they combined the overview and the HUD into two different tabs in the same window: it reduces clutter and if you want to see what's around you in space, you can always click to show it; if you want to see how your ship is doing, you can click to show that instead. Because no-one ever wants (or needs) to see both at once, right?

Quote:
The filters allow you to go one farther and only see the parts you need most at any one time like, its baffling watching him do that over and over when its just like, leave the tree open and stop screwing around.
No, the filters don't solve any of the problems because it's still only applied to one inventory at a time. If I want to have two or more inventories open to monitor both at the same time I still need multiple windows to do so.


While I understand what you are trying to do and say, I think his point was that often you would insist on dragging from an open window to an open window instead of simply dragging to the tree.

Example: When you dock and are sorting your loot out of your cargo hold. All you need have open is your cargo hold. Filter things however you like and simply drag the items to the appropriate listings in the tree. All of your sorting is done from one window, with far less mouse movement back and forth across your screen than dragging from one window to various other windows. The tree is right next to the items you are working with.

All that extra mouse movement needs to be done because you don't leave the tree open so that you can sort, drag, and drop on the hangers (etc.) listed there. In other words the tree isn't just there to allow you to easily find and open other hangers/containers... it's there to provide one spot (immediately adjacent to where your mouse will be) to drag your items to when sorting.

By insisting on closing it, you remove half of the functionality you would otherwise have. Functionality that would, to a large degree remove the need for the other open windows.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#113 - 2012-05-17 14:47:14 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The real problem with wardecs remains though: there's no real reason to fight in hi-sec.


... and rarely reason to spend the ISK to do a war dec if you are based (and primarily fighting) in Null. That's why I think for Sov to officially change hands a war dec should need to be involved.


The only law in null is player law. That's the whole point of it.


I agree, but even organizations far removed from what most would concider civilization tend to make a formal declaration of war when doing more than just raiding. However in EVE there has been little in the game mechanics to simulate/encourage this so far outside of high sec.

The killmail system and it's trappings is an effort to make it easier for people to see for themselves just how a conflict is going (or ended up), but I think part of the sorting of that information in game is going to end up being directly tied to war decs... and the system to officially have contractural terms tied to merc contracts is going to be tied to that as well.

I'm all for the freedom to do things your own way in Null, but I have no problem with making war decs a "desireable" part of the process if there are advantageous game mechanics that can be attached to it. That, and if large sums of ISK are involved, there needs to be a reason to pay those sums... there needs to be an advantage involved. In high sec, it keeps Concord off your back. In Null you gain nothing for your money spent other than the ability to more easily hit any foolish shipping they may be doing (outside of a neutral alt corp) if you catch them in Empire.

Just saying there needs to be a bit more involved if you want Null sec entities to actually use the system, because right now they have no need to.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2012-05-17 14:48:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
Ranger 1 wrote:

Example: When you dock and are sorting your loot out of your cargo hold. All you need have open is your cargo hold. Filter things however you like and simply drag the items to the appropriate listings in the tree. All of your sorting is done from one window, with far less mouse movement back and forth across your screen than dragging from one window to various other windows. The tree is right next to the items you are working with.

All that extra mouse movement needs to be done because you don't leave the tree open so that you can sort, drag, and drop on the hangers (etc.) listed there. In other words the tree isn't just there to allow you to easily find and open other hangers/containers... it's there to provide one spot (immediately adjacent to where your mouse will be) to drag your items to when sorting.

...but in many cases dropping items to tree eventually means that you have to be aware what and how much is in the destination folder already. Having 2 windows shows all the relevant information immediately and makes such item transfers much easier.

Then there is also the problem that you need to scroll the tree all the time and it is rather easy to accidentally drop stuff to wrong folder. This can be rather annoying specially in cases where your stuff end up to corp hangars you don't have withdrawal access to.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#115 - 2012-05-17 15:23:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Example: When you dock and are sorting your loot out of your cargo hold. All you need have open is your cargo hold. Filter things however you like and simply drag the items to the appropriate listings in the tree. All of your sorting is done from one window, with far less mouse movement back and forth across your screen than dragging from one window to various other windows. The tree is right next to the items you are working with.

All that extra mouse movement needs to be done because you don't leave the tree open so that you can sort, drag, and drop on the hangers (etc.) listed there. In other words the tree isn't just there to allow you to easily find and open other hangers/containers... it's there to provide one spot (immediately adjacent to where your mouse will be) to drag your items to when sorting.

...but in many cases dropping items to tree eventually means that you have to be aware what and how much is in the destination folder already. Having 2 windows shows all the relevant information immediately and makes such item transfers much easier.

Then there is also the problem that you need to scroll the tree all the time and it is rather easy to accidentally drop stuff to wrong folder. This can be rather annoying specially in cases where your stuff end up to corp hangars you don't have withdrawal access to.


Completely understandable, and many people find keeping things straight mentally is easier when things are in consistant and seperate locations on their screen.

I don't see anything wrong with having multiple windows open for reference, but the actual draging and dropping (sorting) would much more easily be done from the main window (the one you happen to be currently working on) to the tree. Thus the other posters comments about his insistance on closing the tree being counter productive.

The issues with the other windows updating properlly, and perhaps some minor tweaks to the physical layout of the tree are certainly valid concerns that should be easy to rectify.

I will make one point that is near and dear to my heart.

If you make it so that your inventory window(s) can be dragged to another monitor, outside of your EVE window, you will make people pretty much universally happy.

One of the main problems with having multiple windows open for reference all the time (as Tippia does) is it leaves very little space for actually playing the game. Being able to move those windows to another monitor would be a boon to many people, and even people that play on a single montior in windowed mode would probably like the option to put all chat/inventory type items to the side away from their main play area.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#116 - 2012-05-17 15:36:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
MotherMoon wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Takseen wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

It comes down to this. All attackers are being viewed as unjust and deserving of more risk while all defenders are being viewed as noble and deserving of every ease of execution that can be given. Every attacker is also being treated as more skilled or greater in number and every defender as smaller or less competent.


Why else would you declare war on someone if you didn't think you were better than them?


Well lets start with VersaEx. At one time a 45-50 man Russian Corp. These indignant twats had the audacity to tell my corpmate he owes them 250 mil for suicide ganking a hulk of theirs. Outraged by this unjust blackmail we counter offered them to live in peace for a sum of 500 million. They refused.

5billion isk in losses for them and 50% of their corp members having (from 45 to 22) quit we retracted the war having felt the injustice settled.

Thats just one injustice from EVE shennanigans. Tell me what would you have done but honorably declare war on those tyrants?

A 45 man corp demanding a 5 man (at the time) corp to pay that extortion? War I tell ya was necessary.

Now they want to give these guys a free ally? Where's the justice?


Whats stopping current corps that are war dec from paying someone to war dec you and defend them? I mean right now on TQ.

Isn't just adding a formal interface to something corps already do to defend themselves? And it's not free...

Also as the attacking corp, you could pay someone or ask someone to war dec the defending corp with you. Right? I mean, why not? Am I missing something?



Ease of execution. The simplicity of having a onesided interface. Some corps will inevitably scour the contracts looking for each and every war they can join and outnumber the aggressor.

And thats the point I believe. To make war so risky of a calculation that only the largest bother with it. I suppose its the dulling of high sec so more will go live out in null. Which will fail because two problems of Null havent and cannot be solved. The first being blind-corner gate camps with bubbles (usually at null entrances) and peoples tendency to not want to live under a worthless dictatorship while enduring a logistics nightmare. ( I fly a heavy interdictor, I could easily find a null home, I don't bother)

And yes as an attacker you could pay a second corp to war dec with you, but you aren't getting a interface with a few clicks to do so. And now its going to be a requirement.

The defender has the advantage of the interface and initially offering a free two corp gank on the attacker. The attacker at best can offer their ally a 2 on 2. And then for the attackers ally they get to pay for another war dec. The whole system is being slanted to the defender and that doesn't promote war.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#117 - 2012-05-18 12:39:49 UTC
Today's unified inventory build looks much better. when you open "extra" windows in station they now remember their positions and size. They still don't reopen when you re-enter station after undocking, but still it is major improvement. I'm starting to have real faith that they actually might be able to make it usable before the Inferno launch. Just one big step remaining really - other stuff is rather trivial.

Some really good work there.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Opodiphthera Eucalypti Lepdoptera
Doomheim
#118 - 2012-05-18 13:04:31 UTC
Chimp takes a month to learn how to use a drawer, you decide to make his life easier and give him a box. Chimp goes mad.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-05-18 13:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg

If you want to know more...
read all about it, go test and don't hesitate to leave your personal opinion after done. This is one of those moments when it just might be worth to do so. The blog forgets to mention thing or two.


Thx, just got a good laugh rl.

Edit:

About Unified Inventory, I have a very hard time using it and think it's tedious/unintuitive. However the base idea is excellent, it's only how "stuff" operates that makes it tedious than before.
In serious need of improvements before releasing it, CCP don't do the mistake of bring that one asap like it is, it will be felt and considered as a failure, will certainly bring hundreds of pages of rage and probably another rage-quit attitude that can be perfectly avoided if you take some more time to fix it.

Thing is that it's quite difficult to offer precise feedback when you have no plan or tree of what this new feature should/want to do.
All we can do is use it and get the feeling at first clicks it's not a good feature.
This kind of feature is supposed to make our game experience better, enjoyable than now but actually it doesn't.

About wardecs: well, I keep my initial thought and will forever keep it that high sec should be really safe, reduce the size of it, reduce the opportunities in it but make it really harsh to impossible for bullies.
High sec should be the first place of faction warfare and influence factions frontiers, revenue, taxes and concord protection.
For free pew pew, free target picking and biased tactics this should belong to low sec and null sec exclusively.

If high sec is far too safe it's only for bullies that will almost to never accept risks.

brb
Malice Redeemer
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#120 - 2012-05-20 21:23:57 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Flamewave wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
There are always idiots that will complain about a broken feature on the TEST server.

I agree. We should wait until it's a broken feature on TQ before saying anything at all.

Lol


There's some use cases that could be improved with this system and I hope these issues are addressed before this thing goes live. I don't want to trash it too bad - the things it does right it does really right - but there's still room for improvement.


Constructive feedback = good. Very, very good.

I think his post was more directed at those making vocal, vague, obscure complaints... accusing the developers of stupidity... or simply offering opinion on something they obviously didn't actually work with (or at least work with long enough to fully understand).


where is the constructive feed back? he is just cautiously patting the devs on the back, he said it needs work, but doesn't have brains to have an idea of what, or the balls to say what he thinks.

The new system has some nice features, but it breaks so much usability. It has to remember what window it is on and it has to remember where it was. Every window, like it does now, or its a step backwards.

I'm also not happy with the wasted space at the top, if there is one thing this ui needs less of, its wasted space. let us collapse the search field / view change icons, or make them collapse with the useless treeveiw.