EVE Information Portal

Telling me that a particular use case defines the UI isn't the style of the game we play. Something that everyone uses should meet the needs of everyone approximately. Breaking a particular bit of functionality has resulted in this feedback, as it does whenever ~our lords and masters~ break something. Not everyone wants to salvage at max efficiency, some want to kill and choose their loot. Some want to organize things in stations. Some want to ... etc, etc. I'm not telling you that you are wrong, I'm telling you that if your favorite style of gameplay was suddenly broken for no required reason, you'd understand my position. And if you look around, you'd see I'm hardly alone. A 65 page feedback thread for a minor patch revision says there is a problem. I'm glad they didn't break something that you use, but you'd be here howling just like me if they did.

Or you would just roll over and take it... who knows?

Mmmm...I only said how it worked for me. I didn't say anything about how it affected you.

There's a thread with tens of pages of people who tested and doesn't like it created as soon as the UI went live on the test servers.

Testing should be done thoroughly and intensively and taken feed backs from the testers, reiterate and only push out on live server when it is adequately fixed (Which we know it wasn't the case, feedbacks ignored, dev that doesn't play the game, it is only pushed out because CCP is releasing this feature as per "scheduled deadline" and not per "usability"

Not everyone has the time to go and play game like some people do, not to mention the test server requires people to put extra time which they may not have the luxury have. If CCP is paying players for "testing their own games" so they can compensate for their "lack of a QA division" then maybe, but oh wait! CCP don't have a QA department right?

Another player told me it was tested on SISI...and alot of people there said it was buggy and they didn't like it.

What bull. The fact is that CCP has a test server, freely available to any paid-up member, with the latest patch and
CCP members online to listen in and absorb player's feedback. If you want to influence CCP's direction with constructive criticism over their ideas, then log on to SISI.

If you want to ***** about what they've believed are good ideas, then carry on being a forum troll.

Once I got used to it, I'm able to drop what I've sorted right into the leaves (bins) of the tree because the leaves highlight when i hover over them. This didn't happen when I hovered over my station containers (now leaves). So I know Im putting the right items in the correct station containers.

However, I don't have a POS, or a lot of Corp containers.

Do I use the the ISK estimate - no. Do I want it - I don't care as long as it's not causing a performance issue.

I have noticed that the performance in station is much slower than out in space when I open a wreck. At least opening a wreck is almost instantaneous for me, which it wasn't when the update was first released.

I can see how, if you have a lot of leaves on the tree that it would be problematic as you have to scroll up and down the pane to find the right container.

Originally, I was thinking that the Unified Inventory was going to be a separate view and not a replacement for the then current system. It didn't make sense to remove it. Having many ways to do things is a good thing.

The UI is looking better, even taking into account that I'm a bitter vet, but I digress...

Is there any way to Pin a created stack of Frequently accessed Hangars to the neocom bar currently? Say for example All the hangars of a Corp hangar in one block. And if it does exist currently (hoping I haven't had a senior moment and overlooked it) save it so its there after exiting the client and re-logging back in?

I agree with you there. However the default view forces treeview, and doesn't remember locations, so I and many others are forced into the treeview methodology. That would even be okay if the location remembered the last place it was for at a minimum, two separate windows, so I could minimize, and ignore it. I'd even be okay with the annoying focus changing of the mulitiple windows if they did so in a consistent fashion (i.e. wrecks always overwrite the wreck window, cans / cans, and so on). I'd even be okay with the pricing data slowing things down if it was, in fact, meaningful pricing data.

However it really seems to me that the priority in terms of this change was 1) Looks snazzy 2) New things! yet feedback was priority zero. Those two priorities are strictly for people that don't play Eve yet or currently, but the visual characteristics quickly become something not seen, and the interaction and usability part becomes priority one.



This I disagree with. As I mentioned earlier, the only thing that gets their attention evidently is rage and pitchforks. Feedback from the test server doesn't work, constructive feedback just after the patch didn't work (I don't think you saw the thread where Soundwave told us what we wanted was "bad design"), but the lessons of Monoclegate tell us that this method, does in fact work. Until presented with a better alternative, and teaching them that yes, they do in fact have to listen to people, it is what it is.

I love the part where everyone gets all forum warrior on this thread.

I can agree with this.


We'll have to disagree here. I think raging at first is effective, but when they ask for feedback and no more raging; and all you do is rage; they will just filter it out and look for solutions to the problems and ignore the rage. I'm sure they aren't masochistic. :)

And, yes, they should have taken the feedback from SISI. That should have been done!