EVE Information Portal

While Perforce has many shortcomings it excels at large-file management. Other systems have better change-set management but can't cope with our art assets.

Opening orca bays before inferno:

*right click orca > open cargo hold
*right click orca > open ore hold
*right click orca > open corp hangers


Opening orca bays after inferno and fixes so far:

*Hit cargohold button at bottom of screen
*right click orca > shift+click open corporate hangers
*expand tree view > close filters > scroll > shift+click ore hold > collapse tree view
*and now remember to hit shift+click for EVERYTHING else.....
*also remember to manually close windows that you are about to warp away from to avoid getting another cargohold view that you will have to manually close anyways...

- - - - - - - - - -
Please return full original functionality... please

Dear Tippia, I was actually supporting you by pointing out to the op that you and others had highlighted the many flaws with the new inventory system and that he should read up what you and others had said many times before posting.

Read what I posted again, think about what it actually says, then come back and apologise for your shameful display.

Some times you let your forum ego get in the way of your ability to think Tippia.

Tippia just had a broken sarcasm filter for your post.... be easy on the guy. He has been pretty much the most helpful person that I have seen on this issue...

Wow CCP, you guys really just don't get it. We don't care how hard it is for you to keep doing these updates. We don't care at all about your next major release. The reason we don't care is because you didn't care about us when you released this abortion you call unified inventory, when countless people told you it wasn't ready. But some idiot at the top (CCP Hilmar) must have told you to push it out because this patch had to have a major feature, even if it was completely broken. This is not how good development works.

I seem to remember Soundwave saying that your number one priority was working on fixing this until we are happy with it. Well guess what, we aren't happy with it. So don't expect any sympathy from any of us about how you can't work on the next "feature" we hate.

Add the ability to add shortcuts to the neocom for any container we want.

Add the ability to disable the total value in the bottom of the window.

Fix the dreadful performance issues.

For the love of all things holy, make my corp hangar tree stay maximized at all times and remember the last division open.

There is a huge list of other things still broken. You should be working on restoring every bit of lost functionality from the old inventory, not whatever awful new "feature" the higher ups want. This game is borderline unplayable for anyone who does logistics.

I wanted to expand a bit on CCP Soundwave's comment in his dev blog that "doing frequent updates isn’t really healthy and can’t be maintained for longer periods of time" from a technical perspective. In this particular case then the frequent Inferno 1.0.x releases are starting to press against the staging process of the next main deployment.

Let me explain a bit what I mean by that:

We use a source code revision control system to manage the source code for EVE Online (we use a system called Perforce). We develop each expansion in a code branch called MAIN but shortly before deployment we copy the code (port it) into a different branch for the final fixes; isolating the code being deployed so that future development can continue uninterrupted in MAIN for the future deployments thereafter.

After a deployment we hotfix the server and deploy client patches from the staging branch until the subsequent staging branch is created. The reason why we only have one staging branch active at each time is that code fixes made in a old staging branch can't be ported directly to the new staging branch, but rather must be ported through the MAIN branch, potentially picking up extra/new code in the process that is intended for a later release.

In this diagram you can see the staging branches for Inferno 1.0.x (called DEBBY) and the upcoming Inferno 1.1.x (called ERNESTO):

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/62833/1/Branches_H2_2012_v6a_small.png

We were planning to stage Inferno 1.1.x on 6 June but have pushed that back to 7 June to give the team working on the Unified Inventory all the time possible for updates of Inferno 1.0.x, before we must create the staging branch for Inferno 1.1.x to allow the teams working on that release to finalise their deployment. There are then going to be more updates to Unified Inventory in Inferno 1.1.x as CCP Soundwave detailed in the dev blog.

Obviously CCP has done as much as they can to "Fix" inventory in as short a period as possible. Too bad some issues labeled as fixed weren't fixed to the level CCP project members desired. But then I think they are going farther than CCP as a whole should.

It is time for CCP to move back to more normal release schedule. Its time for everyone to recognize that fixing some UI issues needs to be given a long time on the back burner. Allow for sanity in design, coding and priorities rather than panic mode.

In the mean time CCP needs to consider telling people that some issues WON'T Be fixed because they are too fundamental and the time spent wouldn't improve the game enough to be worth while.

Real PVP players only need inventories big enough to fit and hold their current ships. If your inventory was that reasonable size,performance would be just fine. That is what CPC tested against and they succeeded beautifully. All you other whiners are asking for stuff the game really doesn't need to support. Choose industry and mining and you simply should pay the devil's price a carebear should expect when abusing the game that way.

*** In fact I suggest CCP tell industrialists that the UI was an intentional NERF just like ship nerfs. A slow UI in fact does reflect a more realistic industrial process. Frankly all production except ammo should probably be slowed further. Ships losses should be meaningful not back in a hour with the same ship fit. Maybe the new UI can discourage so many players from doing Industry and mining -- so that losses can finally outpace production and bring forward the exciting possibility of actually winning EVE (last corp standing).

* A slow and unreliable UI also stops unrealistic feats like haulers snatching ore from flipped cans jsut as they instawarp or ninja bystanders in hi sec snatching loot from honest gankers and instawarping away with the profits. ***


Basically if you need a fast reliable inventory -- you aren't doing enough PVP and playing EVE the way it should be played.

I think CCP should survey players by EVE career/playing style before putting more effort into this issue. I highly suspect most decent PVP players are pretty satisfied and that only bad PVP players looking for bizarre edges and exploits care about further UI improvements. And the core of complaints will come down to a tiny minority of carebear industrialists and miners who warp the game when anyone listens to their needs. Again choosing that career in EVE is equal to choosing to suffer, so CCP should more or less let you do what you can in EVE based on an interface focused purely on the needs of the majority of EVE players flying the CCP vision of action and not waste time catering to a sad whiney self-torturing minority building piles of treasure for no specific end purpose.

Please explain to me how you thought you were ready considering the amount of negative feedback this inventory received from SiSi? Did everyone that posted feedback waste their time, because it certainly looks that way to a lot of people on here.

Also with regards to you needing to get back on track with your scheduled releases, i presume this is in the hope that you can gain a few new subs to cover the ones that have left/are leaving through this latest debacle.

IMO your priorities are completely wrong. You should be trying to keep yiour existing customer base before trying to attract new ones.