These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE Online: Inferno 1.2 to be deployed on August 8

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#361 - 2012-07-26 20:18:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Callidus Dux
CCP Arrow wrote:
Lucas Quaan wrote:
CCP Arrow wrote:
We would also need to compare it to other Shift functionality regarding such an 'Esc' setting, would it only apply to the Inventory, or be a global 'Make SHIFT a primary behavior' kind of thing? etc.

Since SHIFT is in a very useful position on your keyboard, some of us already have it bound to other useful functions in combat situations. If anything, I would suggest having as few global shortcuts as possible to allow the player control over which keys to use.


What I meant to say was: If what currently needs Shift click is changed to work without Shift click (as an option), should that be only for the Inventory or extend to other UI elements currently used by Shift click? Example would be the Overview when opening up a Cargo hold of a wreck.

(UI is an acronym for User Interface.)

CCP Arrow:
Please try to limit the autoshift to the behavior of the inventory. The denial and hate of "shift+click" is just a problem which came up with the unified inventory. I would really like to abandon the unified inventory and the tree view- or at least the behavior of the whole unified inventory. I want several independent windows back. Rather too much than too less.

And to avoid some dumba$$ to bring the old absurd thesis "Every one who loves more than one window is automatically a bot runner." You are allowed to place and move every single window some pixel mêlée compared to the position of the last seperate opened window via random generator. A player is able to compensate these few pixels. But perhaps it is not really necessary.

For me it would be OK that I MUST use shift+click to open a second window if I want to compare things. Or that I MUST use shift+click to lock a target from the overview. But I dislike every shift+click if it is about windows like wrecks, containers, inventory, dronebays, cargo holds etc. To make it short I want this autoshift function to have the copy of the old inventory. ALL other former shift+click shortcuts, before 22.05.2012, will be OK for me.

Addition: I have read some other posts and a very good appropriate statement came from Bubanni, four posts above me.
Bubanni wrote:
To give answere to this question, if you mean anything related to the Unified Inventory... then yes! :)
(as long as you don't affect stuff not related to the inventory, like show info in new window or same ...)


If you would do this, the main issue of the unified inventory would be gone. Every one who loves the unified in the word Inventory could still use it. But all others who loves the old NON unified inventory could easily set the autoshift to ON.
Perhaps I would be one of the first persons. Blink
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
#362 - 2012-07-26 20:44:23 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
Jarin Arenos wrote:
CCP Affinity wrote:
Octoven wrote:
Will be a nice little patch; however, could you have a talk with the graphics department? I do NOT see CCP's sudden die hard addiction to camo skins. Honestly, do you see any trees, shrubs, or bushes in space to blend in with?? IMHO they are ass ugly. Take the CNR for example. Granted, the raven looks like a cancerous deformed ship, but now with tech camo it looks like it is a sickly cancerous deformed ship with leprosy or something. Its nice CCP wants to make them stand out but damn.

At least go with some black hulls with variation in trim colors and crap like that. Just seems ******** to have a ship painted in camo in a space environment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

So what you're saying is that camo ships should have a smaller sig radius stat to represent the greater difficulty in automatic identification and targeting?



I was just joking/bad posting.. I will try and remember not to do that again

Eh, I wasn't being entirely serious either. Though it'd be nice to see some sort of in-game nod to the new widespread popularity of camo schemes. It's starting to look a little... same-y.

But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?
Rezecor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#363 - 2012-07-26 20:45:00 UTC
I didn't scan all 19 pages to see if somebody brought this up already, but with regards to the mining barge changes, there is one aspect of it that creates a lot of problems for those of us who use crystals. The translation of cargo space into ore hold also means a huge reduction in the amount of space to carry spare crystals. This makes crystal mining a lot more trouble as with only 500m3 in a hulk unmodified, that's realistically only enough space to carry T2 crystals for about 2 or 3 ore types which means more down time when having to switch up crystals for an ore type you don't have on hand. (i.e. warping off to get them or having a hauler bring them out to you). In effect, this change is a nerf (though not a huge one) to those who use mining crystals.

I'd like to suggest reducing the volume of mining crystals by half or more (say to something like 20m3 for T2, 15m3 for T1) to reduce the impact of the much smaller cargo hold. The other way that I wouldn't mind would be to allow mining crystals in ore holds.
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#364 - 2012-07-26 21:27:21 UTC
Rezecor wrote:
I didn't scan all 19 pages to see if somebody brought this up already, but with regards to the mining barge changes, there is one aspect of it that creates a lot of problems for those of us who use crystals. The translation of cargo space into ore hold also means a huge reduction in the amount of space to carry spare crystals. This makes crystal mining a lot more trouble as with only 500m3 in a hulk unmodified, that's realistically only enough space to carry T2 crystals for about 2 or 3 ore types which means more down time when having to switch up crystals for an ore type you don't have on hand. (i.e. warping off to get them or having a hauler bring them out to you). In effect, this change is a nerf (though not a huge one) to those who use mining crystals.

I'd like to suggest reducing the volume of mining crystals by half or more (say to something like 20m3 for T2, 15m3 for T1) to reduce the impact of the much smaller cargo hold. The other way that I wouldn't mind would be to allow mining crystals in ore holds.


This! Good point... didn't think of it yet. But have them with me normally indeed.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
mkint
#365 - 2012-07-26 21:38:48 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
mkint wrote:
Also, please add to the feature request list dragging tutorials from the help tutorial list to chat. So many times i've been helping in help chat and rookie help where linking the tutorial would have saved so much time and typing.


Way ahead of you, already implemented Smile

(Don't worry, karkur did it - I was too busy destroying the game to get involved.)

It's actually something that I've been wanting for over a year but f&i is a joke and it isn't something the csm would care about.

Btw you are one of the more interesting devs sprinkling villainy with the occasional awesome.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#366 - 2012-07-26 21:38:51 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
What I see here is a small VERY vocal group of angry Unified Inventory people (same 4-5 posters). More than half their suggestions make me cringe if implemented. I hope the Devs weed out these "Uni. Inv. Fundamentalists" before their dogma becomes the Sharia Law of Eve. Ugh


I'm curious as to which suggestions make you want to cringe? Other than my (somewhat) joking suggestions of flogging certain developers, most suggestions I see are all about bringing back lost functionality to make it easier to use.



Also, add in an option to turn off the extraneous stuff on the inventory windows. Other than the blue bar, I'm pretty much a rabid hater of everything you added to the windows. I find the blue bar tolerable, and it's about the only extra you added in that I wouldn't sell someone else's soul to disable.
mkint
#367 - 2012-07-26 22:34:09 UTC
CCP Arrow wrote:
Lucas Quaan wrote:
CCP Arrow wrote:
We would also need to compare it to other Shift functionality regarding such an 'Esc' setting, would it only apply to the Inventory, or be a global 'Make SHIFT a primary behavior' kind of thing? etc.

Since SHIFT is in a very useful position on your keyboard, some of us already have it bound to other useful functions in combat situations. If anything, I would suggest having as few global shortcuts as possible to allow the player control over which keys to use.


What I meant to say was: If what currently needs Shift click is changed to work without Shift click (as an option), should that be only for the Inventory or extend to other UI elements currently used by Shift click? Example would be the Overview when opening up a Cargo hold of a wreck.

(UI is an acronym for User Interface.)

just get us as close as possible to the previous functionality please. The problem never was that there were too many windows. The problem was always that our tools to navigate them are consistently taken away in an effort to play catch up to the worst ui trends. Now you're going to have to reinvent the old tools that have been thrown away before they were obsolete.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Rezecor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#368 - 2012-07-26 23:55:59 UTC
Did I miss something? Is ice mining getting nerfed? Cry

I went over to the test server and played around a little bit with mining barge/exhumer fits. With my testing, I see about a 15percent loss in ice mining output. Here are figures I came up with. (all relevant skills to 5, ice harvester II, ice harvest upgrade II's, no orca/rorq boosts)

New Mack 178.96s/2 cube = 89.48s per cube or 40.23 cube/hr
Old Mack 291.13s/4 cube = 72.78s per cube avg or 49.46 cube/hr
New Hulk 248.43s/3 cube = 82.81s per cube avg or 43.47 cube/hr

Ice mining is painful enough as it is without something like this. CCP, please give us a way to compensate for this.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#369 - 2012-07-27 00:21:47 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
What I see here is a small VERY vocal group of angry Unified Inventory people (same 4-5 posters). More than half their suggestions make me cringe if implemented. I hope the Devs weed out these "Uni. Inv. Fundamentalists" before their dogma becomes the Sharia Law of Eve. Ugh



This is probably the smallest complaint thread regarding the UI. Dig around and you'll find 500+ pages spread across a dozen different threads. The number of people posting is in decline partly due to CCP doing jack **** about it and partly due to unsubbed complainers. I myself have already dropped 2 accounts. It seems they only listen when layoffs are mentioned due to decline in subs.
Freezehunter
#370 - 2012-07-27 00:22:58 UTC
Rezecor wrote:
Did I miss something? Is ice mining getting nerfed? Cry

I went over to the test server and played around a little bit with mining barge/exhumer fits. With my testing, I see about a 15percent loss in ice mining output. Here are figures I came up with. (all relevant skills to 5, ice harvester II, ice harvest upgrade II's, no orca/rorq boosts)

New Mack 178.96s/2 cube = 89.48s per cube or 40.23 cube/hr
Old Mack 291.13s/4 cube = 72.78s per cube avg or 49.46 cube/hr
New Hulk 248.43s/3 cube = 82.81s per cube avg or 43.47 cube/hr

Ice mining is painful enough as it is without something like this. CCP, please give us a way to compensate for this.


I thought they were adding mercoxit and Ice mining rigs.

Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom.
Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#371 - 2012-07-27 01:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jett0
CCP Arrow wrote:
The only question that remains is, if a user opens up the Inventory from the Neocom, and is using the Index tree, will he also want that window to close when he has pressed 'Loot all' on the last wreck in the index tree?


Is it possible to base the behavior on whether or not the index tree is expanded? For example, if it's minimized (like when you're looting in space), the button text changes to "Loot / Close." This would allow you to solve both scenarios while being clear on function.

Occasionally plays sober
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#372 - 2012-07-27 01:53:25 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
What I see here is a small VERY vocal group of angry Unified Inventory people (same 4-5 posters). More than half their suggestions make me cringe if implemented. I hope the Devs weed out these "Uni. Inv. Fundamentalists" before their dogma becomes the Sharia Law of Eve. Ugh


The rest of us gave our reasoned and measured responses to the unified inventory during the few weeks after it hit Sisi. Now we're just disgusted by the whole process, the fact that CCP's development model is screwed up enough that they had to push it live even though it wasn't ready, and the just bad design of it at the core.

The new unified inventory is garbage. It starts from the flawed assumption that all of your inventory locations shoved into a single window is a good idea.

Then there's the stupidity that drag and drop operations will change your focus point within the tree if you linger too long over the tree portion of the window. If I'm dragging and dropping things, one can safely assume that I have *other* things that I'm planning on dragging and dropping from the source location. Therefore the focus should never be changed until I manually click on the new location in the tree view.

This is especially annoying because of the lag caused by the unified inventory, which means that during a drag-n-drop operation you have to go *slow* in order to make sure that the right slot in the tree lights up before you release the drop. Which, of course, causes the window focus to change to the spot that you just dropped stuff into. Now you have to navigate your way back to where you started and figure out what you were trying to sort out.

There's the flawed assumption that a tree is a good UI element. Tree views work fine, but *only* if the window is very tall. In shorter windows where you can only see 5-8 tree items at a time, trees become a very poor UI choice. Which goes back to the flawed choice that putting everything into a single tree is a good idea. Those trees should have been left segregated by location type (ships go in one window, your personal hangar and personal containers in another window, your corp hangar in a 3rd window). Then you would only have 5-10 elements in the tree, so even on a short and wide inventory window, the tree would still be useful.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#373 - 2012-07-27 02:32:15 UTC
just dropping this here since it's a unified inventory discussion

http://images.six.betanews.com/screenshots/945901171-1.png

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#374 - 2012-07-27 03:34:55 UTC
also using the middle mouse button on an element in the unified inventory should open a new window

just sayin

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#375 - 2012-07-27 03:38:58 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
just dropping this here since it's a unified inventory discussion

http://images.six.betanews.com/screenshots/945901171-1.png


Ha ha. This is like... Unified Everything.

Index > Space > Ships > Current Ship > Modules > High Slots > Weapons > Large Mega Pulse Laser > Action > Fire (Your capacitor is empty)?

Occasionally plays sober
Fenria Del'tore
Doomheim
#376 - 2012-07-27 03:45:24 UTC
Rezecor wrote:
Did I miss something? Is ice mining getting nerfed? Cry

I went over to the test server and played around a little bit with mining barge/exhumer fits. With my testing, I see about a 15percent loss in ice mining output. Here are figures I came up with. (all relevant skills to 5, ice harvester II, ice harvest upgrade II's, no orca/rorq boosts)

New Mack 178.96s/2 cube = 89.48s per cube or 40.23 cube/hr
Old Mack 291.13s/4 cube = 72.78s per cube avg or 49.46 cube/hr
New Hulk 248.43s/3 cube = 82.81s per cube avg or 43.47 cube/hr

Ice mining is painful enough as it is without something like this. CCP, please give us a way to compensate for this.



You missed the ice mining rigs. Put those on and retest.
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#377 - 2012-07-27 05:00:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabrina Solette
What the **** were you thinking with the pirate ship changes.

The Dramiel, the main small ship I fly, why change it, the size was perfect as it was. It seems to be change for changes sake. Looks like I'll have to look for something else to fly now. Although there's nothing that even comes close to the Dramiel before you expanded it.

Very unhappy about this.




The patterns on the pirate ships, what were you thinking yet again. I thought I had some decent ships some of the best looking ships in the game and now you're turning them into a f****** dairy herd.


Strike two, very unhappy yet again.




Come on CCP don't make changes for changes sake.
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#378 - 2012-07-27 05:26:43 UTC
R0ze wrote:
I don't understand the concept of camouflage skins in space (ok I know I'm way too late since navy mega and the rest allready got theirs) but still..
What is the reason? Hide between asteriods?




Totally pointless, it's not like there's any trees or bushes or rocks to help break up the shape of the ship (asteroids don't really count unless you intend to spend all you time in an asteroid field). In fact camouflage patterns are more likely to make the ship stand out as camouflage is supposed to make you blend into the back ground.


Maybe CCP intends to make them ugly so that you have to pay for a ship skin just to make them look half decent again.
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#379 - 2012-07-27 05:42:16 UTC
In regards to no longer being able to carry a variety of crystals with the Hulk's new cargo bay:

Just make the crystals smaller, eh? 50m3 is pretty large, actually, when compared to the size of similar items. For example, large pulse laser crystals are only 1m3.
Perhaps mining crystals were made huge for balancing reasons, but frankly it just seems like adding a bit of needless tedium?

Anyway, that way you could keep the hulk's bay at 500m3 and still let people carry the crystals they need for convenience.
xXThunder StruckXx
Sandman Plc
#380 - 2012-07-27 07:50:41 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
xXThunder StruckXx wrote:
Could you please let us know what is happening to the crimewatch changes? Have they been scrapped , withheld again?


Any update would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.


Still in ongoing development, we were never expecting to ship any additional changes in this release.



Thank you for the response Greyscale