These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online: Inferno 1.2 Feedback

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Elayae
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
#221 - 2012-08-09 21:58:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Elayae
Good work CCP.

The only downside in this patch is that my hulk, mackinaw and skiff have useless Medium Cargohold Optimization I or II in the rigs slots now, could those be unfitted and return to my hangar, please?
Zinx IIV
Zinx Corp
#222 - 2012-08-09 22:41:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Zinx IIV
CCP Greyscale wrote:
James Selkirk wrote:
Rapid patch deployment: check Smile
Client patched cleanly: check Smile
Patch works: check Smile

"Ethnic Relations skill changed into Diplomatic Relations. The old effect of segregating corporations by races is gone, so all corporations can have all races, always. The skill now reduces the cost to hire allies in war. The skill will not be reimbursed as it is not being removed, but changed." (Italics added)

So, Ethnic Relations has a changed name and a changed function, yet somehow this does not count as removing a skill and adding a whole different skill. Because I trained Ethnic Relations to have a multicultural corporation, not to hire allies in wars I'm not about to get into.


From a technical perspective, it's the same type with the same internal ID number. To count as removing a skill and adding a whole different skill - again, from a technical perspective - it'd mean deleting the old skill and adding a new one with a different ID.


This logic seems slightly flawed to me. Just because the ID number did not change, does not mean that the skill was not removed. There is no longer a skill that has to do with people joining your corporation being different races and there is now a skill that alters the cost of declaring wars.

Even though you kept the same ID number, it does not negate the fact that you altered the entire effects and attributes of the previous skill and in essence created an entirely new skill forcing well over 100,000 toons to automatically start with it even though it is not a skill that comes standard on a new account! This is quite inconsiderate to people who carefully pick the skills they would like in their character skill sheet.

Personally I would not like this skill in any of my toons save the single toon that would only be needed to declare war cheaply, but now I have it on almost all of them. I agree with the above players who are asking that CCP reconsider this change if it isn't too difficult or tedious. Unless it is planned that a player can remove a skill or recycle skill points in the near future, this change is troublesome.

I understand that this is a small issue in the big picture, but every little detail matters to some degree, especially if this is allowed and used as a precedence to do it again to another more vital skill in the future without proper feedback from the community. Just my two cents.

On a lighter note, thanks to the devs at CCP for trying to consistently improve on the game... I await to see how the market fairs in the coming weeks with the mining barge and alchemy changes.
Knowledgeminer
Oriens Vis
#223 - 2012-08-09 22:59:22 UTC
I like this patch, seems an improvement and a step in the right direction overall, looting missions in particular seems to finally work as it should, but there is one thing that concerns me.

I haven't been affected by the ship rebalancing done so far, but I'll sure be some day, so I wonder... When you change the role/bonuses of a ship. you provide a way to replace the rigs without destroying them, right? Because if not, people might get upset with the way you handle the changes for obvious reasons, even though they might like the changes themselves, and I'm sure you wouldn't let something like that happen... P
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#224 - 2012-08-09 23:29:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Nitinol wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
James Selkirk wrote:
Rapid patch deployment: check Smile
Client patched cleanly: check Smile
Patch works: check Smile

"Ethnic Relations skill changed into Diplomatic Relations. The old effect of segregating corporations by races is gone, so all corporations can have all races, always. The skill now reduces the cost to hire allies in war. The skill will not be reimbursed as it is not being removed, but changed." (Italics added)

So, Ethnic Relations has a changed name and a changed function, yet somehow this does not count as removing a skill and adding a whole different skill. Because I trained Ethnic Relations to have a multicultural corporation, not to hire allies in wars I'm not about to get into.


From a technical perspective, it's the same type with the same internal ID number. To count as removing a skill and adding a whole different skill - again, from a technical perspective - it'd mean deleting the old skill and adding a new one with a different ID.


This is an unacceptable, and condescending response. Normal user's don't care about the structure of your data tables or whether a row's key has changed.

What I care about, and what James Selkirk cares about, is that you have changed the purpose of a core skill. If you had changed the gunnery skill to affect mining there would be riots in Jita again. Just because the impact is smaller, does not make the error trivial.

I want the SP back for the skill I trained, which no longer exists. period.


I'm just trying to explain why the patchnotes say what they do. We understand that some players will be unhappy with this as they feel that some skills they've trained are less useful to them. This is however something that happens pretty much every time we make any serious balance changes, and it's been long-standing policy that we don't reimburse skill points due to this kind of change. We appreciate that this is not to everyone's liking but we currently feel it's the best way to deal with these situations overall.


The last time a set of skills were removed from the game, the learning skills. We were not forced into a new skill we NEVER chose. We were reimbursed for the SP.

I'm guessing for most people this is less than a days worth of SP, and a lot of people have never trained this skill at all. Unlike learning skills. So in the grand scheme of things this is a small problem. However the precedent you are setting with this skill change I find repulsive to concept of EVE of choices having meaning. Because for us to be responsible for our choices we have to be able to make them in the first place.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#225 - 2012-08-10 00:44:47 UTC
Urgg Boolean wrote:
Maybe someone already asked this, but what happened to the switch to make "shift-click" windows the default? If it's there, I can't find it...


They hid it in each individual inventory window. Hash stack in upper left corner of the window.

I thought it was supposed to be a global switch in the Esc configuration space, but noooooo, they have to get their digs in.
MR rockafella
Santa's Factory
#226 - 2012-08-10 03:01:03 UTC  |  Edited by: MR rockafella
CCP Prism X wrote:
There is no rounding bug with R.A.M. tools. This changed waay back when we were uniforming the Sience and Industry code paths.

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but the design is if you want to "reuse" your RAM like that you'll have to use up more assembly lines. This here:
MR rockafella wrote:
The result is that a build of 100 runs/units of X-something that requires 50% of r.a.m.- tool one whould require 50 of r.a.m.-tool but build quota window wont accept 50 r.a.m.- tool it will only accept when 100 r.a.m.- tool is there and once build is press it only removes 50 r.a.m.- tool and there is 50 r.a.m.- tool left.

Is by design.

And please don't get mad at my coworkers because they do not know the reasons for something I did almost five years back (and the other people involved are sadly no longer with us). They're just trying to help where they can and they couldn't in this case.



Okay.

Thank you for responding.

You say its by design that the "Manufacture build quota window" shows a incorrect amount need, Could you please explain why that is by design because that fact is the amount show is not the "true" amount needed.
I really want to understand the logic in that cause from my point of view its illogical, to my eyes it looks a poor concept design or lazyness.

I want really want to know and understand the choice behind making making a obviously design flaw in game mechanic's

Secondly i find your attitude arrogant and belittling i'm sorry i'm only a close to 10 years loyal and passionate costumer and i'm sorry that you and your coworkers doesnt find that admireable nor live up to your standards, confusing passion and frustration with being mad i guess its your arrogance and to be honest that makes me feel sorry that i've tried for about a year to get any response on information on this matter and it makes me feel that i've wasted 10 years on this game and it makes me think about if should really care about this game at all or even play it.

I'm sorry that i have asked you and your coworkers question about something that you abviously dont want to answer or find beneath you to talk about.

Ill go away now and ask any more about this nor
Logicycle
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#227 - 2012-08-10 07:51:49 UTC
This is an important patch fixing the technetium problem and revamping mining barges and all. It all looks good so far.

Now I'm just waiting for the single most important thing missing from EVE. - Ship Hanger, Item Hanger, & Corp Hanger Buttons on the Neocom!!!!
blaine thepain
Die Gallier - Abt. Sicherheit
#228 - 2012-08-10 08:15:07 UTC  |  Edited by: blaine thepain
I'm a little bit tired of writing and a little bit tired of playing EVE.

The co-workers (maybe did World of Darkness before) had no clou how EVE works. The workers who should take care that everything works fine, did in the last time a bad job (im sorry for that).

The new Inventory getting sligltly more usefull but so much things are inconsistent and not logical right now.

The mouse pointer is always miles ahead before the window (try to move a window on top of the screen). I'll have to make several trys till it's on the position i want the window to be (maybe its only my personal problem and noone else have that).

- the changes to the ORE ships seems to be good in the first look, but they have to move the rigs that are now no more needed to the hangar (maybe a one time button to move rigs out if i want to do so)
- they have to build a rig for normal ore so that the hulk could be superior again (and to fit the logical way for the other rigs)
- they have to reimburse the SP for the skills like all the years before
- they have to think about the ship balancing -> example "Atron vs Taranis" again

My personal opinion is: Is it possible to rework the "Standings mechanic"?
Because it makes me sick to grind SecStatus in High-Sec to move or build a POS or getting the standing for jump clones for all of my Corp mates (it takes ages to long and its really frustrating when playing the same mission again and again and again and again and again .....)

It's nearly impossible to get the standing of the Corp high enough if you have more than 20 people in it.
You have to leave the Corp, grind SecStatus, build the POS, rejoin the Corp (D'oh).

Id like to make mining OP's or some PvP. And after 6 years of EVE im stuck with that SecStatus grinding.

By the way: Im playing in a Universe where it is imposible to find a way to empty 0.0 Systems to settle without paying trillions of isk to an Alliance or else i have to bring in 1000 of people who take care of the system. WH are nice but its not 0.0. Maybe they should also a way for smaller Allys/ Corps to get into 0.0 -> Because its a Universe -> i should be able to get whereever i want without to pay for a save route. Else WH Systems should be like 0.0 where i can build everything EVE offers like Stations and Jump bridges -> Cyno Jumps WH <-> LOW Sec or something like that.

WH Systems are Systems like every other System except of the way getting there. Why should it imposible to build a Station? I can build a POS why not a Station or Jump Bridge?
Or to find a way to the Main Systems? This is something the Game Designer has to answer? Why this is not possible/logical.
And dont say its the game mechanic or WH Systems are so far away -> it breaks my illusion how a Universe works ;)


Ok too much offtopic (Sorry for that).


Thanks a lot


Grettings

Blaine the pain


PS: Fleet members (who are not in the Corp) should have full access to an Orca without getting a red flag if somehting should be moved or used out of the Corp hangars if i configure it to "Fleet access" on my Orca!
Viceran Phaedra
Instar Heavy Industries
#229 - 2012-08-10 09:14:44 UTC
Don't be so precious, you little mining pilots. Pull the damned rigs out yourself and go pay for some new ones. Generation of princesses... you get a massive beneficial change to how mining works, and you still think the world owes you ever so much.

Harden up.

Chief Executive Officer

Instar Heavy Industries
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#230 - 2012-08-10 09:27:37 UTC
Very nice patch - I love all the rebalancing and new stuff...

However I am not pleased with most of the rookie ships being capable of making cyno tasks:
- They are 100% free ships (even if people still have to purchase the cyno itself)
- They can be spawned in any station (people only need to think about providing cyno + fuel on location)
- Rookie ships are designed for new players (But abused by old players as free throw away cynos)

Pinky
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#231 - 2012-08-10 09:42:54 UTC
CCP, Why did you made the targeting system subcontroller rig stack with sebos/rsebos?

I mean other RIGs doesnt stack bonuses, so why this one should?
If you make it stacking, then make all the RIGs having stacking penalties.

Thats not coherent.
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#232 - 2012-08-10 10:29:53 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Urgg Boolean wrote:
Maybe someone already asked this, but what happened to the switch to make "shift-click" windows the default? If it's there, I can't find it...


They hid it in each individual inventory window. Hash stack in upper left corner of the window.

I thought it was supposed to be a global switch in the Esc configuration space, but noooooo, they have to get their digs in.



it is a global "switch" but to make it more obvious we put in the settings for the window (if you change it in one inventory window it also changes in the other). we have window based settings in this exact place for a lot of windows. Fleet window, EVEMail, Drone window, Overview to name a few so it shouldn't be a total surprise to find settings options there.

I for one, have harder time finding settings in the esc menu all the time since there are more tabs there and a bunch of settings, but if you like to be angry about the placement of this, it's fine by me.

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#233 - 2012-08-10 11:03:07 UTC
Knowledgeminer wrote:
I like this patch, seems an improvement and a step in the right direction overall, looting missions in particular seems to finally work as it should, but there is one thing that concerns me.

I haven't been affected by the ship rebalancing done so far, but I'll sure be some day, so I wonder... When you change the role/bonuses of a ship. you provide a way to replace the rigs without destroying them, right? Because if not, people might get upset with the way you handle the changes for obvious reasons, even though they might like the changes themselves, and I'm sure you wouldn't let something like that happen... P


He/She that still has large rigs on smaller ships like a salvaging destroyer raise your hands \o/ Bear

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
Faffywaffy
Fremen Sietch
Evasive Maneuvering.
#234 - 2012-08-10 11:07:06 UTC
Categorizing the search market results is a bad idea. Think about it - when does a person use the search rather than the browse tab? When he's looking for a specific item whose name he already knows. Considering that almost all items in EVE have a corresponding bpc, having the results displayed in a category-tree means that in almost all cases one would need an extra click to find the item he's looking for.
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#235 - 2012-08-10 11:08:03 UTC
We updated the new module button tooltips today, Friday, in Inferno 1.2.2, based on your feedback.

Please find information on the new and updated tooltips in this post from CCP Soundwave: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=142498

We'd love to hear your feedback on today's update in that thread.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
Lady Flute
Ilmarinen Group
#236 - 2012-08-10 11:12:57 UTC
Overall loving the mining ships, however Hulk got nerfed a bit too much for its cost. Should probably have one more lowslot, or +1 warpcore stability - as things stand, they are simply not worth the cost over the values of the other ships. They are a lot of training for not much more than other ships - and very killable still when compared to Mackinaws / skiffs. Ironically the newer miners are rightfully delighted, the verteran miners not so much lol

Jury is still out on alchemy, however while you are taking feedback I'd love to see an alchemy process for isotopes. Helium + atmosheric gasses to Nitrogen isotopes etc etc. Would be nice and make it easier doing moon alchemy anywhere that isn't caldari ice Big smile
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#237 - 2012-08-10 12:09:31 UTC
Celeste Aserad wrote:
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Why were the ship velocity adjust knobs changed to a *smaller* target?? I understand the utility of "-" and "+" but do you know how many times I'm required to do a panic STOP!! Can we get them sized up or at least ghosted to a target size equivalent to the old triangles please??


You always have the hotkey for 'Panic-STOP'. The default should be Ctrl + Space



Maybe random changes to hot keys would help the keyboard jockey's understand what it feels like to have their favorite way to play the game messed with. I for one choose to use my memory space on something more important than a game.
Jilnor
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#238 - 2012-08-10 12:33:29 UTC
Layla Ravensclaw wrote:
Maybe was the red horizon patch worster, but what they now did with the minning bargues is also worst.
Cus the smallest ship in that class of t1 minning bargues can carry more ore than a T2 exhumerclassvessel thats its three times bigger than that procuer?

Or the mackinaw has an 35k cargobay for ore thats is 4 timers bigger than in a Hulk , and the mack is 1/3 shorter than a Hulk.!

And than should i said that is good work to the ppls thats work on the patch ? NO
I lost over the half of my cargobay in my hulk . Before the patch was the cargobay 17k for ore and cyrstals ! Now have i 735 cargobay for crystals and a 8500 orebay?


After the patch Hulk is best used on fleet mining ops. Look at Skiff and Mackinaw for solo work. What's wrong with them?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#239 - 2012-08-10 13:01:06 UTC
Donedy wrote:
CCP, Why did you made the targeting system subcontroller rig stack with sebos/rsebos?

I mean other RIGs doesnt stack bonuses, so why this one should?
If you make it stacking, then make all the RIGs having stacking penalties.

Thats not coherent.



Er lots of rigs have a stacking penalty. Resist rigs, damage & RoF rigs, EW strength/range rigs, navigation rigs...

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#240 - 2012-08-10 13:06:02 UTC
Lady Flute wrote:
Overall loving the mining ships, however Hulk got nerfed a bit too much for its cost. Should probably have one more lowslot, or +1 warpcore stability - as things stand, they are simply not worth the cost over the values of the other ships. They are a lot of training for not much more than other ships - and very killable still when compared to Mackinaws / skiffs. Ironically the newer miners are rightfully delighted, the verteran miners not so much lol

Jury is still out on alchemy, however while you are taking feedback I'd love to see an alchemy process for isotopes. Helium + atmosheric gasses to Nitrogen isotopes etc etc. Would be nice and make it easier doing moon alchemy anywhere that isn't caldari ice Big smile




Don't all the exhumers have an identical skill requirement?

And even before the change, the Hulk requirement was, what? an extra 16,000 SP over the Mack?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016