EVE General Discussion

There! I changed the OP title. Instead of 'exploit' I changed it to 'Issue'.

There are many who believe the word 'exploit' fits for this overview setting issue. There are others who have been upset by my use of the word and have caused this thread to be derailed from it's original course and intent. So I changed it because I understand their definition of the word and the negative connotations it has to them.

I am still asking CCP to have the Attack battlecruiser and blockade runner to be checked in the overview settings just as they had the combat battlecruiser checked. That is what this thread was supposed to be about.

Next time someone does not like the way a poster uses a word they have an issue with I suggest they go about telling that person in a helpful manner as flaming them in a sarcastic way usually provokes instead of promotes a change.

Please explain why not ?

... right there. Sarcasm. What obvious reasons? Instead of posting that why didn't you state those reasons? You say you like to teach, but you don't. You troll and flame. It's too bad that all of your knowledge of the game can't come out in a positive way.

Those 'obvious reasons' to you are not obvious to all of us. That does not mean we are dumb, it just means we don't know something but still deserve to be treated with respect if you are a true poster and not a troller.

The bug is as minor or major as the Tier 3 fleet that is engaging you I guess.
"Known" is also a relative term in this context. I was alerted by a corp mate of the, well, let's call it glitch, and only then bothered to checkthe "known issues" thread, aka "look what they have messed up this time". This should not be mandatory after patch procedure tho.

/edit: Tippia, you're really annoying today. Not helpful. Take your boredom at work somewhere else.

Forums. Dev blogs. patch notes.

From all I know people read the patch notes to find out what was in the patch. I believe it should have been in the patch notes.

But even more than that, it was an oversight IMO. I say that because they checked the combat battlecruisers in the overview settings - so that makes me believe that they intended to check the other 2 types of ships that were changed also but missed it.

They don't have the facility to do it at present. They have stated that they do wish to have new ships checked in the future.

I believe the reason only one was checked and not the other, was that Attack BC was a new entry and therefore a new ship in the database, whereas the Combat BC was merely a name change in the database. You had one, but not the other.

As far as the BR is concerned, it may have needed a fundamental change to allow covert cyno fitting, therefore it became a new ship in the database.

He didn't say changes, alterations or fixes though ? this is a change, CCP did tick the combat battlecruiser one... it used to be just "battlecruisers" combat battlecruisers was never there before but ccp left left the assault one unchecked for everyones custom settings

*shrug* the patch notes clearly say they separated the two ships out.
also combat battlecruisers being checked just means they renamed "battlecruisers" to combat battlecruisers and didn't check any additional settings because... you had no saved variables for those settings.

it's really not that big of a deal.

The whole "if you could fly it before you can fly it after the patch thing" if my overview setting showed naga's, nado's, oracle's, and talos's before i expect them to show AFTER.... Everyone Does.... people can exploit that

I already jokingly posted about my phantasm loss... so what? I pvp, I'm used to losses.

...and yes, I and many other people I know were paying attention, very close attention to the patch notes where we should have been given a heads-up IMO. So saying I wasn't paying attention doesn't fly with me. I'm already gearing up for the summer changes.

So we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that .