These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Odyssey 1.1 Feedback

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2013-09-04 21:31:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Khoul Ay'd wrote:


Okay, what's easier to remember Louis I - Louis XVIII or Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Name are meaningful, numbers not so much. Now add to that the fact that the roles for these ships changed significantly. It was going to really suck remembering which Iteron did what, and fortunately cooler heads prevailed amongst the devs. I for one am greatful to our CCP overlords.


I guarantee you that Iteron 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 was a lot easier to remember than epithal, kryos, miasmos, nereus and iteron v, for most people.

People won't sit there thinking "now which one is the PI ship, the epithal (iteron 3) or the..." they will simply show info, buy the ship and then forget about it until they need to buy a new one.

If your mind works differently, good for you.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Declan Solette
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2013-09-04 23:20:30 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
I guarantee you that Iteron 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 was a lot easier to remember than epithal, kryos, miasmos, nereus and iteron v, for most people.

People won't sit there thinking "now which one is the PI ship, the epithal (iteron 3) or the..." they will simply show info, buy the ship and then forget about it until they need to but a new one.

If you mind works differently, good for you.
As a noob, I've been thinking: Why would I ever buy anything but the most Iteron-y Iteron (ie. the Mk V)? And, I felt sad that the only one available on my local market for hauling my Planetary Interaction crap around was a puny Iteron Mk III.

But then, I logged in last night and discovered that my puny Iteron Mk III had transformed into the Epithal, a beautiful PI butterfly!

Er, well, it still looks like a dong. But, now it does the thing I was already using it for even better and I have no more sadness for my lack of Mk V space truck peen.
Declan Solette
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2013-09-04 23:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Declan Solette
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
ill like to point out that you do not transfer capacitor, a capacitor is a piece of hardware!!! i can demonstrate it to you by using a hand held laser, and a chunk of metal & wires that is a capacitor.

A capacitor stores energy in the form of capacitance... capacitANCE!
No.

The capacity of a capacitor is described in units of capacitance.

The thing stored is charge and it's transferred as current.

It's like you're explaining that a water tank transfers tank back & forth instead of water.

So, we're all morons:

  • CCP for describing the thing transferred as capacitor;
  • you for insisting at length that it should be capacitANCE;
  • and me for replying to this thread at all.

Feel better? Now go shoot some lasers and transfer some capacitor.
Scaugh
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#124 - 2013-09-05 00:00:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Scaugh
I HAVE A SUGGESTION......

I open the Neocon tabs and use them as i would my internet browsers.

Before Odyssey 1.1, the information I looked at when "Showing Information" looked something like this:

Obelisk
Attributes Tab
Structure Hitpoints 150,000HP
Capacity 825,000m3

With Odyssey 1.1 it looks more like this:

Obelisk
Attributes Tab
Structure Hitpoints ........................................................................................................................................... 150,000HP
Capacity ........................................................................................................................................................... 825,000m3

Yup, the information is now on oppsoite sides of my screen.

Now before I get the usual trolls saying HTFU and so on, let me suggest that CCP add in the option of a resizable column much like as in the market tab. This will allow me (and you) to resize the info window as we want and still have the information close to where you can read it without having move your head like its at a tennis match.

something like this is what I envisage

Obelisk
Attributes Tab
Structure Hitpoints |resizable column divide| 150,000HP
Capacity |resizable column divide| 825,000m3


Let me know what you think.
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#125 - 2013-09-05 00:15:00 UTC
Quote:
You have lost your target lock on [ship], all modules being used on their vessel will be deactivated




^^ This is getting on my nerves bigtime in notification spam. Every time I kill something it pops up Roll

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
Padraig O'Mahone
Doom Generation
Best Intentions.
#126 - 2013-09-05 00:26:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Padraig O'Mahone
Interesting...

Almost EVERY comment I saw on the "Armor Honeycombing" to "Armor Layering" change stated that it was confusing, counter intuitive and should not be changed.

The original skill name was immediately recognized for what it did. The new name implies the OPPOSITE of what it actually does. CCP did not listen. It's actually MORE confusing for new pilots.

I suppose I'm ok with the industrial role changes, what I don't understand is the massive HP reduction to ships that are already, for the most part, a one shot kill. WHY would you reduce the HP in any way on these super weak ships?

It just makes no sense. CCP made weak ships weaker, why?
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#127 - 2013-09-05 05:21:14 UTC
Padraig O'Mahone wrote:
Interesting...

Almost EVERY comment I saw on the "Armor Honeycombing" to "Armor Layering" change stated that it was confusing, counter intuitive and should not be changed.

The original skill name was immediately recognized for what it did. They new name implies the OPPOSITE of what it actually does. CCP did not listen. It's actually MORE confusing for new pilots.

I suppose I'm ok with the industrial role changes, what I don't understand is the massive HP reduction to ships that are already, for the most part, a one shot kill. WHY would you reduce the HP in any way on these super weak ships?

It just makes no sense. CCP made weak ships weaker, why?


Their fitting no longer seems to be a joke (at least in the case of the Badger), and you can get combat cruiser tank on it, roughly.

Whoa.

Fitting your industrial ships with things other than cargo extenders. Revolutionary.
stuinski Isayeki
The Soul Society
Fraternity.
#128 - 2013-09-05 08:54:47 UTC
There are only two things at i am unhappy with.

The first one is if you have a route set in the top left. When ever you jump through a gate this is hidden and it then fades back a few sections after you have jumped. The fade in may look fancy but if you in a rush and on a small monitor then this is often the only way you can navigate. and even though it stay cloaked a little after jumping my bum twitches for those few seconds before the route appears.

The second and think it was introduced in the last updated. When i am missioning i tend to target as many rats as i can then align to a starbase for when my shields get to low. but after selecting all the targets i can i click to open the right menu so i can align to where i want. how ever ever time a target it locked the right menu closes. so unless i am really quick i can't align untill all targets are locked.
Gigi Barbagrigia
Digital Oddity
#129 - 2013-09-05 09:31:38 UTC
Aglais wrote:

Their fitting no longer seems to be a joke (at least in the case of the Badger), and you can get combat cruiser tank on it, roughly.

Whoa.

Fitting your industrial ships with things other than cargo extenders. Revolutionary.


Yeah but let's make sure Ms. Revolution doesn't starve eating her children and remove few mids. I'd go and EHP Badger2 vs I5 at same cargo but :effort. Easier to just train extra skills.
Infiltrator2112
Untitled Goose Corporation
#130 - 2013-09-05 09:43:00 UTC
Khoul Ay'd wrote:
Love the skill tree changes, love the skill name changes. Your OCD must be comparable to mine! Lol

And to all of the "EVE is dying" whiners, get over yourselves and adapt or just quit already. Anyone who didn't recognize the mess the skill name and tree had become is like the guy in your office whose filling system is piles of papers mixed with sandwich wrappers.


I approve the new skill-groups, but in some cases the new system is even more confusing than the old one, for example Cynosural Field Theory:
It's an INT/MEM Skill, originally located in the Electronics group, which all are INT/MEM as well.
Now it's and INT/MEM skill, located in the Navigation group, which all are INT/PER, except for Cynosural Field Theory. That doesn't make any sense.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2013-09-05 11:16:23 UTC
@ CCP Rise (or anyone that can answer), was the tracking of the artillery guns overpowered in comparison to the other medium long range weapons, pre-patch?

The 10% to ROF was pretty pointless imo. It only reduces the cycle time by 1 second and i think it would have been better if you increased the damage multiplier by 5% to play to the strength of artillery weapons.

Please reconsider this action.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Bones Miner
Miner's Mulitnational Monopoly of Mining Miners
#132 - 2013-09-05 13:11:42 UTC
Taradis wrote:
Koppite wrote:
STOP making the game easier..every single patch is dumbing this game down.



Agreed, this ain't WOW



Isn't that the single greatest downfall of WOW? That's the primary reason many of my friends do not play WOW anymore, too easy too cookie cutter.
Stjaerna Ramundson
#133 - 2013-09-05 23:22:35 UTC
Salpun wrote:
Drones radial needs the recall to drone bay on the first level.


*sign* .. not that we said it in the test server feedback *caught*


Skill:
Controlled Bursts
Still in Gunnery Group, should be in "Engineering"

Cause:
Weapon Upgrades and the adv. weapon upgrades are in Engineering Group, so also Controlled Bursts have to be in Engineering. All 3 Skills have to do with the Engineering (CPU, Powergrid, Cap)

additonal for your thinking about it:
Shield Upgrades are in Shields but don't have to do something with shields in this way. It reduce the powergrid needing so like the skill Adv. weapon upgrades. So it have to be in Engineering Group.

additional 2
Shield Emission Systems
don't have something to do with shields in this way, it reduce the cap need of transfer moduls of shield power. So it have to be in Engineering Group.

additional 3 (thats the best of it xD)
Armor Resistance Phasing

have to be in Armor AND ! Engineering Group. Cause direkt effekt of the system himself (faster cycle) and cap reduce.

additional 4
Remote Hull Repair Systems
Reduce cap needing of remote ... see additional 2 causing.

Would be nice, if you put the weapon Upgrade to group gunnery back. You see in the different point of view something a new group is okay but, wu and awu in another group destroying the thinking system of a player where to look for it. cause, armor and shield are all in the same main groups for it but if you search it for weapons you won't find it in gunnery so .. hope you understand what I try to say.


Missing: Removing of "back to ship and orbit" menu point for Sentry Gun is like to say to a Stone it have to come to you.. (the stone won't walk to you .. also the sentry's won't move..)

Missing: Disabled Group chaining when put a drone with drag & drop to drone bay ( you don't have ever time to target 10 minutes this damn little bar "Drone in Bay" and over ring menu it is to slow (cause 2. under menu) so still punish shift + r cause it is better than looing dmg.

Possible: All other skills are now (more or less ^^) sortet in more little groups.. why not also for Space ship command?

example:
Spaceship Command (main)
Amarr
Caldari
Gallente
Minmatar
Industrie (ore ships)
Spaceship Command specialisation (logistik, advance space ship command.. and so on for the not race bound skills, but you know what I mean)

Same is possible for Weapons

Weapon (main)
Projektil
missile
hybrid
lazor
*missing one.. -.-*
possible the put drones to this menu also (cause it is also a weapon system)

Also possible for defending

Defending (main)
Shield
Armor

..
Industrie same

Industrie (main)
Production
Resource processing


Still waiting for fix the BS attaing light drones in missions.. (update 10.12.12 you said it was fixed, but still exist) Yes I did have the problem this day more than one time again. (while I fly to gate, light drones kill the bs ^^ if i would use heavy drones = i´m at gate got coffee and did a walk with the dog and the heavy drones still fly to target (and lost 3 of 5 of them in flying to it..) ^^

Enough feedback to this time, need to sleep like a stone. But can't go to bed, cause moving orbiting to bed is not available for sentry's ;D ^^ (sry for the last one ^^) now realy bed

cu
  1. Eigenen Beitrag mit sachliche Argumentationen, Problemschilderung, Erklärung, Lösungsansätzen formulieren.
  2. Beitrag enthält eine eigene Meinung im Fazit zum Thema.
  3. Negative Äußerungen, Drohungen usw. gegenüber Nutzern haben in der Meinung nichts zu suchen.
riddick chappell
No trouble in the midst
B.E.A.R.S.
#134 - 2013-09-06 07:58:49 UTC
stop fixing things that are not broken and fix stuff that is, this is just another attack on the missioners

i dont want to PvP
Stop Looking
Nefarious Activities
#135 - 2013-09-06 18:43:58 UTC
Please, for the love of god, put the option to disable window snapping back in.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3582157#post3582157
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#136 - 2013-09-06 20:21:08 UTC
Can someone please explain why the nerf on pirate ship calibration pts was necessary? More over, why it was not included in the patch notes? This patch is full of surprises :)

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!
Don Guerrilla
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#137 - 2013-09-06 21:13:16 UTC
Really disappointed with the issues after the most recent Odyssey 1.1 patch. Even more disappointed with CCP's communication with the EVE player base in regards to them addressing and fixing these issues. I have played eve for a while now and the bugs resulting from this patch are the worst I have experienced thus far.
Truth's Child
Perkone
Caldari State
#138 - 2013-09-07 08:07:15 UTC
Aplier Shivra wrote:
Now any time a target I'm shooting at dies, I get the black box notification in the middle of my screen saying "you lost your target lock on [ship type], all modules being used on their vessel were deactivated". I know I lost my lock, I know my modules are being deactivated, I just watched this ship die by my lazors, I dont need a notification in the middle of my screen to tell me. Is there any way to make this disappear or at least not apply to when ships die?


I agree, though I'd be interested in hearing CCP's philosophy of why this obvious information is now being presented, filling the beautiful space scape with unnessary verbal clutter.
Ang Min
CPD Adventures Pte. Ltd.
#139 - 2013-09-07 08:34:35 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:

There's a phrase in software development called "feature creep". It's basically the adding new, irrelevent non-sense just to add stuff. The changes to the skill tree are just that: feature creep. Splitting up categories of skills just to split them up is dumb. There is no other name for it.


That's not really what "feature creep" means...it refers to adding features and changes to a software project later in the development cycle. And the reason feature creep is considered bad is not because the features being added are "irrelevant non-sense" but because they were not accounted for earlier in the planning, resulting in the project shipping late and going over budget. I don't think this applies at all to the skill tree changes, your dislike for them not withstanding.
Ang Min
CPD Adventures Pte. Ltd.
#140 - 2013-09-07 09:09:45 UTC
IMHO I think the industrial changes are great, and possibly my favorite feature of Odyssey 1.1. It took a convoluted mess of mostly useless ships (once you trained for the biggest capacity ship, there was no real use for the smaller ones) and turned them into much more easily understood, well-purposed ships (I see no logic at all in any of the objections from the change-resistent posters elsewhere in this thread).

Just wondering though, why were all four of the special purpose indys distributed amongst just two races (Minmatar & Gallente), with three out of the four concentrated in one race (Gallente)? I guess that was the most straightforward in terms of converting from existing ships, but it would seem to make more sense if each race had one of the special purpose haulers, in addition to the two cargo and speed oriented ships. Or perhaps even more reasonable would be to put all of the special purpose indys under the ORE category/skill group, like the Noctis, since there's nothing really racial specific about hauling, say, ammo vs. PI goods.