These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP is thinking about removing the IGB

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rumtin
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#221 - 2014-07-15 13:45:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Rumtin
CCP FoxFour wrote:

Anyways, nothing is happening anytime soon, when it does it will be because we, CCP and you the players and the CSM, have had a good long discussion about it, and only once something else is in place to replace it.

I hope that elevates your concerns for now. Let's get back to blowing up spaceships and building an awesome universe together and enjoying the sun... Which I might be the only one doing :P


Riiight, like how we had that big, huge, long discussion before you arbitrarily removed the Jukebox? Guess we all missed that discussion.

Why is it so hard for CCP to keep hold of the good extras in EvE? Complaining about how its "extra work" to properly maintain these features is silly. Havent you ever heard of Job Security!? While you guys are off gutting EvE Online to make it as maintenanceless as possible, guess ill be off looking for a new pass-time with the rate this is going.
Enta Ozuwara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#222 - 2014-07-15 21:56:21 UTC
Justin Cody wrote:
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Lykouleon wrote:
Carmen Electra wrote:
+1

Kill IGB.
http://www.google.com/chrome

Just to be sure, you do realize the IGB is a version of chrome, right?


OMG, they did that to Chrome??


its part of the webkit that chrome is based on yes...but it is not chrome. Although they could easily update the browser as it exists right now simply by updating the toolkit. It would be a very small and significant patch. Probably result in another boot.ini incident somehow so it is avoided :-P.


It is Chrome. Chrome 3. Chromium Embedded Framework wrapped in Awsomnium to be precise. It has V8, or at least a very early version of it. It doesn't have HTML5 because that was in the very early stages when Chrome 3 came out. You might not realize it, but that was 6 years ago.
Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#223 - 2014-07-16 05:53:18 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
First, I agree with most of your post Anabella
Anabella Rella wrote:
Why remove a convenient in-game feature that's widely used and force us to rely on a second display, a smartphone, tablet, etc.?

Security. Try reading the other posts.

Anabella Rella wrote:
As another poster pointed out, when the current IGB was created it was touted as a major upgrade in terms of both functionality and future maintainability. Was that all just hogwash? Was CCP being dishonest with us then or, are they being dishonest now?

What the hell does being wrong have to do with being dishonest? Technology has changed a huge amount in the past 11 years, and expecting the best solution to a problem to stay constant with the advent of new technologies is asanine, ignorant, and plain stupid. Many of the technologies CCP is replacing the IGB with did either did not exist at the time that the IGB was added, or were very recent and untested at the time.



The latest iteration of the IGB is nowhere near 11 years old. It was demoed and a tech overview of it was given at Fanfest 3-4 years ago.

What I was getting at was the fact that at the time the current Chromium-based IGB was introduced, CCP stated that it was not only a better solution technologically but would be far easier to iterate on. Now FoxFour is saying just the opposite. So, which is it?

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
Dyscordia
Super Elite Friendship Club
#224 - 2014-07-16 07:28:51 UTC
Ursula Thrace wrote:
honestly, i use the IGB, but if CCP decided to nix it, you wouldn't catch me crying in the corner with a bowl of porridge. change is good.


Losing your leg and getting a prosthetic leg is change. For me personally, I wouldn't consider that good even if the fake leg is more durable. I see this situation in much the same way.

If the IGB has to go due to lack of CCP resources/interest to support it and keep it secure, so be it. I'm also going to have strong feelings about this proposal since it effects my game play in a dramatic way. I am also going convey concerns while this is just a preliminary and probably 1/2 baked idea. To me, when I am told CREST is going to replace the IGB - it sounds like someone is saying 'your 10 year old Toyota has to go, but don't worry we are giving you these brand new leather BMW bucket seats to help you get to where you need to go. Now just go ask someone to design a sports car around it for you, I'm sure it will be an unbelievably amazing car. Good luck!'

Giving third party developers slick tools is actually a great thing to do - it enhances the game experience. Pawning off parts of your application because you do not want to support it and expecting third party developers to pick up slack and manage expectations does not enhance the game experience. It does the opposite. Third party developers can do some amazing things, I agree, but they are entitled to lose interest and stop supporting a a product, not share their products with the community at large, or simply move on to other non-CCP projects/hobbies. They don't even have to tell us they quit.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#225 - 2014-07-16 09:34:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrie Atticus
Let's take a travel tool most of galactic north and west use, currently it just spots your current system and updates that system when you're en route to show the current one + has nifty things like info on people getting podded or someone declaring a system hot (on top of route opmitization, system avoidance, JB's, security status diversion and dozens of other nice things).

Instead of having all the info going:
IGB -> External server -> IGB

it has to go:
Eve Cliend (EC) -> CREST -> External server -> CREST -> EC
(or worse:
EC -> client computer -> CREST -> client -> external server -> client -> CREST -> client -> EC)

If CREST has a hiccup of 30 seconds, the tool is useless, same as if the external server has a hicup. Problem is that API and CREST are notoriously bad at staying up even after all the lovely and beautiful effort CCP has done. It's an extra layer of complexity which can break easily.

Best thing for CCP would be gauging the total usage of in-game browser and the amount of calls it is making to external services, simulating that increased load on CREST and see how badly it dies.
E1ev1n
Big Sister Exploration
#226 - 2014-07-16 13:25:25 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
...1
So that probably doesn't help this that much as all i have done is confirm we CCP want to remove the IGB and that it is years away from happening. That doesn't help the fact that many of you use the IGB and feel losing the IGB would hurt your gameplay.

...2
The other big thing the IGB offers is the ability to open links in the client. I don't think we have looked to deep into it, but we should be able to have you press a button on web site and then via CREST it tells the server which tells your client to open some window. Maybe a tad shower but again not only is the format and technology better for developers but the number of uses and possibilities is far greater than the IGB.

...

In regards to 1 you are absolutely correct. Not only would it hurt our gameplay but it would likely impact 3rd party devs in ways we don't yet understand. In fact if you look at sites like battleclinic or incursion community's websites and how the fits are displayed on them it seems that there are alot of things that work really well with the game having an IGB.

In regards to 2, I think that added functionality of the IGB would be more desirable, perhaps by updating the CHROME engine to a newer version that supports HTML5. This would (as far as I can tell based on some tests with different browsers) allow sites like youtube to display content which can be beneficial to new pilots and old pilots alike.
Draconas109
Dova Industry
#227 - 2014-07-16 14:32:25 UTC
Uhh, I use the IGB to help with shopping lists and auto-scrolling my buy/sell orders, something an OGB WILL NOT do, +1 for keeping the outdated thing
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#228 - 2014-07-16 14:58:19 UTC
You kids are spoiled. When I started playing Eve, there was no IGB.

It was horrible.
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#229 - 2014-07-16 21:17:21 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:


So let me try something else. We don't want to remove the IGB until we have CREST up to the point of replacing it.


Why are you selling CREST so much, when we have NOT seen anything of CREST atm as a practical large scale utility option.

I would like to remind CCPgames of their visions of grandeur that have been raised to the public and never seen the light of day, has been poorly implemented, or till today has not been itterated on properly.

I could give you more then a couple examples of the companies ideas since end 2008 which, perhaps like CREST, have not been recieved well.

Please before you go down the path of deleting current code in favor of potential new features that may or may not see a proper installtion on our clients, give us the customers the ability to review and evaluate both options so we can have some choice in the matter, apart from voting with our wallets if we do not like it at all. Cool

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
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
#230 - 2014-07-17 03:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Tronic
Enta Ozuwara wrote:
Justin Cody wrote:
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Lykouleon wrote:
Carmen Electra wrote:
+1

Kill IGB.
http://www.google.com/chrome

Just to be sure, you do realize the IGB is a version of chrome, right?


OMG, they did that to Chrome??


its part of the webkit that chrome is based on yes...but it is not chrome. Although they could easily update the browser as it exists right now simply by updating the toolkit. It would be a very small and significant patch. Probably result in another boot.ini incident somehow so it is avoided :-P.


It is Chrome. Chrome 3. Chromium Embedded Framework wrapped in Awsomnium to be precise. It has V8, or at least a very early version of it. It doesn't have HTML5 because that was in the very early stages when Chrome 3 came out. You might not realize it, but that was 6 years ago.


Actually a large chunk of CSS3 works just fine if you use the -webkit prefix. (I use HTML5/CSS3 in siggy just fine) That variant of Chromium also had video, flash support,etc but its an option to disable in Awesomium so guess what CCP did ;)