These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Oceanus Feedback Thread

First post First post
Author
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#121 - 2014-10-01 13:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Nice:
Some of the new clothing stuff is seriously cool & I'm considering to buy AUR to get them.

Meh:
The cloaking effect is meh and audio is too loud.

Doh!:
The loss of official language channels has disintegrated, quite literally, my language community, and without it I can't chat while I mine. That certainly will affect my will to give any more money to CCP.
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#122 - 2014-10-01 14:26:25 UTC
Celldoom wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
T1 Modules are still completely out classed by meta modules

Meta modules still can't be built by players.

New meta module naming system is immature and childish. It looses all of it's SciFi depth.

You're not listening to the playerbase.

it's all in this thread: Link
Completely disagree. Many players, including veterans, don't understand the meta levels system. I've seen tech3 ships with meta0 fits. This change is much better.


Compare tool FFS, it's not difficult to use. Also we could have a simple naming convention that uses the old names that many people love.
Ezk1
Fistful of Finns
#123 - 2014-10-01 14:27:02 UTC
"In our continuous effort to support our international playerbase" PAH!

Give back back language channels, same way they were before Oceanus.
Zaphod Hawke
Old Vindictive Bastards
#124 - 2014-10-01 14:32:55 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Triipod wrote:
Wow, new paint jobs on ishkur / ishtar / sin look like crap!!! Gimme back the Black that was so cool about them...


Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Things I'm not a fan of:
• The cloaking effect when fully engaged. Granted, I'm running an older graphics card - but the cloak basically appears as a fixed grid of "u" shaped squares. It wouldn't be that bad if it actually rotated with the ship, but it appears as a flat texture that's just been applied to a 2D object as opposed to wrapped around a 3D object.


You guys must be running old outdated graphics cards, the new effects and paintjobs look great on my system.


That was one of the things that attracted me to EVE in the first place. It would run on almost anything without much in the way of problems. I was multiboxing with an 8 year old toughbook until recently. It wasn't great, but it ran smoothly enough to not be annoying.

EVE didn't need to be flashy. It was the complexity, the sci-fi theme, and the mostly player controlled economy that first attracted me to the game.
Avio Yaken
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#125 - 2014-10-01 14:35:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Avio Yaken
i have one tiny tiny tiny thing to say


The Chest logo on the male Caldari jacket is backwards....

It...bothers me so much...

i mean props for Faction jackets, you actually made me want to get something from the Aurum store :x

(.___________________________________________.)/

Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2014-10-01 14:57:58 UTC
Not a single CSM member or CCP member has replied to the almost exclusively negative feedback in this thread.

Makes me ask: "Are they even reading this?"
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#127 - 2014-10-01 14:59:22 UTC
Chris Digitalus wrote:
No. Video card is less than a year old. It may look great to you, but it looks terrible to us.

While I have an older video card, everything runs and looks great on the highest settings - with the exception of the new cloaking effect. I'm Mac-based, and my system is EOL in terms of hardware and software upgrades at this point - and I'm not going to shell out another $1200-$1500 just for the *posibility* that the cloaking effect might improve slightly.

I really feel the new cloaking effect is a step backwards; I much prefer the original semi-transluscent cloaking effect. The new one looks like you're viewing a 3D object through a fixed 2D texture window.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#128 - 2014-10-01 15:07:42 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Not a single CSM member or CCP member has replied to the almost exclusively negative feedback in this thread.

Makes me ask: "Are they even reading this?"


Odds are they are hiding under their desks waiting for all of this to blow over.

I am reminded of Hilmar's leaked email a few years back when he stated.

"I can tell you that this is one of the moments where we look at what our players do and less of what they say"


So it's just standard policy.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#129 - 2014-10-01 15:25:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
With the newest patch and Cider updates I haven't noticed any graphic improvements with the cloaking effect, although now instead of these u-shaped boxes it's occasionally interchanged with a mesh of horizontal lines (which I actually prefer). I still have to admit I prefer the (original) cloaking effect - particularly if reports that this adds a few seconds delay when cloaking from a gate are accurate.

The transition times (phase-in/out) need to be sped up by a factor of at least 100%, as they're simply too slow.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arcos Vandymion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2014-10-01 16:23:57 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Not a single CSM member or CCP member has replied to the almost exclusively negative feedback in this thread.

Makes me ask: "Are they even reading this?"


Hell no they aren't. They didn't listen to the quite literally unified "nope - don't do that" on the renaming. Usually you have at least a few people that are like "yeah that's ok" but I can't really remember anyone saying that the new naming scheme was anything short of a blatantly dumb idea.


Seeing how the cloaking was literally the second best thing in this patch; the best being the EFT format import, here's some graphics suggestions (the graphics and design team doing nice work):

- finish designing 3D models for High Power Slot modules (NOS / Neut / RR / Probe- and Surveylauncher ... we can wait on the DLA)
- redo the the Battleships that are not up to date (the Typhoon and new Pest look super awesome, the Mael kinda not in comparison ... same is true for the Baddon, Geddon, Rokh, Raven, Domi ... Hyperion is so-soo)
- moar models for stations? prettyplease
- new drone models (seriously)
- check whether the Stations you allready have can be assembled via the Space Object Factory
- check whether you can add PoCos to the SOF so we can get Alliance Logos on there

- I'm still waiting for 3D market preview of such trade goods as exotic dancers...

Oh and the new buttons aren't that bad. Dunno why everyone has a problem with them.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#131 - 2014-10-01 16:37:53 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:
This is a wormhole leading from a c4 to a c2:
http://imgur.com/o6LOxge

While I admit that the wormhole looks very nice, it doesn't really look like an actual hole leading to another place, but rather just an object floating in space. The center of the hole looks almost exactly like the background of my c4. It looks like if I enter the wormhole, I will just fly through it and still be in my current system.

Also, it is quite impossible to tell that it leads to a c2, which is the most essential information a wormhole should visually convey. I don't really know yet how these new sphere effects can tell me about the size of the hole, but that is secondary information anyway. The class of the system is far more important, and it needs to be visible at a glance to the trained eye. That is unfortunately no longer the case.

edit: For comparison, this is a c4 to c4 wormhole:
http://imgur.com/zMuAXX1

Even in direct comparison of the pictures, I find it impossible to really tell them apart. Judging a new wormhole in-game, without other wormholes to compare to at that moment... no way. This is a big step backward.


Haven't been able to get any game time yet, post patch, but those are impossible to discern color variance judging by the images linked. What's up with that?

I'm right behind you

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#132 - 2014-10-01 16:47:07 UTC
Removed an off topic post or some.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis
ISK.Net
#133 - 2014-10-01 17:47:31 UTC  |  Edited by: MuppetsSlayed
BLACK CHIEF wrote:
can not connect to game on port 26000 or 3724 - uninstalled and installed game 3 times....same results! HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I HAVE BEEN A PAYING USER FOR OVER 7 YEARS!!!! SOMEONE FIX THIS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Running Windows 8 64 bit
- Windows Firewall: Port 26000 TCP (open for in/out)
- Routers Port 26000 open
- EVE Pref.ini file: Port 26000

As of 06:37 am (Central time) - I have the same problem!
I WANT CREDIT TO EVERY DAY I CANNOT CONNECT! (THIS PROBLEM IS YOURS...OWN IT)

Cannot connect to 97.237.39.200 on port 2600

As of 1 October 2014 06:37 am (Central time) - I have the same problem!

ping to 97.237.39.200 loss of all packets

DAMIT SCOTTY GET THOSE ENGINES STARTED, Your upgrade is a FAILURE in my CASE!

CAN I GET A LITTLE HELP HERE??????????????????????????????????



I have this problem too, my launcher is saying 33k online but im unable to connect.

Edit: I closed and reopened the lancher and its now updating. I guess you need to turn it off and back on again too ;)
Jason Ozran
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#134 - 2014-10-01 19:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Ozran
The only reason these threads exist is for people to tell how frustrated they are, but very rarely something come out of it. When 25 pages of comments told CCP that the problem of the ishtar was the dps and not the speed, they decided to reduce the speed of 10m/s. GO FIGURE.

Let's make an attempt, and see if someone cares for once:

Keep the LML nerf for inty, bring back the normal LML dps for frigates. Nobody ask to nerf the cheap pew pew condor, hookbill, breacher or kestrel and yet CCP decide to screw them over, for no valid reason. How hard can it be? How do you explain that a faction frigate like the hookbill, which is supposed to be better than a regular T1 frigate, does 92 dps with all missiles skills to V (and only in kinetic, otherwise it is 65 dps) when a regular slicer does 135 dps without any issue at 25 km? And don't even start saying that those ships were too good, we already rarely see kestrel and hookbill in low sec.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#135 - 2014-10-01 23:24:22 UTC
ok this might be considered a rant....or it may not....not even sure it will be considered conducive.

1.) light misiles in their now current form as t1 are useless, not worht looting, not worth selling.....they are not even worth using....the stats are very much the same with no diference or changes in atributes that make or do a bit of good.

2.) besides missiles.....my alt from the changes of things that was being hoarded for cheap burn fits in FW has lost on the approx of 400 million isk worth of gear....yeah literally my isk basically is gone....raped, ruined, and robbed from my alt. There is no use for these things your turning stuff into. No one should be using anything now under t2.....unless maybe faction gear havent looked at those yet....

3.) What is this turning into? Dark Orbit? an expensive version of Space Invaders??? IF these were RL items like a car or something i wouldnt be here posting.....i would be talking to my Lawyer and prepping a lawsuit!!!

Seriously CCP, you need to revert these module changes and really think of what your doing. This is how Star Wars Galaxies died with NGE that plain just doesnt work. This stuff is getting old.....it smacks of EA all over it and the community knows you hired a former EA guy not long ago(within 2 years at least).

To my fellow Capsuleers.....im beginning to wonder, should we really have to swallow this? Check the Stats on these things.....they are garbage. Its not just the name changes. Maybe we should start thinking about how we truly wish to react to this because if we do nothing.....think for a moment....this may be the first step into starting to add golden ammo and crap to the NES store.....or maybe they will give us lock boxes like in STO and expect us to pay real money for the keys to open them or grind weeks for a single key to get good stuff. Maybe its time to burn the place down.
Burn.....burn everything that supports this module tiercide....corps, toons, tradehubs........the new players not on trial anymore....every last carebear....just gank and wardec everything!!!

Because if we dont fight for EvE then we dont deserve it.


returnTo Sender
Space Whales is SRS BIZNESS
#136 - 2014-10-02 00:38:56 UTC  |  Edited by: returnTo Sender
- Meta rebalance, great, should be interesting to see where it goes. There really were a lot of effectively useless modules out there. Of course not every sub Meta 4 was useless, but the vast majority just weren't worth having. If there are going to be actual pros and cons to each module, then I'm all for it as it will make fitting a ship to a particular role a lot more interesting. - EDIT - I should say, that I haven't had a chance to go through the modules properly and see what's been changed, but on paper it seems like it could be a good thing

"Oh, I should have fit the faster firing launchers instead of the ones that have a larger capacity, I didn't use them all anyway before I died. Oops"

- Meta rename, no, just, no. The names are horrible. There was, as far as I can see, no issue with the names as they were. Renaming simply because they've changed a few stats just reeks of "Look at me! I changed stuff!"

I've refrained from commenting on UI changes, as I invariably hate them at first -since they're new- but get used to them over a short time.
FurBurger PotPie
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#137 - 2014-10-02 01:32:11 UTC
I LOVE the new meta module names, it makes things so much clearer. I'd like to see it apply to ships as well. The names are confusing. How about...
Caldari Missile Frigate I
Caldari Turret Frigate I
Caldari Repair Frigate I
Caldari Tackle Frigate I
Caldari Scanning Frigate I
Caldari E-War Frigate I
This would eliminate all the confusing names like Kestrel, Merlin, Bantam, Condor, Heron and Griffin. You could use the same format for all races, then pilots would know exactly which ship to purchase when they cross train to another race's ships. And by using the same convention with the T2 variants pilots would know exactly which ship to purchase when they get the skills. Since ships are role based anyway, I think this change based on the module changes implemented in Oceanus would really help new players be more effective in Eve.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#138 - 2014-10-02 01:47:45 UTC
Why do these expansions have names like "Hyperion" and "Oceanus" or "Crius"?
Surely
Patch 1
Patch 2
Patch 3
would have been just as good right?

Still waiting on pos fixing. or is it all supposed to be mobile depots by now ?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#139 - 2014-10-02 01:50:45 UTC
FurBurger PotPie wrote:
I LOVE the new meta module names, it makes things so much clearer. I'd like to see it apply to ships as well. The names are confusing. How about...
Caldari Missile Frigate I
Caldari Turret Frigate I
Caldari Repair Frigate I
Caldari Tackle Frigate I
Caldari Scanning Frigate I
Caldari E-War Frigate I
This would eliminate all the confusing names like Kestrel, Merlin, Bantam, Condor, Heron and Griffin. You could use the same format for all races, then pilots would know exactly which ship to purchase when they cross train to another race's ships. And by using the same convention with the T2 variants pilots would know exactly which ship to purchase when they get the skills. Since ships are role based anyway, I think this change based on the module changes implemented in Oceanus would really help new players be more effective in Eve.

I don't like that Caldari, Minmatar, etc race naming. It is too confusing, too. I also don't see any reaons for the "I". How about....

Blue Missile Frigate
Red Gun Frigate
Green Repair Frigate
Yellow EW Firgate

The texture maps on the ships can then be replaced by simple solid flat-shaded colors, which is much easier on the graphics cards - and saves development costs, since you don't need shader programmers nor texture map painters.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2014-10-02 06:22:30 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Not a single CSM member or CCP member has replied to the almost exclusively negative feedback in this thread.

Makes me ask: "Are they even reading this?"




Oh would you look at that!

In order to try and cover up the steaming pile of shite stinking up the place and get us to ignore this disaster they've gone and done this!

Link to Jump Drive Changes

Pretty much they've taken a big massive steaming shite next to this one to distract us! And still nothing heard in this thread.

I also have a massive problem with this quote underneath......


CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.



To me it reads a little like.....

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any constructive feedback that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


There you go Fozzie. I fixed it for you!



I am seriously losing faith in this game. I think I have officially hit "Bitter Vet" status and I've been around for years!