These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Carnyx release - General feedback

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jeven HouseBenyo
Vanity Thy Name Is
#1601 - 2015-06-13 16:15:18 UTC
Quality vs. quantity.

CCP has gone the route of the second, with insisting on the fast track release cycle. I now shudder to contemplate what FozzieSov is REALLY going to fly like once it's all in place... If the company can't be bothered to reliably repair something as basic as the Launcher, when a reply to a threadnaught takes a week to basically say 'eat it and shut up or go elsewhere', when feedback is given upon request then absolutely blown off because it wasn't what they wanted to hear, when change for change sake takes priority over change for the good...

I hope CCP knows I won't be going over to their VR headset game in the works. I can't even go to a 3D or Imax movie due to the vision problems, you think I'm going to drop serious cash on a computer setup for a game I won't even be able to tolerate playing??

Roll back these icons, or give the option to use the old ones.

The clock is ticking on this final full account. There are other places I can fling my entertainment dollar when it comes to MMOs that are space based.

And no, no one can has my stuffs. I'm vengeful enough to destroy trash etc. every single thing Jeven has in his hoard of Industrial possessions. My stuffs, if I won't use them I'll delete them, just to be a pain! Lol

>Jeven

Minny boat flyer, unofficial squeaky wheel.

'Game Ethics and Morality Monitor' I remember promises.

Snark at 11-24/7/365.25. Overshare? Yup.

Yes it's my fault. And if you don't staap it I'll do it again. ;-P

No you can't has my stuffs OR my SPs.
DemetRYS
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1602 - 2015-06-13 20:43:50 UTC
I see CCP still gives no ***** about what we want, this day or any others.

What a disgusting way to treat paying customers.
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#1603 - 2015-06-13 22:28:45 UTC
Eraza wrote:
One last thing: I cringe every time I see a "restrained" version of anything.
My brain insists on translating restrained to mean reduced, or crippled, version of something.
like it's the return of the basic modules.
ick..

This question of language is an issue that continues to be a sore point for me. We now have "restrained" microwarpdrives, "restrained" afterburners and "restrained" overdrives. I've argued elsewhere that this is a bad trade-off: "consistency" across all module types without exception is being bought at the price of crassly implausible names for specific items. Even if I were prepared to accept that the designation "restrained" is appropriate to technological equipment in general (which I'm not), applying it to modules that are meant to make ships go faster just seems incredibly inappropriate. It irritates.

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)
Koba Kyogen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1604 - 2015-06-14 06:07:49 UTC
Still no option to use the old icons? Logging out.
Sophia Mileghere
Scandium Defense and Security Inc.
Sleeper Protocol
#1605 - 2015-06-14 10:46:40 UTC
CCP Surge wrote:
I just finished reading through the latest rounds of feedback, and we've discussed the situation internally in depth now. So here's where we're at now, and the options we're considering with the icons:


  1. First we hear from many of you the difference between NPC and player ships is simply too subtle with the new icon set, and we're right now experimenting with alternatives to separate these groups more, maybe adding entirely new shapes for NPC ships to make them more clearly stand out from players.

  2. 90% UI scaling is definitely an issue, but a tricky one to solve. We we know its an underlying rendering issue that's been around much longer and not caused by the icons themselves, but one that's been suddenly and very clearly illuminated by their release. We want to keep 90% scaling as a option, but at the same time acknowledge that it will never look as good or be as cleanly supported as the other modes. We're also looking into whether we can easily add texture filtering which will make the icons smoother and slightly more readable at 90%.

  3. We also hear the general usability concern that item "groups" are not as clearly differentiated as with the old set (crosses vs brackets, vs Xs) and that many new icons are too detailed to identify quickly. In the previous iteration the ISIS-based overview icons were pulled back for this very reason: they were too difficult to quickly make out at the smaller Overview size.

    4. While we've added many new icons for separating types within a group, it has been at the cost of taking slightly longer to identify which group has appeared on grid (A player ship, NPC, or drone). It's also exacerbated by as-mentioned eyesight/accessibility problems and quick blob identification of a shape. I think this is at the root of many of your concerns, and we're now looking into what can be done to make groups of items slightly more distinctive, potentially giving people the option to use simpler group icons for brackets that's closer to the old system.

  4. We're meeting with the CSM later this week to discuss much of this feedback, and I'm sure many of your concerns will be represented as well. Either way the significance of this and your well reasoned responses in this thread aren't lost on us. I'll keep poking in here to keep you guys updated on any further actions coming with regards to the icons.


CCP, the week is almost over ...
What is there for progress in the talks with CSM regarding the icons?
You wanted to keep us up to date Blink
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1606 - 2015-06-14 11:16:38 UTC
Eraza wrote:
1) Also not a similar penelty to the restrained shields, the large restraned giving 15 sig, vs 25 for the others. A similar armor mass would be 2.250.000 for the restrained, if shield and armor had been balanced using the same formulas.(which funny enough, it was that mass for the lightest plate before this change)

2) I mean, seriously, will I ever need 5 cpu and 50 powergrid free, but somehow obsessively NOT want 8 cpu and 70 power freed up?(for the 1600mm's as an example)

3) I also note CCP, who does that armor mass penalty help? Shield tank already being by far the most popular option for PVP, Buffing the already more popular option, while nerfing the less popular one, is not helping balance out our options.

4) The 6 week release cycle is clearly not working as intended, and I would strongly prefer better content, more polish, even if it takes much longer. I for one, hope CCP returns to the 6 month release schedule, and gives us more polished, more complete, and better tested, content.

5) I still hate the new neocom, I miss the gui sliders(plural), the ability to have seperate colors for seperate things(**** monochrome) These things worked perfectly with noone complaining about them, for well over 12 years now, why did they suddenly need updating?

6) I want to send a few dozen "IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT" signs to CCP, as a not-so-subtle hint of what I think of your last year of patches.

7) Oh god, I REALLY miss the jukebox. I'm now one of those "eve has music?" people, since I don't like all the songs, and my favorite ones do NOT play in my area(why the **** are the tracks area based?), and I cant be assed to alt-tab to an mp3 player. And to make matters worse, I found the mp3 files, they do NOT sound the same in VLC as they do ingame, so even that's not a real option. so no more music for eve, I got fed up with hearing the same songs on repeat, and they removed my ability to control it.


1) I agree with you and Jattila Vrek about the penalties not being in line which is a huge problem, especially if they were correctly placed on Sisi before. However, I question what you say in 2) and 3) ? Only because you do not see the value in having some CPU and Powergrid free, does not mean everybody thinks the same. On the contrary, I've seen a good number of people enjoying these changes for easier fitting requirements. And saying that shield tanking is the most popular option in pvp... I'd like to see where you are getting this. It is again subjective and a base of preference, situation and certainly fleet doctrine.
Saying the penalties of plates and extenders are not in line, is an objective statement based on math. This is what everybody can work with and nobody can disagree with. The other two things are more subjective and thus arguable.

4) Yes, as often mentioned, and I am not getting tired to agree with this. However, I don't think returning to 6 months would be that good. I agree with the notion of CCP to have updates faster. I disagree with the intervals they set. CCP should have dropped it down to 4 months for starters. A gradual increase, and not a massive cut. It is very evident how the company cannot keep this pace :c

5) I miss the neocom buttons too, at least most of them. I do like that we have more space in the station services now, but at the cost of some icons being totally confusing. I also miss my purple and pink interface :c If anything, they should have added a contrast INVERTED scheme. Black text and icons on light backgrounds.

6) I keep hearing this phrase preached too often. There is a difference in breaking things just because, or trying to improve them because they had a long way coming. Only because something works, doesn't mean it works flawless or perfect. Usually, there is always room for improvement. The overview needed some love, but they started at the WRONG point. The Overview needs more updates and options and needs a better renderer for scaling among other things. CCP simply started at the wrong point. Increased screen size is a legitimate concern, but it was taken the wrong way and with a flawed priority. There is nothing inherently bad with trying to improve this, just the way and priority it was done with was ... less than ideal.

7) I agree that the removal of the jukebox feature was dumb. That said, I don't miss it because almost all eve music puts me to sleep or annoys me. I don't even find most of it relaxing. To my taste, there is better relaxing and ambient space music out there. And the "dungeon music" is outright horrible. At least they uploaded the tracks to soundcloud for download. Why the tracks sound different in your player is beyond me though. So again, I agree with you on principle... removing options is bad.

OldWolf69 wrote:
Actually game is not even half as alive as it was 4 years ago when they started "improving" it. Gj, gj.

Except 2013 was just as strong a year than those glory times you speak of, and so was the start of 2014. So that statement is wrong. "Half as alive" is very questionable either. Maybe where you play?


Jeven HouseBenyo wrote:
And no, no one can has my stuffs. I'm vengeful enough to destroy trash etc. every single thing Jeven has in his hoard of Industrial possessions. My stuffs, if I won't use them I'll delete them, just to be a pain! Lol
Who says you need to destroy it and who says you will never be back? Just keep your stuff as it is c:
In the case CCP improves and fixes things again, you will be playing again. Your characters are never pruned, and neither is your stuff. It might take a while, but they did fix the issues with Incarna in the end. Now it is their turn to prove they still can do that.


So, CCP... what does it boil down to? Your intentions are good or at least understandable. But your approaches have an increased tendency to be flawed.
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1607 - 2015-06-14 11:45:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Natya Mebelle
Morihei Akachi wrote:
"consistency" across all module types without exception is being bought at the price of crassly implausible names for specific items. Even if I were prepared to accept that the designation "restrained" is appropriate to technological equipment in general (which I'm not), applying it to modules that are meant to make ships go faster just seems incredibly inappropriate. It irritates.
This is very much an issue, yes :c And even if we accept that terminology, it would still be better to use:
Type - Codename - ( Fluff name ) - Module
To make it look like: 1MN Enduring ( Monopropellant ) Afterburner.
Brackets because I don't believe fluff names should be extraordinary long. Not only does it waste space, it also looks just plain silly at times.

As for names... I don't understand why they try to go for a unified naming convention when they break within it. Afterburners and microwarpdrives are now separated with the 1 and 5 digit. There is no need to bring extra names, this is redundant and useless information overflow.
Restrained is a bad choice, as has so often been mentioned. What is so bad to use the word "Compact" ? Compact makes sense. Compact means it requires less fitting. At least to me. Some modules even USE compact for exactly that. So why can't others?

I understand there is not much difference in association between "upgraded" and "improved". But why scrap BOTH alternatives?

"Enduring" for less capacitor use maybe sounds reasonable... but why not simply call it "efficient" then? Or "economic?"
I mean, we could even start to use FLUFF NAMES as a baseline for type specific codenames. Cold-gas instead of enduring. But wait... we had that already... or did we?

Words. Just words.
Dark Opaque Theme
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1608 - 2015-06-14 12:39:51 UTC
Logged in today, squinted at the horrid icons which had undergone no change and logged back off shaking my head.

One account expires tomorrow the second one the day after that, both will not be reactivated*.
That leaves me with one more account that's about to expire in 12 day's or so.

I know that probably means Jack and (that other thing) to the Dev's behind this horrible change but for me it means a lot.


As last tip for CCP, probably impossible to demand for them, but if you have changes like these planned, have them executed and approved by developers and managers that have at the least a whole year of EVE game play on their account and are still actively involved in EVE gameplay.
This whole change of a fundamental aspect of the game, then asking for and ignoring the feedback basically saying 'suck it up, here is the chart, start learning the icons out of your head' to the upset customer base should not be condoned by anyone.

This whole thing reeks for me like the time when CCP Nozh told us to target paint Titans. CCP developers who haven't got a clue how the game they should be working on actually works, should not be anywhere near fundamental game changes.


*Will be back once and if CCP gets their act together and these terrible icons have gone the way of the Dodo.
So no, you cannot have my stuff, I'll need it in case I get back.



Ps: CSM X, superb and excellent job of being invisible. -.-
Eraza
Fuzzyness Enterprizes
#1609 - 2015-06-14 14:06:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Eraza
Natya Mebelle: avoiding quoting your post to not make a quote block most of this reply

But otherwise, yeah, the armor/shield thing is probably different for fleet/blob activities, which I avoid like the plague,
my experience is mostly small gang stuff, where people want the low slots for damage mods, and don't want plates at all, because being slow is being an easy target.

And it looks like I was not clear enough on my point on the plate variations
1600mm plates:
tech 2:
4800 hp, 3.750.000kg, 35 cpu, 550 power
restrained:
4000 hp, 3.000.000kg, 30 cpu, 500 power
compact:
4000 hp, 3.500.000kg, 27 cpu, 480 power

It looks to me like the difference between the restrained and compact is too small, and people would just automatically choose the compact for every occation where they need to save any cpu or power.
3.5m kg, vs 3.0m kg, is not a huge difference, the cpu and power is.

And THEN comparing this to how the shields were balanced, the restrained armor, gets a 18% reduction in penalty.
restrained shields, 40% reduction in penalty for large shield extenders, nearly 60% reduction for med shield extenders.

I mean, the shield thing is huge, I'll be considering using restrained shields for every buffer tank ship that can even move at all, don't care about the T2 HP, that shield sig radius makes a huge difference.

The armor mass differece on the other hand, very meh, I'll just free up the power/cpu if I'm short for something, and not consider the restrained at all.
Armor tank ships with hp buffers, are already slow enough, the very slighly higher mass wont factor in higher than getting better mods elsewhere on the ship.

And on the topic of not fixing things if they were not broken, well, of course there was room for improvement, the old system had us look at name/type to tell cruiser/T2 cruiser/battlecruiser/T2 battlecruiser apart, both for npc and player ships,
Which makes a big difference in target priority.
So there was certainly room for improvement.. however this system, I really cant call an improvement.
Several of my ingame friends stopped logging in at the patch, and the rest don't have anything positive to say about the icons.

In the end, the "dont fix it if it's not broken" is something CCP needs to consider for their last year of patches.
There have been a LOT of those small "improvement" patches, many of which did not actually IMPROVE the thing in question.
Then CCP ignore feedback, declare success no matter what, and move on to "improve" the next thing.
X4me1eoH
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1610 - 2015-06-14 16:56:54 UTC
new drones icons are very awful, look this screen for 2 second, and say, how many there ships http://i.imgur.com/iOormvS.png

Гайды по еве: https://www.youtube.com/user/X4me1eoH/feed?&ab_channel=X4me1eoH
Ketov Aktar
Grey Wolff
#1611 - 2015-06-14 17:04:36 UTC
Pretty sure someone has mentioned this...but the tracking camera is BROKEN. It tracks fine for a bit then goes all crazy once you jump or land at an anomaly. You can turn it off/on and it fixes it ....until the next time you click on something.

PLEASE FIX THIS! Thank you.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1612 - 2015-06-14 18:39:34 UTC
Dark Opaque Theme wrote:
Ps: CSM X, superb and excellent job of being invisible. -.-


Yep. This CSM is pretty much the worst. This many players angry and upset, and I don't see any of them around. I mean they could be voicing this stuff privately, but that seems unlikely. Then again, we don't have many actual 'players' on the CSM - we have people who were picked, some who barely undock. How can they relate to the average citizen of new eden, and speak for them?


X4me1eoH wrote:
new drones icons are very awful, look this screen for 2 second, and say, how many there ships http://i.imgur.com/iOormvS.png


Yep. Impossible. The most childish part of this is the lack of communication and zero admittance that anything can be wrong with it, just a bunch of callous euphemisms for telling the player base to collectively like and use something that is both unlikeable, and for a great amount of us, unusable.

Seriously this change is game breaking. The most common feedback was the option to use the old icons, and that was completely ignored. Seriously, whomever was in charge of implementing the new map is wise beyond his or her years for having the option to use the old, because the forcing of unusable new stuff on people is seriously lame.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#1613 - 2015-06-14 20:23:41 UTC
Natya Mebelle wrote:
Eraza wrote:
4) The 6 week release cycle is clearly not working as intended, and I would strongly prefer better content, more polish, even if it takes much longer. I for one, hope CCP returns to the 6 month release schedule, and gives us more polished, more complete, and better tested, content.
4) Yes, as often mentioned, and I am not getting tired to agree with this. However, I don't think returning to 6 months would be that good. I agree with the notion of CCP to have updates faster. I disagree with the intervals they set. CCP should have dropped it down to 4 months for starters. A gradual increase, and not a massive cut. It is very evident how the company cannot keep this pace :c
But we will still run into the same core issue, they would only use that longer lead time for the really big feature changes, not the little things like icons. They would still wait until just before the intended patch to work on them and/or release them for testing.

What they SHOULD be doing with the 6 week release cycles is working on each feature/change for a long time before their intended release patch. They should be spending the time during all the previous patches (for example for a June release, Jan, Feb, Mar, April, May) working on the feature that will be released in June. Instead they seem to be waiting until after the May patch to start working on June features, or maybe at best only giving themselves a one patch lead time and starting in April.

There should be enough separate teams within CCP that they should each be working on their own stuff, with their own release date. Each team's release date should then be staggered by a release so that if you have 10 different teams working on things, they can each spend a year working on their given feature and they would have 10 full features over the course of the year, each fully developed and tested. Toss in random smaller 6 month projects and there you have an ideal 6 week release schedule. Not this last minute rushed crap they keep trying to feed us with usually little time to even generate feedback and nearly always too late for changes before the push to TQ.
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#1614 - 2015-06-14 20:26:04 UTC
Came across this fun quote today that perfectly sums up this situation:

"A mistake repeated more than once is a decision."

What does that make mistakes repeated dozens of times?
Eke Patang
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1615 - 2015-06-14 22:09:07 UTC
Dangeresque Too wrote:
Came across this fun quote today that perfectly sums up this situation:

"A mistake repeated more than once is a decision."

What does that make mistakes repeated dozens of times?


Repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome is called insanity
Koba Kyogen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1616 - 2015-06-14 22:09:54 UTC
Logged in.

Same icons.

Logged out.
Makkuro Tatsu
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#1617 - 2015-06-15 00:37:19 UTC
Natya Mebelle wrote:
I agree with the notion of CCP to have updates faster. I disagree with the intervals they set. CCP should have dropped it down to 4 months for starters. A gradual increase, and not a massive cut. It is very evident how the company cannot keep this pace :c


The new release cadence is fine. Greater release intervals would result in a much reduced flexibility, making it harder to fix problems, introduce new features or alter existing ones. People who are unfamiliar with professional software development might disagree, but I am working in this business for more than 20 years and know exactly what I am talking about.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#1618 - 2015-06-15 02:52:18 UTC
Makkuro Tatsu wrote:
Natya Mebelle wrote:
I agree with the notion of CCP to have updates faster. I disagree with the intervals they set. CCP should have dropped it down to 4 months for starters. A gradual increase, and not a massive cut. It is very evident how the company cannot keep this pace :c


The new release cadence is fine. Greater release intervals would result in a much reduced flexibility, making it harder to fix problems, introduce new features or alter existing ones. People who are unfamiliar with professional software development might disagree, but I am working in this business for more than 20 years and know exactly what I am talking about.

If they are going to repeatedly release changes before they are ready, when the rapid release cadence removes the need for them to do that, then it's not the release cadence that is the source of the problem.
Azeria L'Mante
Northern Freight Unlimited
Young Miners Christian Association
#1619 - 2015-06-15 03:34:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Azeria L'Mante
Alright CCP, you asked us to give it time, to see if we like the new icons.

I have given it until now from launch and I still feel like I'm playing a 1980s space invader game or Pacman. Some of them are just down-right horrible and have no correlation to the item's function. The icons in the Devblog when this was first announced was better than what eventually came to pass.

So, do I like the icons after some time?

I do not.

Please allow us to customize icon appearance or allow us to switch between old and new.


Also, FFS unify your icons across all views. Why do I look at a cargo container and it looks like a No Smoking sign, but in the inventory it has the old icon. The old icon was instantly recognizable, this new one is crap.
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1620 - 2015-06-15 05:50:17 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Makkuro Tatsu wrote:
Natya Mebelle wrote:
I agree with the notion of CCP to have updates faster. I disagree with the intervals they set. CCP should have dropped it down to 4 months for starters. A gradual increase, and not a massive cut. It is very evident how the company cannot keep this pace :c


The new release cadence is fine. Greater release intervals would result in a much reduced flexibility, making it harder to fix problems, introduce new features or alter existing ones. People who are unfamiliar with professional software development might disagree, but I am working in this business for more than 20 years and know exactly what I am talking about.

If they are going to repeatedly release changes before they are ready, when the rapid release cadence removes the need for them to do that, then it's not the release cadence that is the source of the problem.



Right, it's not necessarily the cadence, but the 'maturity' of the change that's the problem. If it's not ready, it's not ready.

CCP has heard from the players. This particular change, the icons, is said to have a strong negative effect on game play per the majority of those posting. Some also note that it causes physical distress. (I haven't had to focus on the icons that much, so I haven't experienced this yet.)

Was no effort made to have a roll back plan, based on the strong possibility that the testing group on Singularity was correct about the playerbase issues with this icon set?

It's basically a New Coke moment for CCP, and adaptability, in the name of survival, should be a reasonable choice?