Test Server Feedback

Me too. I try to focus on that 1%. To make him perfect.

Hans I think your dust idea would be good. So your saying we are orbitting the button waiting until they finish the job and then can fly them out when they are done? So there would be no timer. As soon as the dust players shoot whatever they need to shoot then we can get them out of there. It may take them 10 minutes it might take them 10 hours - if they are clueless. Hire good dust players and you get an advantage. I'm happy with that.

Isn't the dust beta out? If so can anyone tell how the interaction with eve will work? I have no ps3.

I was already a little weirded out by Damassys's statement, now I REALLY feel like I should be concerned Like a patient on Nip/Tuck or something!





Precisely - no timers, objective-based. You hire winners, or you're waiting a while :) I'd love to see a synergy between success on the ground and success in space, so that both parties can influence the outcome. Maybe there's multiple ways it can play out -perhaps you can hack a bunker and convert it to friendly control, winning that system, or self-destruct / nuke the bunker as a last ditch resort, putting the system in a suspended contested state for a period of time while the bunker undergoes "repairs". A space battle that is losing could trigger you to order the ground troops to execute "Plan B" instead !! Something along those lines....just tossing out ideas.

Dust beta is in sign-up mode...they are gathering their pool of EvE applicants, once their pool is full they'll draw names or review eligibility or whatever, and move on from there. In the meantime, there's quite a crowd stirring while people wait, like a school cafeteria jam-packed with kids that are told they have to wait there while Santa brings presents to their houses.....the anticipation is pretty tangible, everyone's getting antsy.

Here's where you can follow along, if you're interested....

I was already a little weirded out by Damassys's statement, now I REALLY feel like I should be concerned... like I'm a patient on Nip/Tuck or something!



Precisely - no timers, objective-based. You hire winners, or you're waiting a while :) I'd love to see a synergy between success on the ground and success in space, so that both parties can influence the outcome. Maybe there's multiple ways it can play out -perhaps you can hack a bunker and convert it to friendly control, winning that system, or self-destruct / nuke the bunker as a last ditch resort, putting the system in a suspended contested state for a period of time while the bunker undergoes "repairs". A space battle that is losing could trigger you to order the ground troops to execute "Plan B" instead !! Something along those lines....just tossing out ideas.

Dust beta is in sign-up mode...they are gathering their pool of EvE applicants, once their pool is full they'll draw names or review eligibility or whatever, and move on from there. In the meantime, there's quite a crowd stirring while people wait, like a school cafeteria jam-packed with kids that are told they have to wait there while Santa brings presents to their houses.....the anticipation is pretty tangible, everyone's getting antsy.

Here's where you can follow along, if you're interested...

...and I officially give up trying to link. These forums are crazy broken. I've copied, pasted, used link tool a thousand ways on diff links and its all "error in BBcode, parsed blah blah"

But yeah, there's a thread about the dev blog announcing the Beta where people are asking questions and waiting it out...

all is good just please please please no moving / blinking stuff just make them buttons brighter instead

I wrote up another post with feedback on the new Neocom. I just found this thread and this is probably the better place for my feedback:

I made a diagram that calls out the UI design issues I see with it which is linked at the end, but here's a summary:

1) The fan-out menus are mostly superfluous. There only 8 unique icons in the entire menu tree that aren't already on the main bar. Those could be collapsed into smaller sub menus that are currently used for accessories. There's plenty of space on the existing bar for all the icons - especially if they were collapsed into single tier menus and not duplicated.

2) The distance between left side menu and any non-duplicated function has grown from about 32 pixels to 268 pixels. They're also buried 2 submenus down instead of at most 1, which is the max of the current system. That's a lot of extra mouse movement.

3) The undock button has been placed next to commonly used functions. While accidentally clicking other buttons doesn't usually have a major impact on gameplay (they just pop up another window), this button puts you into space where you can be engaged by other players. A button with that significance shouldn't be placed in such a way as to make accidental clicks more likely.

Here's the image i marked up. It highlights these issues in a graphical way.

x-post regarding the chat button



EDIT: Preferably the former, but individual channel/window buttons on the neocom would be better than the latter.

Open up in game chat as IRC channels! Problem solved by outsourcing.

We have out-of-game Vivox connectivity, why not do the same for text chat?

Null wants cheap navy gear and an alternative revenue source. What null wants, null gets .. you should know this by now

PS: Asses isn't filtered, no need to strain your hand reaching for the the $ sign.

First off, I completely understand the decision to involve Alliances sparks a lot of emotions, and rightfully so - it has a lot of potential to drastically change the nature of the Faction Warfare scene, for better or for worse. It also is just as likely that very few Alliances, if any, actually make the switch.

The primary factors influencing the decision to make this change are twofold - the first being what Soundwave already said - its an easier-to-implement "low-hanging-fruit" that is more accessible in terms of programming time than other, larger forms of iteration.

However, we need to be accurate and fair in our discussion so I am obligated to point out that the decision to include Alliances is NOT a new idea, its one of the oldest, and was actually voted upon, ratified, and added to CCP's backlog three years ago. This is the second main reason the decision is in the pipeline.

Simply put, this is not the result of whiny Alliances pressuring CCP to give them access to our resources, nor it is a "random" fix in any way.

That being said, I feel the most important concern is this - Alliance participation in Faction Warfare, despite any historical approval or endorsement by the player base, is currently one of the most divisive and emotional arguments that is on the table for discussion. "Low hanging fruit" should not only include that which takes the least time to program, with respect to the community I feel "low hanging fruit" should be the items that are least likely to split and divide the Faction Warfare community, leading to less participation ultimately rather than more.

I personally think that ultimately Alliance involvement with the Faction Warfare scene are inevitable, and ultimately beneficial.

However the timing of this change is far too likely to be destabilizing - NOT because of how Alliances will destroy us, but because how the subsequent reaction has the potential to cause the Faction Warfare corporations to destroy themselves in the process.

I urge CCP to listen to the community's concerns and critically assess the atmosphere inside the Faction Warfare community at this point in time, and not make a decision based on 3-year old debates. I urge CCP to respect the fact that the collective pilots in the militias have invested far more in this feature than the developers have over the last three years, and deserve a chance to test and utilize any new Faction Warfare improvements before a potentially destabilizing element such as Alliances enters the scene and strains the social relationships amongst the Faction Warfare corporations.

I agree with Susan Black’s assessment of the situation that arguments about “breaking” an already broken feature are rather thin. But the reality is that there isn’t an active “war” raging at the moment to keep the factions focused and cohesive. There is an atmosphere of boredom, with various corps dabbling in a dozen different areas to muster kills and keep players having fun however possible. This is the most dangerous atmosphere to bring Alliance populations into – boredom and lack of an objective to focus on is exactly the type of situation where Alliances with ulterior motives and/or chaotic and destructive tendencies will flourish, to the detriment of all who have hung in there and dedicated years to keeping the feature alive long enough to see the day when improvements will finally come.

TL:DR –Will Alliances “destroy” Faction Warfare? Not if the community is happy, focused, and actively engaged in an interesting war once again. The feature could certainly use fresh blood and more targets. However, allowing Alliances to enter the scene when faction unity is at record lows and there really isn’t an ongoing war to participate in only provides the greatest opportunity for abuse and destruction. The community has worked so hard to bring Faction Warfare improvement to the table, It would be a real shame to see the community implode right before the changes that can “save” the feature have a chance to work their magic. The committed warriors of the four races deserve their chance to enjoy “the new war” first, they’ve earned it.

This is just my opinion, based on what I see. I don’t want CCP to take my word for it – I want them to listen carefully to the collective feedback from the community, weigh the pros and cons, and make an informed and un-hasty decision.

I don't care too much either way. But in the interests of accuracy and fairness it seems the proposal that the csm voted on was much more nuanced than just letting alliances join. I'm assuming you are referring to this backlogged proposal:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces_(CSM)

Under the pros of that proposal we see:

"more pvp for empire/lowsec based alliances that don't want to become sov holders"

We see other limits on how alliances would join in that proposal including no defensive plexing. Although this is not specifically addressed, based on the underlying threads, it appears the alliances would not be able to run fw missions either .

Is this the proposal you are refering to?