EVE Information Portal

Just because people are not on the forums complaining doesn't mean people like this pile of crap. My whole alliance hates this UI. Just because they aren't on here flaming you doesn't mean they like it, therefore your percentages are off also CCP.

You seem to be rather insulted by the term vocal minority, which was not my intention. I don't see what's insulting about the term but I apologise to you if you feel marginalised by it. To me, a vocal minority is just that - a group of people less than the majority that are particularly vocal in their feelings.

The entire point of these devblogs and feedback threads has to been to find out what's wrong so we can make it better.

As to the comments about bugs and my department, you are not well informed on our development processes, so I encourage you to read my upcoming devblog on the topic. I would remind you that while players do indeed submit bug reports and discuss issues on the forum, we also test extensively in-house. Just because bugs get found doesn't necessarily mean there is time to fix them. Please do not make assumptions or talk down about my hardworking, talented department.

Remember the difference between bugs and feature requests. Container doesn't open when clicked - bug. Container doesn't open in a separate window when clicked - feature request.

Constructive part continued...

Make the Price forecast more precise - it is way off most of the times, rendering it useless. (That it is close sometimes is beside the point - since I can't trust the information I still have to check each time). Update the prices once on log in and store it locally on the client for the duration of the session - maybe add an update function on double click on the price.
The price should be adjustable as the regions' selling (average on lowest 10) or buying (average of the highest 10) price. Buy / sell should be switchable (right click on price) with sell as default.
If a new item enters any container make the price "UNKNOWN" and only once "UNKNOWN" is double clicked query its price and add it to the local list.

Remove the tooltip price info. Takes too much time, make that info part of the rightclick menu - meaning do NOT enter an item "Show Price", but add "Sells at x ISK" and "Costs about x ISK", x being the average as explained above. Querying two prices should not take that much time... However, it it takes more than one second (i.e 1.0000001s on the most remote island conceivable - Falkland perhaps ) make this optional as well or skip it all together - there is already "View market details".

When I jettison a can it should appear in the tree view. If I first have to open it by other means the treeview is obsolete. Make an entry "jettisoned containers", sort by time elapsed since jettison, making the newest container the first from the top. Make an option to sort by name. Additionally, if there is already is a window of a jettisoned container open then open it as a new - now active - tab in that window for the person who jettisoned the container. This should apply for corp / fleet members in this area as well, only without changing focus to the new container for them (add a new tab but do not change the focus from their current tab - actually only the hauler needs this, but it would be hard to tell who is the hauler via code...). Once a container is emptied it should be deleted from the tabbed list. (For jetcan or fleet/corp mining with or without support vessel like orca etc.). Yet do not open a new window for any member that has no jetcan open. Just make it available in his/her treeview (having looting in mind).
Those tabs should have a right click menu: Target, Align to and Close (open/activate on left click of course...).
"This area" is referreing to the current belt, deadspace etc. (soory, forget the correct term. I do not mean solar system or, worse yet, region...)

Make the treeview available on the Assets window. There it actually makes sense since this is a viewing thing and does not require moving things around like in items hangar, ships, containers, POS, etc.


If all this is to much then at least change the UI to open a new window every time by default and opening in the same window when shift clicking.


Reverting back to whine mode:
Removing the link to this thread from the start window will further reduce the number of people to post here as sometimes it is quite difficult to find the right thread in this forum...

As to merge Item + Ship hangar - I tried it before the UI came and did not like it, so I swtched back. If you (CCP, not Goliath personally) made the UI optional like you did with CQ (after some discussion) this thread would not exist.
Talking of the CQ: the reason the UI raises so much (obviously little in your eyes) sentiment is the same reason why CQ caused so much trouble: it affected the way we handle things in a negative way. In the CQ case causing way too much time to do anything.

And finally: I never spend as much time on the forums as I did after UI was introduced. I actually spend now more time on the forums then in game

I am angry about the lack of useability in the new UI, I am also part of the vocal minority in eve that posts on the forums.

This does not mean that the mute majority is happy with the UI. (nor does it mean that they are displeased) It simply means they have not stated in a place where you can read, where they stand on this issue. one way or the other.

The population that you do have, that posts on the forums is generally unhappy.

Mostly because every fix you've had to enact since the UI went live, was talked about in the Sisi threads before it went live. and there still hasnt been a review of the ultimate goal that this UI was supposed to accomplish.


How is it better ?
What is now easier?
What exactly is customizable?

all these question are still unanswered, while problems with inventory not appearing, loading screens, blocky inventory screens that are laid out to maximize the covered screen space. salvaging window issues. window position memory.

a good number of people stopped complaining, not because you fixed their issues, but because they were getting no where. after a month or more, this is understandable.

Dev's giving workarounds for basic issues, instead of actually addressing those issues. is pretty confusing. The loss of useability from the old UI to the new is also. this has never been addressed. WHY?


Oh quick edit;

basic matching of useability with old Inventory system is a feature request?

AMEN TO THIS ^^

Off topic, but deemed - by me - to be neccesary:

I wish to express my gratitude to Goliath for listening in and replying to all the complaints even though he is not responsible for the problems and subject to some abuse he does not deserve.

I might explain some of the abuse by the sheer lack of respone we have received so far concerning our complaints. But lets not forget we are talking with a real person with real feelings, who is in defense of a problem he did not create.

So please everybody, try to stay fair. You, as I, may not be satisfied with all of the replies - but we should honor the fact that there is someone to at least listen to us. That is much better than in a lot of other threads where there is no reply at all.

So please give Goliath a break and try to reason without abuse. As for me: mea culpa, do as I say, not as I do

Since when is QA lead not responsible for ... QA? I'm sorry i'm just really confused here. QA lead also doesn't get to prioritize fixes? That's unheard of. QA lead pretty much calls the shots on QA. Unless the command structure in CCP is completely messed up, and QA lead doesn't have the authority to do the job. In that case nothing will fix this and it's a lost cause.

Look i meant nothing personal at any point. I don't care who these people are individually, but I think the person in the QA lead position is definitely one of the people most responsible for this fiasco. It's the final gateway that gives the final approval for code to go live.

It should also be the person to call the shots on code rollback. Maybe it's time to step up a bit.

Let's just face a simple fact here:

Code was allowed to go live by QA that had over 50 factual BUGS in it, as documented by patch notes.

QA is not responsible for this?

It goes without sayign that whoever wrote the code in first place obviously did not do due diligence testing it before it went to QA.

As far as action items go, when something like this happens, the most likely option on the table is for QA lead should to go ahead and roll back the code.

I just want to note here, that it took for the first dev blog on UI , 5 days to reach 25 pages. and some of the happy people posted before the UI was available on Sisi for actual testing.

second edit->
and the first very unhappy post was on page 7. with many "feature" requests before starting on page 1 (post 13)

That is a good point actually. A lot of were pleased about UI (I was) before we actually tried it.

Totally with you on the delta between defects and feature requests, that is if we, as end-users, had a clear definition of how the Inventory system was designed, documented, coded and tested to work.

We, as end-users, do not. Nor should we be expected to know what was intentionally designed into the client when we have no comprehensive guidance or specifications on how the Inventory UI should work.

As a result, there will be CCP-perceived "feature requests" that fall under the categories of:

a) "Functionality that used to be available in the client that end-users expect to see in the current version."

b) "What a end-user perceives should be the correct client behavior per their historical experience with EVE and with other computer based UIs."

c) "What appears to be unexpected behavior and is simply being reported."

d) "What a person wants the client to do." (probably the closest thing to a true feature request)

It is up to CCP QA, design and development human resources to determine how to categorize end-user feedback, respond to the end-user and then route the defect entry or feature request to the proper internal personnel.