EVE General Discussion

my point was that members of CCP are not reading from the same hymn sheet. You were quite willing to consider the feedback and then roll-back an option when you understood that the change was wrong (which is commendable). Soundwave on the other hand, admits the UI was flawed, but continually tries to apply band-aids to it when to be perfectly honest, you will never get the true functionality of the old system back by continually patching it up.

EDIT: and it certainly wasnt a dig at you as to be perfectly blunt about it, if some of the male members of CCP showed the same amount of balls that you do by actually commenting in these threads, things would be far better.

Until some one besides Punkturis starts talking to us lets thank her and let her get back to her vacation.

Yes and No. Most of them are back, still no way to access the Corp hanger in orca without using the bloody tree. And likewise...no way to open a station Corp Hanger w/o using the tree.

Please make this tree fully optional..PLEASE.

Also, the open/closed states of the Main Inventory window in both space and station are still tied to other. Big inventory window open in station = good. Big inventory window opening at undock b/c it was last opened in station = not good.

Edit...

While testing on SiSi...i undock and warp, and i am able to access the corp hanger of the orca i'm piloting...however, the drone bay was not accessible.

I Dock again, and no more right-click menu option for corp hanger, and drone bay comes back...fix this please.

Cargo hold of 'active ship' is still not switching to new ship when i change ships...but you probly already knew that since you've ignored this idea since you removed it w/ the switch to this new system

My fit actually has one MLU. Its adding the second one really screws the ability to tank. I guess many do not get that for a mere 9% loss of yield you get a strong tank.

Also as ore now goes into a special hold, cargo opts and expanders are little help in carrying ore. That may entice many miners to rig for tank. Those who do not figure that out get to explode.

The Skiff is also of interest. It has over twice the tank of a Hulk, and all you lose in yield is the 3% per exhumer level bonus. Once it is in PYFA Ill see if it still can have a good tank with 2 MLUs. If so, then that may be the hot ticket. The extra MLU will cancel out most of the loss of the Hulks bonus.

BTW, the Skiff will still have just one strip, with a +200% yield bonus.

Dont forget the Skiff also LOSES its +2 warp strength

Massive props and "o7" to you lot for evolving the NPE (no more Aura-talk though? Dis maek meh haz a sad)...

Please keep iterating on/evolving this as much as you can, it is critically important, as I'm sure you know.

Ideas (this might technically belong in F&I, but I'd put a whole new thread there for it, in detail. Watch that space for possible ::walloftext:: Soon(TM)):

A tutorial about d-scanner use, completion of the mission/s in this part needs both offensive and defensive use thereof.

More explicit, clearer instruction on how to position probes to scan stuff down, with more explanation of the concept of "quadrilateration" (IE triangulating in on something in 3 dimensions, which is what Apocrypha-to-present probing essentially is--don't worry, we're scii-fi nerds--we can handle it!)

Combat-probing: A tutorial mission/series of missions where one must scan down a ship to complete the objective.

Combat-tactics: Like "The Exam" final mission on the Advanced Military tutorial-arc, only more, and more advanced: NPCs use more advanced AI, will tackle you, and you have to tackle them to kill them (so remind the newbie to fit point/web, or the "boss" just warps off--maybe make the option of hunting him down if he does--with d-scan and/or probes, he just doesn't leave the system--a part of it?)

EWar: Little or nothing in the tutorials about this, there should be at least a few missions/tutorials about it, which show the racial breakdown of same.

HiSec Aggression, Criminality, and war-mechanics, Locator Agents/offensive and defensive use thereof, can-tipping, wreck/can-baiting, ninja-salvaging, and how to stay safe(-ish) during wardecs.

Suicide-ganking: Mechanics, emphasis that it can happen anytime/anywhere, and how to avoid it. Maybe one of each missions that require the player to "gank" something illegally (probably an NPC Mining Barge) and lose their ship to CONCORD, but also one that requires them to get ganked (again probably by NPCs, unless there is a way to have players "volunteer" for both sides of this?) as well.

More emphasis throughout that losing ships and/or pod is an inevitable part of EVE, and that players mustn't get too attached to "stuff" if they're to succeed in/enjoy the game enough to stay with it.

Scamming, "AWOXing," corp-infiltration/theft--how it can happen, why, and why "trust no-one" is the Second Rule of EVE(TM).

TL/DR:

More on commonly used techniques/mechanics, training NPC combat as close to a real PvP encounter as possible that a newb can reasonably solo, and a lot more on the true depth and nature of the sandbox, so all the WoW-kiddies will hopefully be culled quickly.

^ well you could teach a course on how not to give feedback and how not to be heard.

Gotta laugh at this a bit since as within a few more responses to thread you jump on someone else for taking you out of context... Oh what a web we weave....


Thanks for filling in the rest of the story, Punkturis. Maybe the rest of the Dev's will get a clue about proactively engaging with us instead of ignoring us and hoping for the best (which rarely has happened over the past two years).

I was sort of making a joke of the first person who mentioned me that only quoted half of what I said in the interview.. I also made sure to make it really obvious that I was just quoting part of what he said (by cutting on a ( and pretty much mentioning it)

…and that's fair enough, but that lack of response also puts a damper on the effort required to evaluate and compose a full detailed explanation of the kinds of problems we encounter. A lot of it will be about special features and only involve very specific details and use cases, all of which needs to be specified and explained to make the nature of the problem clear.

Doing that and then being met with absolute silence will in short order feel a lot like pissing in the wind. Now, I'm sure that behind the scenes, the well-reasoned feedback gets a whole lot more traction, but outwards, it often seems like the more harsh words is what generates a response and the reasoned ones do not. Granted, the response will rightfully be return-fire snippiness, but still…

As for assuming who worked on what, that kind of goes both ways: on your end, you can't really assume that we will always know who did work on what. And like it or not, that blue flag says “Dev”… so while it may not be about a feature you personally worked on, that flag will mean that questions can and will be asked about the most odd-ball details and there is this implicit expectation that “the devs” will have an answer. The lines will be blurred even further when, as in this case, we have a UI feature and a UI dev that apparently worked on the team that owned that UI feature… whether or not the connection actually existed within that team is pretty opaque from the outside.