These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 New Citizens Q&A

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Overview: showing only outlaws, suspects and criminals
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-12-05 13:20:07 UTC
Not "new" here but after 2 years i still can't understand overview setup.

Is it possible to setup it like i wrote in header? Only result i've tried gives me either empty list or list of all people (ships) around.

Checking only "criminal", "suspect" and "outlaw" boxes in filter gives empty list.
Adding "no standings" gives list of all people around. The same with other checkboxes in filtering page.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-12-05 13:22:36 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Not "new" here but after 2 years i still can't understand overview setup.

Is it possible to setup it like i wrote in header? Only result i've tried gives me either empty list or list of all people (ships) around.

Checking only "criminal", "suspect" and "outlaw" boxes in filter gives empty list.
Adding "no standings" gives list of all people around. The same with other checkboxes in filtering page.


Did you try to rearrange the order of priority?

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#3 - 2012-12-05 14:01:31 UTC
It is useless. Without no standings only ebildoers will show up that are in your contact book.
Lost Greybeard
Drunken Yordles
#4 - 2012-12-05 15:10:00 UTC
Like J'Poll said, try click-and-dragging the things you want to see to the top of the list as well as checking them, in theory whatever criteria fits a pilot first is the one that displays (i.e. if someone is both a criminal and an outlaw, putting criminal above outlaw means they'd show as a criminal, and putting criminal below outlaw means they'd show as an outlaw).

Also note the "in theory". This is CCP we're talking about, so bugs abound. Fiddling with the interface under the current patch does on occasion just bjork your interface entirely so it displays random crap or nothing at all badge-wise. The solution there is to reboot your client, then maybe move something and reboot it again if that doesn't work.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-12-05 15:18:10 UTC
thanks for the answers but you speak about appearance (and i know how it works) and not about filtering.
Yes you can drag people but only in Appearance list. Filter list does not support such functionality.

It looks like filtering list does not show people who passed 1 rule but it can't be "all needed" too. I'm sure it uses more complicated ruleset. Would be good to get here DEV or ISD to shed some light onto it.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#6 - 2012-12-05 15:31:02 UTC
Quess I'd better expand on the subject.

'no standing' is misleading. What it means is 'is not in your contact book AND no standing derived from contact of your corporation/alliance'.
It is append as an extra AND criteria to your entire overview selecting criteria.

Say you selected only suspect and outlaw.

* If 'no standing' is not selected
[(is outlaw) OR (is suspect)] AND [Is in your contact book OR you have derived standing to them]
So you will not see ANYONE not in your contact book AND no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance)

So if dude is not a contact of me and he, his alliance, or his corporation is not a contact of me, my corporation or my alliance I will NOT see him.

* If 'no standing' is selected
[(is outlaw) OR (is suspect)] AND [[Is in your contact book OR you have derived standing to them due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance] OR [is not in your contact book AND no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance]]
You will see what you want and EVERYONE IN EVE not in your contact book (and no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance).

I know it is stupid. It's been like this for 2 years now. Just check it and learn to live with neutrals on all your overview filters.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-12-05 16:04:04 UTC
Louis deGuerre wrote:
Quess I'd better expand on the subject.

* If 'no standing' is selected
[(is outlaw) OR (is suspect)] AND [[Is in your contact book OR you have derived standing to them due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance] OR [is not in your contact book AND no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance]]
You will see what you want and EVERYONE IN EVE not in your contact book (and no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance).

I know it is stupid. It's been like this for 2 years now. Just check it and learn to live with neutrals on all your overview filters.

the main problem in this formula is marked bold. Because using AND you won't see any 'not outlaw and not suspect' which is not true if you setup overview this way. You simply see anyone around.

Haven't checked if i will see suspect in grid should i uncheck such checkbox. Will try it this evening with my alt.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#8 - 2012-12-05 16:09:00 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Louis deGuerre wrote:
Quess I'd better expand on the subject.

* If 'no standing' is selected
[(is outlaw) OR (is suspect)] AND [[Is in your contact book OR you have derived standing to them due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance] OR [is not in your contact book AND no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance]]
You will see what you want and EVERYONE IN EVE not in your contact book (and no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance).

I know it is stupid. It's been like this for 2 years now. Just check it and learn to live with neutrals on all your overview filters.

the main problem in this formula is marked bold. Because using AND you won't see any 'not outlaw and not suspect' which is not true if you setup overview this way. You simply see anyone around.

Haven't checked if i will see suspect in grid should i uncheck such checkbox. Will try it this evening with my alt.


You don't understand and I can't explain it any better.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-12-05 16:28:54 UTC
Louis deGuerre wrote:

[(is outlaw) OR (is suspect)] AND [[Is in your contact book OR you have derived standing to them due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance] OR [is not in your contact book AND no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance]]
You will see what you want and EVERYONE IN EVE not in your contact book (and no inherited standing due to contacts from you or your corporation/alliance).

...

You don't understand and I can't explain it any better.

the best explanation for logical operations is table. Like this one:

Logical AND. (T - True, F - False)
F AND F = F
F AND T = F
T AND F = F
T AND T = T

Logical OR. (T - True, F - False)
F AND F = F
F AND T = T
T AND F = T
T AND T = T

Using these operators (standard definition for boolean logic) your formula and result looks strange. It needs to be somehow more complicated to get such result from initial rules. And this is what i want to find.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Velveteen Viliana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-12-05 16:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Velveteen Viliana
States in Filters do not show what you want to see but doesn't show what you don't want to see. So if you only have Suspect and Criminal checked and nothing else, you won't see any criminal/suspects (or any pilot at all) as any pilot that is neutral/good standing/bad standing/etc. will not appear, despite being a suspect or criminal.
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-12-05 17:09:39 UTC
Easy conclusion:

Overview settings are a PITA to get set up right.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-12-06 10:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
thanks to all answered and helped. Yesterday i've checked it and finally understand how it works.

i usually say in cases like this "those developers have never used their product" Shocked

PS: thanks to this overview i've got myself called criminal, killed and podded yesterday. No tears tho. Only one thing is really annoys: this would not happen should someone from CCP dev-team really use overview.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-12-06 11:03:08 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
thanks to all answered and helped. Yesterday i've checked it and finally understand how it works.

i usually say in cases like this "those developers have never used their product" Shocked

PS: thanks to this overview i've got myself called criminal, killed and podded yesterday. No tears tho. Only one thing is really annoys: this would not happen should someone from CCP dev-team really use overview.


Well likely they do use the overview.

Plenty of Devs are found on the Test servers (both their private one and the public Buckingham server).

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Aptenodytes
Reckless Abandon
#14 - 2012-12-06 11:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Aptenodytes
The overview filters work on an "un-tick = blacklist" basis. If you un-tick "no standing" to remove neutrals, then everyone with no standing will disappear, even if they satisfy other criteria (eg. criminal, war target, in your fleet, etc). The overview filters are very hard to understand, but actually not very flexible. It could really use an overhaul.

Sure you can use the appearance to help make it clearer. But having it show only what you want to show, is impossible.
Doddy
Excidium.
#15 - 2012-12-06 11:42:07 UTC
March rabbit wrote:


i usually say in cases like this "those developers have never used their product" Shocked


I think the problem is that they have used it, a lot, and thus it is second nature to them (many eve devs were previoulsy eve players). The overview has been like this since the start. To get a good overview tey should probably hire someone who isn't conditioned to it.
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#16 - 2012-12-06 11:50:42 UTC
Doddy wrote:
The overview has been like this since the start.


That is not true. The no standings crap was introduced with Incursion (january 2011). I've made bugreport about it and it has been acknowledged as a defect.
The devs know but they don't care/don't understand their old code/don't consider it important enough*

(*) slash as appropriate.
Doddy
Excidium.
#17 - 2012-12-06 12:28:34 UTC
Louis deGuerre wrote:
Doddy wrote:
The overview has been like this since the start.


That is not true. The no standings crap was introduced with Incursion (january 2011). I've made bugreport about it and it has been acknowledged as a defect.
The devs know but they don't care/don't understand their old code/don't consider it important enough*

(*) slash as appropriate.


I am referring to the untick which what people have been talking about.
Aptenodytes
Reckless Abandon
#18 - 2012-12-06 12:30:54 UTC
Louis deGuerre wrote:
I've made bugreport about it and it has been acknowledged as a defect.


What is the bug/defect exactly please?

Un-ticking "no standing" should result in everyone with no standing disappearing, whether they satisfy other states (eg. war target) or not. This is working as intended... even if "intended" is not very good/useful!
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-12-06 13:11:57 UTC
J'Poll wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
thanks to all answered and helped. Yesterday i've checked it and finally understand how it works.

i usually say in cases like this "those developers have never used their product" Shocked

PS: thanks to this overview i've got myself called criminal, killed and podded yesterday. No tears tho. Only one thing is really annoys: this would not happen should someone from CCP dev-team really use overview.


Well likely they do use the overview.

i don't visit test servers and i don't know what they use overview for.

However when simple request to filtering system (like "show this and that and don't show anything other") can't be executed it's usually called 'defect'.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Velveteen Viliana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-12-06 13:18:20 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
J'Poll wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
thanks to all answered and helped. Yesterday i've checked it and finally understand how it works.

i usually say in cases like this "those developers have never used their product" Shocked

PS: thanks to this overview i've got myself called criminal, killed and podded yesterday. No tears tho. Only one thing is really annoys: this would not happen should someone from CCP dev-team really use overview.


Well likely they do use the overview.

i don't visit test servers and i don't know what they use overview for.

However when simple request to filtering system (like "show this and that and don't show anything other") can't be executed it's usually called 'defect'.


Except it's working as intended. You asked the filtering system to NOT display no-standings/neutral standings, so your process is requested as per what you asked for it to display.
12Next page