EVE Information Portal

FEEDBACK (1.1.1):

1: I'm a bit puzzled as to why so many ship classes have been changed. The only one documented by name was the term "Blockade Runner" in the patchnotes... However no mention of what ship that was pertaining to, nor any of the other ship changes that have been made, but not at all documented in patchnotes. From just the station I'm in, with most of my industrial varieties on hand, it immediately hit me that the categorization has been more "expansively diversified" to the point of confusion:

- I understand a Badger is "Industrial". But I don't understand how it's upgraded version, the Bustard, is now called a "Deep Space Transport" and yet it's sleeky/stealthier cousin, the Crane, is now called a "Blockade Runner"...? Why such diversification for these 3 ships, which all fall under an "Industrial" based hull design and purpose?

-What is more confusing is the term "Deep Space Transport" for a Bustard (which only has 5,500m3 cargo space) while a Charon is still a "Freighter" yet is built with a thick hull (far more superior to the Bustard's thin hull) AND has 981,250m3 of cargohold. In my mind (perhaps influenced by logic and science fiction films/books/etc), given the choice of which ship to consider for "Deep Space Transport"ation, I'd go with the bigger, more solidly built choice... i.e., the Charon ("Freighter").

-And to think, I haven't really looked at all my other ships yet... but these industrial ships which have changed names and rearranged themselves in my ship hangar list are now illogically "not" grouped "relatively" near each other...

FEEDBACK (1.1.1):

1: I'm a bit puzzled as to why so many ship classes have been changed. The only one documented by name was the term "Blockade Runner" in the patchnotes... However no mention of what ship that was pertaining to, nor any of the other ship changes that have been made, but not at all documented in patchnotes. From just the station I'm in, with most of my industrial varieties on hand, it immediately hit me that the categorization has been more "expansively diversified" to the point of confusion:

- I understand a Badger is "Industrial". But I don't understand how it's upgraded version, the Bustard, is now called a "Deep Space Transport" and yet it's sleeky/stealthier cousin, the Crane, is now called a "Blockade Runner"...? Why such diversification for these 3 ships, which all fall under an "Industrial" based hull design and purpose?

-What is more confusing is the term "Deep Space Transport" for a Bustard (which only has 5,500m3 cargo space) while a Charon is still a "Freighter" yet is built with a thick hull (far more superior to the Bustard's thin hull) AND has 981,250m3 of cargohold. In my mind (perhaps influenced by logic and science fiction films/books/etc), given the choice of which ship to consider for "Deep Space Transport"ation, I'd go with the bigger, more solidly built choice... i.e., the Charon ("Freighter").

-And to think, I haven't really looked at all my other ships yet... but these industrial ships which have changed names and rearranged themselves in my ship hangar list are now illogically "not" grouped "relatively" near each other...


2: "THUMBS UP" on finally fixing the bug involved with preserving the actual Corporate hangar which one chooses to have open when logging in/docking! But I still have to RE-suggest an unanswered issue/feedback from last year:

PROBLEM:
When in "LIST" mode (the non-iconographical mode of viewing inventory) in any window, the "pop-up" stating what the item(s) is/are, the quantity, and the estimated price of item (including its "(entire stack)" price) is blocking essential information of the 2-4 inventory items listed just above/below the item your mouse is currently hovering over, because the "pop-up" window (which I personally find useless for my needs) immediately pops up blocking information sometimes necessary for comparison or determination of items nearest to the hovered-over item... (i.e., quantity, etc).

FIX / SOLUTION:
If people found this "pop-up" window-action "annoying" when it came to the "pop-up" action that occured with ship modules in their HUD while in space, AND Eve Programmers were able to solve by making it optional while also giving it a few seconds before appearing when hovering over a mod (for pilots who wished to have that information "pop up") - THEN SURELY one would appreciate that same option/solution to be incorporated (programmed into the existing code) with the "pop-up" windows that appear when mousing-over inventory intems in the Inventory UI. Could this please be looked into for implementation? I would love to turn it off, or be happy if I could have a few seconds before it pops up and covers essentialy information (again: especially essential when inventory windows are viewed in "LIST" mode [the non-iconographic] of displaying inventory)...


3: "Planetary Interaction" still seems to defy planet/resource scanning-sense (results of most concentrated areas for extractable materials). The most concentrated areas do not actually provide the most efficient extraction amounts. It seems that the extractor "pins" get "the most " extraction of something when it is placed "in areas/ranges" that are outside/near the most said-to-be-concentrated areas of a particular extractable material. Anyone looking into that? [This issue was filed as a pettion and bug in 2011 and 2012, with no resolution or answers.]


Otherwise, so far (knock on tritanium hull), things appear quite well, at least upon loading up for the first time in-station since the upgrade and its 1.1.1 patch.

Thank you.

That is not true. Though I don't make a habit of screenshot'ing everyday, I found one dated as recently as December 2012 which does not list my Crane nor Bustard in between my Battleship, Exhumer, Force Recon, and Freighter (I always list my ships in alphabetical order of ship class/type).

Now the list is completely changed, and in my particular HQ station, I consistantly have the same exact ships (aside from the additions of "gift ships" from CCP).

(shrugs)

It a question of is this **** even fun anymore. not really is the answer.

agree with this as well.

So Long o /

How about the ability to set a destination without having to open the map? Should be able to do a search and set desto from the info panel.

That is not true. Though I don't make a habit of screenshot'ing everyday, I found one dated as recently as December 2012 which does not list my Crane nor Bustard in between my Battleship, Exhumer, Force Recon, and Freighter (I always list my ships in alphabetical order of ship class/type).

Now the list is completely changed, and in my particular HQ station, I consistantly have the same exact ships (aside from the additions of "gift ships" from CCP).

(shrugs)

WRT DSTs/BRs and the BCs:

Everything that's a "thing" in EVE, from planets to ships to trit, sits in a three level heirarchy of type (Omen), group (Cruiser), category (Ship).

The type encapsulates all the data specific to that actual thing, so every time we make a new "thing", we make a new type. At the other end of the spectrum, it's pretty rare that we have entirely new categories of thing, so the list of categories is fairly constant and caterogization serves mainly to break types up along pretty fundamental lines (a celestial is not the same thing as a module).

In between these two levels sits the groups, which end up doing a fair amount of heavy lifting as doing things "by group" gives us the ability to affect related sets of types at a nice level of granularity, ie without either special-casing per-type (which makes adding other, similar types a pain) or going up to the category level (which affects very large numbers of types in a fairly indiscriminate manner.

So, BRs and DSTs. They've always been referred to as those two separate things in their descriptions, and they serve separate roles, but previously they were all in the same group as, despite their stats being wildly different, they were sufficiently "functionally the same" to not need group-level separation.

The thing that changed in this patch is that we've made an effort to get rid of "CPU hacks" to restrict modules - the "99% reduction to CPU use of blah" that we used to kep, for example, covops cloaks or warfare links restricted to certain ships. It's a thoroughly ingenious solution to the problem that leverages our content tools to enforce restrictions without requiring new code, and thus "back in the day" was an eminently practical way to solve the problem of "not every ship should be able to warp cloaked". However, it's also somewhat hacky and unintuitive and has generally poor UX, which makes us sad.

Since this was originally done, we've gained a new tool, called "can fit to group", which allows us to tell a module which specific ship groups it can be fitted to. This is nicer and cleaner and less hacky and we generally prefer it, so in Retribution 1.1 we've made the final push to eliminate the old "99%" solution and use "can fit to group" instead.

Those of you following along at home will see where this leads us to, though: in the case of the covops cloak, for example, we want to fit to the BRs but not the DSTs, but to do that in the new system they need to be in separate groups, so they've been split thusly. The same thing happened with warfare links and battlecruisers: if they're functionally different in terms of what modules they can fit, they have to be in separate groups. In the case of T2 industrials, the distinction has always existed on paper, but now it exists in the type hierarchy as well