These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

June release 118.6 - General feedback

First post First post
Author
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#401 - 2016-06-30 19:42:44 UTC
I set the inertia of my camera to nearly 0 (stiff) because I like the responsiveness when I swivel my camera. The rotation causes jitter on my clients.
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#402 - 2016-06-30 20:31:48 UTC
Console people, Console, They been messing with the undock sequence for months now, for no good reason I might add, now you get this sickening drift in when you log in along with all the other crud they have loaded the station up with again for no good reason at all, it has no bearing on game play other than making people feel sick and delays everything you want to do.

Been said many time before all you need is a small visual of the ship your in, access to the hangar tree, chat widows and station services, glitter and glitz, wtf is that all about, all it really tell us is that someone in that office does not have enough work to do if they have time to waste coming up with this stuff over and over again.

CCP forced QC into the game, even though the vast majority of players at the time said it was not required, but we got it anyway, redesigned the hangar tree and broke everything in the process but forced it on players all the same, forced a 3D map into a 2d game, now that was really clever, messed with the scanning interface and then spent months fiddling and tinkering with it just to get it functional and it's still not right.

They keep rolling out more and more glitzy graphics updates that most players cannot even see and even if they could cannot use them in heavy usage areas like large fleets and players have been complaining about the undock sequence for months now only to be told that no one knows anything about it, the problem does not exist or simply being met with silence from CCP and now this abortion we get thrown in our faces only to be told, Oh were looking into the problems mentioned??????.

There was once a time when you could click undock and quickly be outside and engaged, now you sit staring at a black screen while the reams of badly written code sort themselves out only to find your not only facing the wrong way round but your staring at the wire frame of your ship and have to scroll out to see whats going on at all, and all the time those outside cane not only see you but get into position to lock and kill your ship before you even know it's happening, Way to go CCP, you really do know what players want don't you.

Hope it performs better on the PS4 than it does currently on a PC.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.

v3locity
Spatial Distortion Inc
#403 - 2016-06-30 21:53:04 UTC
marly cortez wrote:

Hope it performs better on the PS4 than it does currently on a PC.



So they sell Dust to a bunch of people then just abandon it. Now it's worthless.

Pull horrifying crap like this, they actually think it's good? That in itself is disturbing.

Why would you buy anything for PS4 from this company only to have it diked up or abandon.

I can still play Warcraft 3 or Diablo 2.
v3locity
Spatial Distortion Inc
#404 - 2016-06-30 21:59:35 UTC  |  Edited by: v3locity
Sergey Hawk wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Kremlath wrote:
I realize that, I'm just pulling your chain, perhaps that doesn't come through well. The main point is I'd like a response about the camera issue.

I don't have any details to share, but I understand that Team Psycho Sisters are looking at options for changing the docking animation in response to the feedback here.

Changing???
OH MY GOD!!!
Is in your company can not read?
Simply remove this sh.t and forget that it was created.
Do not waste OUR money on pointless cinematic effects


Exactly, that's like Trump saying I'll take care of it. We all know he's a pathological liar.

Oh they won't be wasting any of my money. Anything less that having the ability to disable it is unacceptable.
Petunia Whale
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#405 - 2016-06-30 22:36:27 UTC
I like new content and wanted to like "shadow of the serpent" but I have given up on it. There is always someone else in the site or if I get it to myself then someone jumps in at the last minutes and steals the loot and gets the credit...... It needs lots more sites and at least a criminal flag if they steal the loot.
v3locity
Spatial Distortion Inc
#406 - 2016-06-30 22:36:30 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
If cost is a consideration, I'd happily fork over 200 PLEX towards the cost of adding the toggle.

I'm sure we could do a whip round, PLEX for accessibility or whatever. It's not ideal, but if the options are to pay a premium for accessibility features or to be forced out of EVE, I'd accept the former.


So you want to pay them to not be stupid. Good luck with that one.
Kalen Blackstar
Silver Sun Republic
Silent Infinity
#407 - 2016-06-30 22:55:49 UTC
Please add a toggle to turn off the docking animation! Or just take it out all together. It adds nothing to the game.
Makareena
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#408 - 2016-06-30 22:57:20 UTC
Could you at least make a quick hotfix ?

Really simple... While using Captains Quarters, could you make the character instead of stand upright - to bend over ?

At best in a cool cinematic way - i know you can Blink
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#409 - 2016-06-30 23:19:47 UTC
Petunia Whale wrote:
I like new content and wanted to like "shadow of the serpent" but I have given up on it. There is always someone else in the site or if I get it to myself then someone jumps in at the last minutes and steals the loot and gets the credit...... It needs lots more sites and at least a criminal flag if they steal the loot.

Yeah, sadly Devs are happy to have others steal from those who actually run the sites. Of course this is by design - Go read the responses to this specific question from the lead Dev.


Seems they are also happy to have players collect the reward without completing the site. Shipyard in particular is good for this, found 3 yesterday (one after the other) - All 3 had around half a dozen cruisers, lots of wrecks and no reward box. So already players have found ways to circumvent completing these sites and still collect the reward for completion. Which of course means the site won't despawn, until someone else wastes their time killing the remaining ships.

Dev's at their finest - An event designed for thieves and scammers to prosper, Oh haven't CCP come such a long way.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#410 - 2016-07-01 00:48:01 UTC
v3locity wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
If cost is a consideration, I'd happily fork over 200 PLEX towards the cost of adding the toggle.

I'm sure we could do a whip round, PLEX for accessibility or whatever. It's not ideal, but if the options are to pay a premium for accessibility features or to be forced out of EVE, I'd accept the former.

So you want to pay them to not be stupid. Good luck with that one.

It's not really like that.

Take this quote as an example of the issues:

CCP Darwin wrote:
When people ask for a toggle to turn a feature off, usually they are really saying they'd like the feature removed entirely but think that an option toggle is a more reasonable request. Our focus, though, is usually on trying to make something new like the docking animation a positive for more people.

That's why I asked for posters who might say "Add a switch!" or "Take it out!" to instead explain what they don't like about it. Maybe it could be different in some way that wouldn't make you feel that way but doesn't take us back to a black screen or a loading bar for these session changes, and it helps if you offer us thoughts that can help us get there.

Of course, taking it out, or even adding a switch, are always last-resort options, but they're just something we prefer not to do if we think we can find a better spot for the feature that more players will appreciate.

So if you pick out:

1. When people ask for a toggle they are usually really asking for something else.
2. Our focus would be to offer them something else instead of what they are specifically asking for.
3. People asking for toggles are required to commit to further communication with us to be successful in persuading us.
4. Adding toggles is always a last resort.

You see how we end up with the situation we are in?

If you think offering 200 PLEX in order to bring about positive change is a negative, fine. That's a perfectly reasonable point of view and a perfectly reasonable response to what is obviously extreme behavior on my part.

I've given more than enough feedback to CCP in over a decade of playing. But I've watched the playable parts of EVE shrink around me in spite of my feedback. Those unaffected don't need to have their game curtailed by my issues. We don't require lots of development time spent on a new flashy thing that equally will not meet our needs. We just need a toggle so that those that have problems can be free of those problems while those that do not can enjoy the eye candy.
Aid Bringer
Kockegg Industries
Hard Knocks Citizens
#411 - 2016-07-01 01:22:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Aid Bringer
Bad Bobby wrote:
v3locity wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
If cost is a consideration, I'd happily fork over 200 PLEX towards the cost of adding the toggle.

I'm sure we could do a whip round, PLEX for accessibility or whatever. It's not ideal, but if the options are to pay a premium for accessibility features or to be forced out of EVE, I'd accept the former.

So you want to pay them to not be stupid. Good luck with that one.

It's not really like that.

Take this quote as an example of the issues:

CCP Darwin wrote:
When people ask for a toggle to turn a feature off, usually they are really saying they'd like the feature removed entirely but think that an option toggle is a more reasonable request. Our focus, though, is usually on trying to make something new like the docking animation a positive for more people.

That's why I asked for posters who might say "Add a switch!" or "Take it out!" to instead explain what they don't like about it. Maybe it could be different in some way that wouldn't make you feel that way but doesn't take us back to a black screen or a loading bar for these session changes, and it helps if you offer us thoughts that can help us get there.

Of course, taking it out, or even adding a switch, are always last-resort options, but they're just something we prefer not to do if we think we can find a better spot for the feature that more players will appreciate.

So if you pick out:

1. When people ask for a toggle they are usually really asking for something else.
2. Our focus would be to offer them something else instead of what they are specifically asking for.
3. People asking for toggles are required to commit to further communication with us to be successful in persuading us.
4. Adding toggles is always a last resort.

You see how we end up with the situation we are in?

If you think offering 200 PLEX in order to bring about positive change is a negative, fine. That's a perfectly reasonable point of view and a perfectly reasonable response to what is obviously extreme behavior on my part.

I've given more than enough feedback to CCP in over a decade of playing. But I've watched the playable parts of EVE shrink around me in spite of my feedback. Those unaffected don't need to have their game curtailed by my issues. We don't require lots of development time spent on a new flashy thing that equally will not meet our needs. We just need a toggle so that those that have problems can be free of those problems while those that do not can enjoy the eye candy.


In a way, CCP is right. When we ask for a toggle we really are asking for something else, them to use their time and money better and stop delivering crap 'features' that hurt the player experience. Asking for a toggle is a compromise. Its the players saying "Look, you ****** up, this is crap, please for the love of god take it away... but we understand you put effort into it and are emotionally attached to it so lets have a toggle so you can sit there in iceland and pretend most people aren't turning it off the minute theyre able to."
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Valkyrie Alliance
#412 - 2016-07-01 01:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Aid Bringer wrote:
In a way, he's right. When we ask for a toggle we really are asking for something else, them to use their time and money better and stop delivering crap 'features' that hurt the player experience. Asking for a toggle is a compromise. Its the players saying "Look, you ****** up, this is crap, please for the love of god take it away... but we understand you put effort into it and are emotionally attached to it so lets have a toggle so you can sit there in iceland and pretend most people aren't turning it off the minute theyre able to."

That's a fair point, but there will always be some players who want it and some who don't. Even if 80% of players don't want it, the other 20% will. A toggle could allow both groups to have what they want instead of annoying one group to please the other.

Like with the Load Station Environment option for instance, most players seemed to like ship spinning, and great for them. I'd never ask for everyone to be forced to have a static background. That said, I also want the option to have a static background and avoid the performance burden of rendering the hangar and the distraction of movement and the screens when I'm concentrating on something else. When they removed that option it wasn't because everyone hated the static background and wanted them to get rid of it, but simply because it somehow took too much effort to maintain. While those of us who want it back are a small minority, the removal of that choice is quite painful for those of us who don't care about pretty hangars but now have to deal with the downsides of them.
Makareena
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#413 - 2016-07-01 01:37:04 UTC
The first page should be pretty clear as a hint for CCP (actually all prevews years as well) already... Here we are on page 21.

You do not listen to the feedback people are giving you (or those that are responsible but say nothing here).

You can add as many special effects as you want, camera effects, sound, animations, some random people that could be just sprites under our ships in the hangar to see the scale of those ships, changable FOV (that would make a BIG difference).
It is all really cool with completely everyone who plays EVE.

But for someone who plays the game likes the way it looks and is comfortable with it. And you introduce something new and he doesnt like it (as you stated doesnt change the functionality) - make it possible to turn it off, switch it...

New patch - all new stuff enabled
Its actually made for new players only so they get this WOW effect from eve as long as possible, so the game doesnt look outdated, is on time etc.
With time this and this starts to bother me (camera shake in warp for example) i turn it off.
Engine trails yes/no
Drone models yes/no
and so on...

Quote:
"When people ask for a toggle to turn a feature off, usually they are really saying they'd like the feature removed entirely"
<- this is bs - if i can turn something off - i dont care if it exists.

Make more graphic options, not less. I want my ships headlights to throw light on stuff, better nebulaes higher res ship textures and so on.
When i see the graphic options in games nowadays low/medium/high/ultra i have the feeling they take people for complete idiots... And you are aiming to do exactly that.
Too complex ? Make a button - simple/advanced or someone at CCP has button, slider togglephobia ?
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#414 - 2016-07-01 05:05:32 UTC
Makareena wrote:

Make more graphic options, not less. I want my ships headlights to throw light on stuff, better nebulaes higher res ship textures and so on.
When i see the graphic options in games nowadays low/medium/high/ultra i have the feeling they take people for complete idiots... And you are aiming to do exactly that.
Too complex ? Make a button - simple/advanced or someone at CCP has button, slider togglephobia ?


So much this. Your target audience is capable of working on unix server config files. (I put EvE overview competency on my resume as well just for good measure). We can handle graphics settings. ;-)

From CCPs perspective, I would think more customization = less whine, right? Don't like it? Hardware doesn't appreciate it? Turn it off!

Personally, I did like the animation so I'd leave it on-- but I'm still using the old map and the old probe scanner for example. Because I can't make the new ones responsive enough or remove the fancy clutter on them.

It won't be possible to please everyone, not in a long running game like EvE, not with a target audiences between 16 and 86 year old. Config files, toggles, sliders: don't get rid of them, even when other games lead another way. Do this the EvE way! Thank you.
Tao Dolcino
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#415 - 2016-07-01 05:15:50 UTC
I have been playing Ultima Online for many years, starting in 1999. At this time, the client was in 2D. Then later, they of course got the idea to create a sort of 3D client, ugly as hell, but eh, they were thinking "nowadays, the modern players want 3D !".
But at Origins, they were more clever than at CCP : they have understood that their new client was ugly and blurry and unpractical, so they gave us the choice to install the client we prefered. Some could play in 2D, and some in "3D", and every one was happy, and everyone could play all together. Of course they made some other mistakes later which dropped the number of subscriptions significantly, but at least THIS mistake, they didn't do, and didn't lose their actual customers by forcing a clumsy new interface on them in hope to get new hypothetical customers.
Also, catching a new player with fluff is one thing. But he/she won't stay because of the fluff, he /she will stay because of the content and the user-friendly interface.
Are you ready to lose your customers base to try to catch new flies who will fly away once the fluff effect has dissipated and they start to realize how clumsy the gameplay is ?
A simple toggle would allow you to keep everyone subscribed, new and old customers.

I have tried in this post to use very simple words, so you could have a small chance to understand, CCP.
Sykes Makar
EVE University
Ivy League
#416 - 2016-07-01 06:39:06 UTC
It seems when someone grabs the loot from the Research Vault AND then destroys the Vault itself before the rest of the enemies are being dealt with on the site, it denies you the site completion credit for the Scope Network regarding the Shipyard and Research Facility.

Another way to ruin everyone else's work on this, it seems.
GG CCP.
Kaivarian Coste
Whale Patrol
#417 - 2016-07-01 07:05:23 UTC
Instead of just reading posts in feedback threads, I think CCP should include a poll as well. People who enjoy a feature (or at least tolerate it) are less likely to spend time typing a post, but they're more likely to just click "yes" since it costs less time.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#418 - 2016-07-01 07:09:01 UTC
Kaivarian Coste wrote:
Instead of just reading posts in feedback threads, I think CCP should include a poll as well. People who enjoy a feature (or at least tolerate it) are less likely to spend time typing a post, but they're more likely to just click "yes" since it costs less time.

What do you think the response to the poll asking if the players like the new polling system would be?
Morkan Damosty
Federation Gallente Libre
#419 - 2016-07-01 07:25:22 UTC
Hi everyone,

I simply do not understand what I have to do in the Serpentis Event !

Kremlath
Cayman Finance
#420 - 2016-07-01 08:06:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kremlath
Kaivarian Coste wrote:
Instead of just reading posts in feedback threads, I think CCP should include a poll as well. People who enjoy a feature (or at least tolerate it) are less likely to spend time typing a post, but they're more likely to just click "yes" since it costs less time.




That's true. Those who feel strongly about an issue are more likely to post, especially strongly and negatively. It's a widely known problem.

However, if the reaction is strong in one direction, this also attracts contrarians/trolls to devil's advocate for sport. Except in cases where the issue is so black and white that it's hard to be taken seriously if you do, such as this one. I'm worried about the possibility of CCP deluding themselves into thinking that there is some 'silent majority' that is happy with the changes.