These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Trash ship

First post
Author
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#41 - 2016-11-25 22:55:05 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Just trashed a corvette. Immediately before realising it was still loaded with the fittings I'd purchased for the ship I was about to fit. This is a very annoying "feature".

Why doesn't the trash ship window include fitted items and cargo? Why doesn't cargo stored in a trash ship get transferred to the item bay.


Are you serious??! Do you know how annoying it would be to trash cargo from a trashed ship a second time?? If I want to trash a ship, I expect everything to go. Total annihilation.
Gheeeed
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#42 - 2016-11-25 22:57:30 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Just trashed a corvette. Immediately before realising it was still loaded with the fittings I'd purchased for the ship I was about to fit. This is a very annoying "feature".

Why doesn't the trash ship window include fitted items and cargo? Why doesn't cargo stored in a trash ship get transferred to the item bay.


Are you serious??! Do you know how annoying it would be to trash cargo from a trashed ship a second time?? If I want to trash a ship, I expect everything to go. Total annihilation.


Right - CCP is so imaginatively bankrupt that they can't possibly think of adding another button to the popup that includes destroying cargo in one click. I think you detractors need to give CCP a little more credit.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#43 - 2016-11-25 23:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Okay, firstly I needed to make a correction. I went back and double checked and the message doesn't quote ISK value it lists items. Yet the point still remains that when trashing a ship it lists that ship only and not the items contained within it.

As for me stating that I was annoyed. Yes I was annoyed. It was annoying. I tend to express that annoyance it form of ranting - I suppose that's just me. But lets all consider that had I spent the last 2 hrs mining ore instead of discussing it, I'd have made back the entire value lost... So why don't we just leave this there.

Owen Levanth wrote:
Are you serious??! Do you know how annoying it would be to trash cargo from a trashed ship a second time?? If I want to trash a ship, I expect everything to go. Total annihilation.


Well it could still work that way in a single click. But what is wrong with listing ALL of the items which are about to be trashed?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#44 - 2016-11-25 23:07:49 UTC
*eats popcorn*

Keep digging OP. You will eventually reach 6 feet under! U KEN DUU EET!!


But yeah... seriously... that you perceive this as an issue at all is purely your own opinion. The fact that people are making fun of you and trolling the thread should make that evident.
Gheeeed
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#45 - 2016-11-25 23:13:21 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
*eats popcorn*

Keep digging OP. You will eventually reach 6 feet under! U KEN DUU EET!!


But yeah... seriously... that you perceive this as an issue at all is purely your own opinion. The fact that people are making fun of you and trolling the thread should make that evident.


"people are making fun of you..." - Nah, only a handful of illogical trolls attacking the original poster. It's not just his opinion. The game's interface is objectively inconsistent. For example - look at the ISK-related warnings related to selling or refining items. Why wouldn't there be one for something even more fundamental, like destroying items?

If the game alerts with a specific ISK amount for attempting to refine/sell for a potential 80% loss (for example), why wouldn't it provide a specific ISK alert for a potential 100% loss? You can't argue against that logic. You would be being purposefully obtuse and contradictory to argue against that. This is obviously a design inconsistency/insufficiency.

Sounds like you're just one of those illogical troll that jumped on the "Eve is perfect!" train against a valid complaint.
Bjorn Tyrson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2016-11-25 23:19:55 UTC
Open a support ticket. I made this exact mistake once years ago. The gm was kind enough to reverse the trashing for me as a one time thing.

Sure as hell learned my lesson though

No guarantee the same will happen with you. But it's worth a shot. Although you will probably need to wait a couple of weeks with how overloaded they are right now.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#47 - 2016-11-25 23:48:09 UTC
Gheeeed wrote:
If the game alerts with a specific ISK amount for attempting to refine/sell for a potential 80% loss (for example), why wouldn't it provide a specific ISK alert for a potential 100% loss?

Do you honestly think those alerts are reliable in any way shape or form?

I once received an alert for when buying Multispectral crystals. The game told me it was 107% above market price. Out of curiosity, I checked the market and EVE Central.
Nope. I was buying those crystals at the lowest price in the game.

I pretty much ignore all "alerts" and "average price blurbs" at this point and wish they would be removed.
They, at best, do not help (especially for items that see little to no market movement). At worst, they give incorrect info (especially for items that see a lot of market movement).

It would be better to get players into the habit of double checking their own stuff.

Gheeeed wrote:
You would be being purposefully obtuse and contradictory to argue against that. This is obviously a design inconsistency/insufficiency.

Take your "consistency" argument elsewhere.

I WANT people to make mistakes. Again... it makes things more interesting and creates opportunities where they may not have been otherwise.

In your case, it simply teaches you a lesson to double check your stuff (which will help you later in the game).

Gheeeed wrote:
Sounds like you're just one of those illogical troll that jumped on the "Eve is perfect!" train against a valid complaint.

Hardly.

EVE has its problems. I simply don't see this as one of them.
Gheeeed
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#48 - 2016-11-25 23:55:30 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Gheeeed wrote:
If the game alerts with a specific ISK amount for attempting to refine/sell for a potential 80% loss (for example), why wouldn't it provide a specific ISK alert for a potential 100% loss?

Do you honestly think those alerts are reliable in any way shape or form?

I once received an alert for when buying Multispectral crystals. The game told me it was 107% above market price. Out of curiosity, I checked the market and EVE Central.
Nope. I was buying those crystals at the lowest price in the game.

I pretty much ignore all "alerts" and "average price blurbs" at this point and wish they would be removed.
They, at best, do not help (especially for items that see little to no market movement). At worst, they give incorrect info (especially for items that see a lot of market movement).

It would be better to get players into the habit of double checking their own stuff.

Gheeeed wrote:
You would be being purposefully obtuse and contradictory to argue against that. This is obviously a design inconsistency/insufficiency.

Take your "consistency" argument elsewhere.

I WANT people to make mistakes. Again... it makes things more interesting and creates opportunities where they may not have been otherwise.

In your case, it simply teaches you a lesson to double check your stuff (which will help you later in the game).

Gheeeed wrote:
Sounds like you're just one of those illogical troll that jumped on the "Eve is perfect!" train against a valid complaint.

Hardly.

EVE has its problems. I simply don't see this as one of them.



Your post can be condensed to the following:

The intent of the interface design isn't executed well enough, and instead of wanting further improvement, I would rather see continued or even additional insufficiencies and inconsistencies.

With that mindset, you should never design anything. Ever.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#49 - 2016-11-26 00:08:08 UTC
I am fairly certain I would gain a cult following if I did. Blink


Remember Goat Simulator? Surgeon Simulator? Even Oregon Trail?

Objectively terrible games UI-wise. And yet they will forever be emblazoned in the memories of gamers everywhere BECAUSE it is pretty easy to **** up in those games. All DUE to the terrible UI.


Most AAA game titles will never reach that level of infamy.
Gheeeed
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#50 - 2016-11-26 00:16:02 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
I am fairly certain I would gain a cult following if I did. Blink


Remember Goat Simulator? Surgeon Simulator? Even Oregon Trail?

Objectively terrible games UI-wise. And yet they will forever be emblazoned in the memories of gamers everywhere BECAUSE it is pretty easy to **** up in those games. All DUE to the terrible UI.


Most AAA game titles will never reach that level of infamy.



Absolutely false. You're being dishonest. Nobody, EVER, has said to their friends: "Guys you gotta check out this cool game! The crappy interface is really what makes it exciting!"

Oregon Trail, for example, was great for a variety of reasons - the originality, the roleplaying aspect, the historical importance of the story, etc. The interface was not one of them.

The "easy to **** up" parts of the games didn't magically become enjoyable because of flawed interfaces. The difficulty was enjoyable due to gameplay design, not due to deficiencies in interface design. You're literally just making stuff up, that you know to be not true, just so you can keep posting in an attempt to defend your argument for purposefully bad design.

Look, if that's really your stance, just come out and say, "I think bad interfaces make games more fun." I think you're crazy, but at least it's honest. Also, just about nobody on this planet will agree with you, but still, at least it's honest.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#51 - 2016-11-26 00:37:12 UTC
Entertaining thread.

Still OP has a point and the sad thing is, that the thread isn't going to be read by the Devs here in GD. It needs to be in F&I for that.

Remove standings and insurance.

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2016-11-26 00:50:59 UTC
So let me get this straight.

You used the ship to transport the modules you wanted for a new one.

You then got out of the ship prior to moving said modules to your item hangar.

You then somehow forgot they were in there, and trashed it.

The only mistake I see CCP making here was not including an IQ test at login.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Gheeeed
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#53 - 2016-11-26 00:54:14 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
So let me get this straight.

You used the ship to transport the modules you wanted for a new one.

You then got out of the ship prior to moving said modules to your item hangar.

You then somehow forgot they were in there, and trashed it.

The only mistake I see CCP making here was not including an IQ test at login.



Your post is idiotic. There's no need for that attack. You should actually read the thread and use your brain, instead of letting an emotional Pavlovian response take over your actions (someone complaining about something on the forums - I better say something mean). It's sad that there are so many aggressive, unthinking, offensive posters on this forum.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#54 - 2016-11-26 01:25:22 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
So let me get this straight.

You used the ship to transport the modules you wanted for a new one.

You then got out of the ship prior to moving said modules to your item hangar.

You then somehow forgot they were in there, and trashed it.

The only mistake I see CCP making here was not including an IQ test at login.


I have an IQ of 122 and I'm studying a PhD in Chemical Engineering. Somehow, I doubt that intelligence was a factor. I would put it down to fatigue. As I was coming to the end of a 6 hr gaming session.

Normally I would open the inventory, and hangar ( in normally set them up side by side on my interface). Drag the items across. Assemble new ship, take control, trash rookie ship. Open fitting. Fit modules. Probably in the same amount of time it took you to read this paragraph.

But, I did those steps out of order because I was tired. Got to fitting window, and then realised my modules were gone... Simple mistake. I suppose I should be glad that I learnt that lesson with those modules and not more expensive ones. Yet, it does expose an interface flaw. As I would have expected the behaviour to be more consistent with repackaging, and there is no visibility of the contents within the summary list in the warning window. So no actual indication of what you are actually throwing away.




Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#55 - 2016-11-26 01:27:13 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Bumblefck wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Just trashed a corvette. Immediately before realising it was still loaded with the fittings I'd purchased for the ship I was about to fit. Which doesn't the trash ship window include fitted items and cargo? Why doesn't cargo stored in a trash ship get transferred to the item bay. This is a very annoying "feature".


Why don't you learn to manage your belongings before you just throw them away and stop blaming CCP for your ineptitude?



While you're at it, try and remember that there are no corvettes in this game. This is not Wing Commander. There are no Kilrathi or Mark Hamill here

Actually bumble, you might want to check that.
The New Npe calls rookie ships Corvettes explicitly and repeatedly,
Also one of the lads mentioned that they're called this somewhere else in the client too.

We now have a new tell on someone's age Blink




If it's not an Immolator, I don't want to know Blink

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2016-11-26 01:33:28 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
So let me get this straight.

You used the ship to transport the modules you wanted for a new one.

You then got out of the ship prior to moving said modules to your item hangar.

You then somehow forgot they were in there, and trashed it.

The only mistake I see CCP making here was not including an IQ test at login.


I have an IQ of 122 and I'm studying a PhD in Chemical Engineering. Somehow, I doubt that intelligence was a factor. I would put it down to fatigue. As I was coming to the end of a 6 hr gaming session.

Normally I would open the inventory, and hangar ( in normally set them up side by side on my interface). Drag the items across. Assemble new ship, take control, trash rookie ship. Open fitting. Fit modules. Probably in the same amount of time it took you to read this paragraph.

But, I did those steps out of order because I was tired. Got to fitting window, and then realised my modules were gone... Simple mistake. I suppose I should be glad that I learnt that lesson with those modules and not more expensive ones. Yet, it does expose an interface flaw. As I would have expected the behaviour to be more consistent with repackaging, and there is no visibility of the contents within the summary list in the warning window. So no actual indication of what you are actually throwing away.






OKAY!!! Now we are getting somewhere.

So, you did these things because you were tired, not because of CCP's design. Glad we got the cleared up.

/thread

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#57 - 2016-11-26 01:34:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Gheeeed wrote:
Absolutely false. You're being dishonest. Nobody, EVER, has said to their friends: "Guys you gotta check out this cool game! The crappy interface is really what makes it exciting!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjCXjIeNJk

The entire channel is dedicated to games that are, for all intents and purposes, "broken."

The guys who run that channel even attempt to break honest-to-god "good games" that should not have any glaring flaws in them.

Yes... there is a section of the gaming population that enjoy such things.

Gheeeed wrote:
Oregon Trail, for example, was great for a variety of reasons - the originality, the roleplaying aspect, the historical importance of the story, etc. The interface was not one of them.

As a kid I remember that no other game made me quite as irritated as Oregon Trail. I couldn't do anything right (largely because of the UI). And that it what kept me going back to it.

I don't play games for the "roleplaying" aspect of them (any of them). I play to master them and "win."
The more difficult and irritating... the better.
And I know I am not alone in this.

Gheeeed wrote:
The "easy to **** up" parts of the games didn't magically become enjoyable because of flawed interfaces. The difficulty was enjoyable due to gameplay design, not due to deficiencies in interface design. You're literally just making stuff up, that you know to be not true, just so you can keep posting in an attempt to defend your argument for purposefully bad design.

See... this really comes down to a difference in mentality.

I do honestly ENJOY games that are "flawed" in some way. Not always in horribly game-breaking ways (though, those can be fairly entertaining in their own right)... but in ways that make it tricky to do anything.

To master such games is a form of "skill" for me. In my mind, it takes a special kind of mental adaptability to take a UI that is working against you in some way and bend it to you will.

Gheeeed wrote:
Look, if that's really your stance, just come out and say, "I think bad interfaces make games more fun." I think you're crazy, but at least it's honest.

Alright... I will admit to this. Smile

Now tell me... why should your want of a "better" UI overrule my want of a more "obfuscated" one?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2016-11-26 01:39:37 UTC
Gheeeed wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
So let me get this straight.

You used the ship to transport the modules you wanted for a new one.

You then got out of the ship prior to moving said modules to your item hangar.

You then somehow forgot they were in there, and trashed it.

The only mistake I see CCP making here was not including an IQ test at login.



Your post is idiotic. There's no need for that attack. You should actually read the thread and use your brain, instead of letting an emotional Pavlovian response take over your actions (someone complaining about something on the forums - I better say something mean). It's sad that there are so many aggressive, unthinking, offensive posters on this forum.


My post was a trap. It was intentionally antagonistic, because I already knew he did it because of something else, and I wanted to get to the bottom of what it was. It succeeded, and now we have an answer. Because literally nobody but this guy complains about trashing ships with stuff still inside it, because literally nobody but this guy does it.

Throughout my history on the forums, I've seen more people 'bragging' about accidentally trashing valuable stuff instead of complaining about it, only because it's funny as hell. I still remember one time, I was tired, and was trying to sell a faction cruiser of some kind (forget which one) and wound up trashing it somehow. Didn't complain at all, knew it was my own dumb fault, and took responsibility for it. See, here's the thing. This is one of EVE's design features that it's had for a very very very long time, and for good reason. Because there's nothing wrong with it.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#59 - 2016-11-26 01:42:58 UTC
why should a ship sell price be quoted with all the fittings, the ship is 1 item when you click on it, your items in the hanger are only counted as 1 stack of items per stack. you knew you went shopping, you knew you didn't unload the cargo and chose to trash the ship with out repacking.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Gheeeed
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#60 - 2016-11-26 02:06:26 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Gheeeed wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
So let me get this straight.

You used the ship to transport the modules you wanted for a new one.

You then got out of the ship prior to moving said modules to your item hangar.

You then somehow forgot they were in there, and trashed it.

The only mistake I see CCP making here was not including an IQ test at login.



Your post is idiotic. There's no need for that attack. You should actually read the thread and use your brain, instead of letting an emotional Pavlovian response take over your actions (someone complaining about something on the forums - I better say something mean). It's sad that there are so many aggressive, unthinking, offensive posters on this forum.


My post was a trap. It was intentionally antagonistic, because I already knew he did it because of something else, and I wanted to get to the bottom of what it was. It succeeded, and now we have an answer. Because literally nobody but this guy complains about trashing ships with stuff still inside it, because literally nobody but this guy does it.

Throughout my history on the forums, I've seen more people 'bragging' about accidentally trashing valuable stuff instead of complaining about it, only because it's funny as hell. I still remember one time, I was tired, and was trying to sell a faction cruiser of some kind (forget which one) and wound up trashing it somehow. Didn't complain at all, knew it was my own dumb fault, and took responsibility for it. See, here's the thing. This is one of EVE's design features that it's had for a very very very long time, and for good reason. Because there's nothing wrong with it.



A trap? LOL. That's one of the most contrived attempts at saving face I've ever seen.

"...and now we have an answer." And what answer is that? That he was tired and the interface design failed in having a basic sanity check? That's your justification for promoting bad, inconsistent design? Pretty pathetic.