These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Team Pink Zombie Kittens Presents.....

First post
Author
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#141 - 2012-01-10 14:05:42 UTC
I can't find stuff in new NeoCom.
Nuff said What?

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#142 - 2012-01-10 15:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Damassys Kadesh wrote:
....
I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.


Me too. I try to focus on that 1%. To make him perfect.

Hans I think your dust idea would be good. So your saying we are orbitting the button waiting until they finish the job and then can fly them out when they are done? So there would be no timer. As soon as the dust players shoot whatever they need to shoot then we can get them out of there. It may take them 10 minutes it might take them 10 hours - if they are clueless. Hire good dust players and you get an advantage. I'm happy with that.

Isn't the dust beta out? If so can anyone tell how the interaction with eve will work? I have no ps3.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Garr Earthbender
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2012-01-10 15:27:49 UTC
Nope. Dust beta isn't out yet....

-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#144 - 2012-01-10 15:35:41 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Damassys Kadesh wrote:
....
I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.


Me too. I try to focus on that 1%. To make him perfect.


I was already a little weirded out by Damassys's statement, now I REALLY feel like I should be concerned Like a patient on Nip/Tuck or something! Shocked


Quote:
Hans I think that would be good. So your saying we are orbitting the button waiting until they finish the job and then can fly them out when they are done? So there would be no timer. As soon as the dust players shoot whatever they need to shoot then we can get them out of there. It may take them 10 minutes it might take them 10 hours - if they are clueless. Hire good dust players and you get an advantage. I'm happy with that.

Isn't the dust beta out? If so can anyone tell how the interaction with eve will work? I have no ps3.



Precisely - no timers, objective-based. You hire winners, or you're waiting a while :) I'd love to see a synergy between success on the ground and success in space, so that both parties can influence the outcome. Maybe there's multiple ways it can play out -perhaps you can hack a bunker and convert it to friendly control, winning that system, or self-destruct / nuke the bunker as a last ditch resort, putting the system in a suspended contested state for a period of time while the bunker undergoes "repairs". A space battle that is losing could trigger you to order the ground troops to execute "Plan B" instead !! Cool Something along those lines....just tossing out ideas.

Dust beta is in sign-up mode...they are gathering their pool of EvE applicants, once their pool is full they'll draw names or review eligibility or whatever, and move on from there. In the meantime, there's quite a crowd stirring while people wait, like a school cafeteria jam-packed with kids that are told they have to wait there while Santa brings presents to their houses.....the anticipation is pretty tangible, everyone's getting antsy.

Here's where you can follow along, if you're interested....

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#145 - 2012-01-10 15:37:03 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Damassys Kadesh wrote:

I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.


Me too. I try to focus on that 1%. To make him perfect.


I was already a little weirded out by Damassys's statement, now I REALLY feel like I should be concerned Like a patient on Nip/Tuck or something! Shocked

Quote:
Hans I think that would be good. So your saying we are orbitting the button waiting until they finish the job and then can fly them out when they are done? So there would be no timer. As soon as the dust players shoot whatever they need to shoot then we can get them out of there. It may take them 10 minutes it might take them 10 hours - if they are clueless. Hire good dust players and you get an advantage. I'm happy with that.

Isn't the dust beta out? If so can anyone tell how the interaction with eve will work? I have no ps3.


Precisely - no timers, objective-based. You hire winners, or you're waiting a while :) I'd love to see a synergy between success on the ground and success in space, so that both parties can influence the outcome. Maybe there's multiple ways it can play out -perhaps you can hack a bunker and convert it to friendly control, winning that system, or self-destruct / nuke the bunker as a last ditch resort, putting the system in a suspended contested state for a period of time while the bunker undergoes "repairs". A space battle that is losing could trigger you to order the ground troops to execute "Plan B" instead !! Cool Something along those lines....just tossing out ideas.

Dust beta is in sign-up mode...they are gathering their pool of EvE applicants, once their pool is full they'll draw names or review eligibility or whatever, and move on from there. In the meantime, there's quite a crowd stirring while people wait, like a school cafeteria jam-packed with kids that are told they have to wait there while Santa brings presents to their houses.....the anticipation is pretty tangible, everyone's getting antsy.

Here's where you can follow along, if you're interested....

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#146 - 2012-01-10 15:37:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Cearain wrote:
Damassys Kadesh wrote:

I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.


Me too. I try to focus on that 1%. To make him perfect.


I was already a little weirded out by Damassys's statement, now I REALLY feel like I should be concerned... like I'm a patient on Nip/Tuck or something! Shocked

Quote:
Hans I think that would be good. So your saying we are orbitting the button waiting until they finish the job and then can fly them out when they are done? So there would be no timer. As soon as the dust players shoot whatever they need to shoot then we can get them out of there. It may take them 10 minutes it might take them 10 hours - if they are clueless. Hire good dust players and you get an advantage. I'm happy with that.

Isn't the dust beta out? If so can anyone tell how the interaction with eve will work? I have no ps3.


Precisely - no timers, objective-based. You hire winners, or you're waiting a while :) I'd love to see a synergy between success on the ground and success in space, so that both parties can influence the outcome. Maybe there's multiple ways it can play out -perhaps you can hack a bunker and convert it to friendly control, winning that system, or self-destruct / nuke the bunker as a last ditch resort, putting the system in a suspended contested state for a period of time while the bunker undergoes "repairs". A space battle that is losing could trigger you to order the ground troops to execute "Plan B" instead !! Cool Something along those lines....just tossing out ideas.

Dust beta is in sign-up mode...they are gathering their pool of EvE applicants, once their pool is full they'll draw names or review eligibility or whatever, and move on from there. In the meantime, there's quite a crowd stirring while people wait, like a school cafeteria jam-packed with kids that are told they have to wait there while Santa brings presents to their houses.....the anticipation is pretty tangible, everyone's getting antsy.

Here's where you can follow along, if you're interested...

...and I officially give up trying to link. These forums are crazy broken. I've copied, pasted, used link tool a thousand ways on diff links and its all "error in BBcode, parsed blah blah"

But yeah, there's a thread about the dev blog announcing the Beta where people are asking questions and waiting it out...

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

samivael
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#147 - 2012-01-10 17:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: samivael
The new neocom is a slick addition when you get used to it, nice work ccp.

Could you make the notification blink on things like wallet brighter and a once only thing like it is on tranq. The constant almost stealthy movement of it in my peripheral vision was distracting, i kept thinking something was coming at me from the left Big smile

edit:

A useability downgrade with chat channels:

On tranq when chat channels are minimized its easy to see at a glance which channel is blinking and decide whether to maximize it or not (i.e if its intel). It's a minimal interference with whatever you're doing, like pvping.

The way it is on sisi you have to click on chat to maximize to see if you need to answer, then re-minimize. it seems an unnecessary hinderance to quick, slick information gathering.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#148 - 2012-01-10 20:06:20 UTC
all is good just please please please no moving / blinking stuff just make them buttons brighter instead

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#149 - 2012-01-10 20:10:58 UTC
samivael wrote:
The new neocom is a slick addition when you get used to it, nice work ccp.

Could you make the notification blink on things like wallet brighter and a once only thing like it is on tranq. The constant almost stealthy movement of it in my peripheral vision was distracting, i kept thinking something was coming at me from the left Big smile

edit:

A useability downgrade with chat channels:

On tranq when chat channels are minimized its easy to see at a glance which channel is blinking and decide whether to maximize it or not (i.e if its intel). It's a minimal interference with whatever you're doing, like pvping.

The way it is on sisi you have to click on chat to maximize to see if you need to answer, then re-minimize. it seems an unnecessary hinderance to quick, slick information gathering.

Yep chat channels need to be splitable and have dif icons

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Taius Pax
State War Academy
Caldari State
#150 - 2012-01-10 23:51:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Taius Pax
CCP Konflikt wrote:
Team Pink Zombie Kittens has been hard at work making new features for your entertainment pleasure.

These include:
* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare.
* The New Neocom
* Corporation Locations (Bookmarks) can now be saved directly into the Corporations folder.

When Singularity next starts these will be available to you. Your feedback and bug reports would be invaluable to us.


I wrote up another post with feedback on the new Neocom. I just found this thread and this is probably the better place for my feedback:

I made a diagram that calls out the UI design issues I see with it which is linked at the end, but here's a summary:

1) The fan-out menus are mostly superfluous. There only 8 unique icons in the entire menu tree that aren't already on the main bar. Those could be collapsed into smaller sub menus that are currently used for accessories. There's plenty of space on the existing bar for all the icons - especially if they were collapsed into single tier menus and not duplicated.

2) The distance between left side menu and any non-duplicated function has grown from about 32 pixels to 268 pixels. They're also buried 2 submenus down instead of at most 1, which is the max of the current system. That's a lot of extra mouse movement.

3) The undock button has been placed next to commonly used functions. While accidentally clicking other buttons doesn't usually have a major impact on gameplay (they just pop up another window), this button puts you into space where you can be engaged by other players. A button with that significance shouldn't be placed in such a way as to make accidental clicks more likely.

Here's the image i marked up. It highlights these issues in a graphical way.
COMM4NDER
Legendary Umbrellas
#151 - 2012-01-11 01:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: COMM4NDER
So updated since the last test I did.

Neocom
1, it does not hide enough, it has few pixels on screen when hidden and well its annoying if you ask me and should be hidden until you ask for it. (shown here = http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2137335/EVE-Beta/neocom.png)
Still present


2, better indicator of whats a launcher and what is minimized. right now its hard to spot what is minimized apart from the other icons. [Better]

But still should be better, for example:
have Corp, local and alliacne in its own windows.
Minimize one of them and then click on chat icon in neocom and you will be given all options you have but no indication on the minimized one thus making the user to read all of them and checking back and forth. Instead give a backdrop or a indicator that will show that with quick glance on what window is minimized.


3, undock button missing. [Fixed]


4, not all windows aligning to neocom will move when it enters the screen (from hidden mode)
- Update, seems like when its hidden the windows have trouble sticking to the neocom and instead sticks to the viewport (left side of the screen and thus ignoring when the neocom gets pushed out)
- Found out that sticking windows to it when it slides out or in is a good workaround but annoying one since you need to be fast.
Still present


5, having many chat channels gives you overflow buttons label.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2137335/EVE-Beta/Neocomoverflow.png
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

General
Overload feedback is buggy, sometimes it will blink sometimes it wont and is heretic sometimes. [still present]
Overload pulse is to fast if you ask me and to small, a slower yet more visible pulse (glow) would make it look better if you ask me. [still present]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Neocom Suggestions
Please look @ linux side of the launchers like gnome3 and unity in terms of usability.
+ Click & Drag icons away to remove them from the neocom
+ Able to choose how high or how low the icons should group (small neocom and icons make them align to top left of the screen and makes it quite high in mouse movements to go from center of screen to top left to click on neocom. Good way to make this would be setting your own region on where icons should appear on the neocom.
+ Group naming (so you can hover with mouse to identify them easy)
+ Custom icons or change from a preselected list on groups (like above)
+ Pinned Windows (make an rightclick option on neocom icon to pinn a window to make it stay on neocom even after close)
+ Shortcuts, have a modifier button to display numbers or some kind of indication to how to launch them easy.

[url=https://github.com/CommanderAlchemy/.bin/blob/master/eve] EVE - Online Launcher [Linux] [/url] Installs, launches character prefixes (both SISI & Tranquility). Simplescreenrecorder shm inject

Scalar Angulargf
Incognito Mode
Pandemic Horde
#152 - 2012-01-11 04:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Scalar Angulargf
x-post regarding the chat button

Scalar Angulargf wrote:
-1. Now you can't tell if there's been an update to an intel channel or if it's just people talking in local. These should either minimize to the bottom or each window should be a separate window under the chat button.


EDIT: Preferably the former, but individual channel/window buttons on the neocom would be better than the latter.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#153 - 2012-01-11 05:07:17 UTC
COMM4NDER wrote:

5, having many chat channels gives you overflow buttons label.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2137335/EVE-Beta/Neocomoverflow.png


Yes, the devs need to realize that for a lot of us, we need a minimum of 12 chat tabs open to keep track of what is going on in the universe.

I always have a minimum of 18 chat channels open. Which goes up to about 21-23 once I fleet up for combat.

What would be nice (someday) is if I could decide to collapse a few channels into a single window and have to prefix with /1 /2 /3 /4 (up through /9) to speak into a particular channel in that window. Including giving different colors to each chat channel that I have configured to display in a particular chat window. Then I could collapse down some of the "quieter" channels into a single chat tab while leaving the busier channels in their own tabs.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#154 - 2012-01-11 05:15:36 UTC
Open up in game chat as IRC channels! Problem solved by outsourcing.

We have out-of-game Vivox connectivity, why not do the same for text chat?
Shalee Lianne
Banana-Republic.
HERO Coalition.
#155 - 2012-01-11 07:08:57 UTC
Several pages back one of the devs said something about only having so much time for this January patch and thats why FW is getting alliances, because there isn't much time to fix anything else.

Well okay..

I think we've seen in the past that rushing to do things kinda makes things worse, not better.

There's no reason to add more people to broken faction war.

Fix it first, then bring in other people.

Those of us who love FW will stick around til you make it better, no reason to try to destory it completely because you feel rushed (which is strange in itself since FW has been ignored for years).

I'm not a fan of adding alliances. If I wanted to be in an alliance I'd go to null. Those who play in FW actually like it. Can it be better? Sure. Do we need to turn it into a replica of null to make it better? Nah. We like our little part of New Eden.

I don't understand why CCP refuses to listen to those who actually play in FW. You will find countless threads with thousands of ideas that will make FW so much better, but it seems like those things are completely ignored and these random a$$ed 'fixes' get thrown at us.

Ah well.

http://amarrian.blogspot.com/  ~ Roleplay blog. http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#156 - 2012-01-11 09:59:54 UTC
Shalee Lianne wrote:
...I don't understand why CCP refuses to listen to those who actually play in FW. You will find countless threads with thousands of ideas that will make FW so much better, but it seems like those things are completely ignored and these random a$$ed 'fixes' get thrown at us.

Null wants cheap navy gear and an alternative revenue source. What null wants, null gets .. you should know this by now Big smile

PS: Asses isn't filtered, no need to strain your hand reaching for the the $ sign.
EmmerTemp
State War Academy
Caldari State
#157 - 2012-01-11 11:20:07 UTC
Dr Sodius wrote:


d) how about a shortcut for the graphic settings ? you know, current, low, max settings ? would be freaky!!



It is a bit much to ask... but indeed, a shortcut on the neo to set your client from normal setting to low settings and back
whould be the most perfect thing ever to happen :)

Anyways... love the new Neo, looks great!
also the new overload features rock!
Keep up the good work
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#158 - 2012-01-11 15:40:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Shalee Lianne wrote:
...I don't understand why CCP refuses to listen to those who actually play in FW. You will find countless threads with thousands of ideas that will make FW so much better, but it seems like those things are completely ignored and these random a$$ed 'fixes' get thrown at us.

Null wants cheap navy gear and an alternative revenue source. What null wants, null gets .. you should know this by now Big smile

PS: Asses isn't filtered, no need to strain your hand reaching for the the $ sign.


First off, I completely understand the decision to involve Alliances sparks a lot of emotions, and rightfully so - it has a lot of potential to drastically change the nature of the Faction Warfare scene, for better or for worse. It also is just as likely that very few Alliances, if any, actually make the switch.

The primary factors influencing the decision to make this change are twofold - the first being what Soundwave already said - its an easier-to-implement "low-hanging-fruit" that is more accessible in terms of programming time than other, larger forms of iteration.

However, we need to be accurate and fair in our discussion so I am obligated to point out that the decision to include Alliances is NOT a new idea, its one of the oldest, and was actually voted upon, ratified, and added to CCP's backlog three years ago. This is the second main reason the decision is in the pipeline.

Simply put, this is not the result of whiny Alliances pressuring CCP to give them access to our resources, nor it is a "random" fix in any way.

That being said, I feel the most important concern is this - Alliance participation in Faction Warfare, despite any historical approval or endorsement by the player base, is currently one of the most divisive and emotional arguments that is on the table for discussion. "Low hanging fruit" should not only include that which takes the least time to program, with respect to the community I feel "low hanging fruit" should be the items that are least likely to split and divide the Faction Warfare community, leading to less participation ultimately rather than more.

I personally think that ultimately Alliance involvement with the Faction Warfare scene are inevitable, and ultimately beneficial.

However the timing of this change is far too likely to be destabilizing - NOT because of how Alliances will destroy us, but because how the subsequent reaction has the potential to cause the Faction Warfare corporations to destroy themselves in the process.

I urge CCP to listen to the community's concerns and critically assess the atmosphere inside the Faction Warfare community at this point in time, and not make a decision based on 3-year old debates. I urge CCP to respect the fact that the collective pilots in the militias have invested far more in this feature than the developers have over the last three years, and deserve a chance to test and utilize any new Faction Warfare improvements before a potentially destabilizing element such as Alliances enters the scene and strains the social relationships amongst the Faction Warfare corporations.

I agree with Susan Black’s assessment of the situation that arguments about “breaking” an already broken feature are rather thin. But the reality is that there isn’t an active “war” raging at the moment to keep the factions focused and cohesive. There is an atmosphere of boredom, with various corps dabbling in a dozen different areas to muster kills and keep players having fun however possible. This is the most dangerous atmosphere to bring Alliance populations into – boredom and lack of an objective to focus on is exactly the type of situation where Alliances with ulterior motives and/or chaotic and destructive tendencies will flourish, to the detriment of all who have hung in there and dedicated years to keeping the feature alive long enough to see the day when improvements will finally come.

TL:DR –Will Alliances “destroy” Faction Warfare? Not if the community is happy, focused, and actively engaged in an interesting war once again. The feature could certainly use fresh blood and more targets. However, allowing Alliances to enter the scene when faction unity is at record lows and there really isn’t an ongoing war to participate in only provides the greatest opportunity for abuse and destruction. The community has worked so hard to bring Faction Warfare improvement to the table, It would be a real shame to see the community implode right before the changes that can “save” the feature have a chance to work their magic. The committed warriors of the four races deserve their chance to enjoy “the new war” first, they’ve earned it.

This is just my opinion, based on what I see. I don’t want CCP to take my word for it – I want them to listen carefully to the collective feedback from the community, weigh the pros and cons, and make an informed and un-hasty decision.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Asthariye
Angry Mustellid
#159 - 2012-01-11 15:50:20 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
A lot of really sensible stuff



This. Please, CCP, for the love of all that's good and sensible in this universe, take this man's words to heart. This is not the right time to bring alliances into FW. It has been a broken feature for years, held together only by a small, dedicated community working its asses off to keep it alive. To stomp roughshod over the feelings of that community regarding this change would be wrong and potentially very unwise, not to mention just plain rude.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#160 - 2012-01-11 16:11:00 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
However, we need to be accurate and fair in our discussion so I am obligated to point out that the decision to include Alliances is NOT a new idea, its one of the oldest, and was actually voted upon, ratified, and added to CCP's backlog three years ago. This is the second main reason the decision is in the pipeline.


I don't care too much either way. But in the interests of accuracy and fairness it seems the proposal that the csm voted on was much more nuanced than just letting alliances join. I'm assuming you are referring to this backlogged proposal:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces_(CSM)

Under the pros of that proposal we see:

"more pvp for empire/lowsec based alliances that don't want to become sov holders"

We see other limits on how alliances would join in that proposal including no defensive plexing. Although this is not specifically addressed, based on the underlying threads, it appears the alliances would not be able to run fw missions either .

Is this the proposal you are refering to?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815