Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 22 post(s) |
Bob FromMarketing
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:04:00 -
[91] - Quote
Alli Othman wrote:CCP GingerDude wrote:Hey folks.
Being the guy writing this code, I think I should chime in a bit (disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread yet).
The corp hangars on ships code had to go. Sorry, but that's simply the reality of the matter. It's been broken since it was first put in the game and was made completely unfixable when fleet member access was added to the mix. And by broken I mean both design and implementation. Corp roles clashed and were inconsistent between usages, there was no way for the client to reliably know if it could access another players ship so it had to guess and handle errors (you can probably imagine how healthy and correct that was most of the time), you could put stuff in without knowing that you couldn't take it back and the list just kept growing. Every time someone fixed a bug in this code, at least two new bugs surfaced, usually within either POS corp hangar arrays or offices in stations as all 3 of them shared the same codebase. It. Had. To. Go.
Thank you for taking the time to provide your reasoning. I think that everyone does agree that the corporate hangar system is very unwieldy and unnecessarily confusing, however there are two main issues that come up: the need for efficient organization in these large spaces, and the need for granularity of access control. The currently proposed system leaves capital pilots unable to efficiently organize the modules in their rather large storage spaces. Containers are an unwieldy and as has been stated currently unusable method of achieving this- that someone could simply take the container complicates things even more. In fact, under the newly proposed system there would be *no* effective way to organize. While it may seem that the inventory system allows for this, it's unfortunately inadequate in high-pressure situations such as an incoming doomsday hit or needing to refit from a buffer fit to a triage fit in pantheon tactics. The Corporate Hangar system's divisions however do allow this effectively and efficiently. The second issue of access control is rather important as cap sized modules have to be stored in the Hangars due to their size. While their size may be somewhat of a deterrent to theft, it would still be possible for fleet or corp members to remove these vital modules under the proposed system. The ability to store these high value modules in a division inaccessible- or at least only accessible if the pilot wishes- by others is a necessity for capital ship pilots. Due to the need to store the large modules and the need to quickly refit as necessary, many capital pilots store their modules in the various divisions provided by the Corporate Hangar system. Having the only option for allowing fleet/corp members to grab a ship from the SMB or grab a necessary module out of the Hangar be one in the same *and* providing those members with free reign over the high value modules will mean that users will be at least hesitant to even allow access and at worst will simply never allow the access. So while many celebrate being freed from the confusing ties to corporate roles, we simply cannot accept the currently proposed system. A system that would both maintain the functionality necessary for capital pilots and would free the Hangar system from the ties to corporate roles would be to have several divisions similar to the Corporate System, but with the control options of your proposed system. Have these divisions access be controlled individually- NOT tied to the SMB access, NOT tied to eachother's access, and definitely NOT tied to corporate roles. It may seem at first glance that such a system would just be recreating the Corporate Hangar system and would lack elegance, but it would both free users from the abysmal Corporate Hangar system *and* maintain the functions necessary for capital pilots to even use a new system and not simply fall into never allowing access (which would mean a lot more wasted effort on your part if your users were to not even use the system)
I'm too lazy to retype this, so I'm gonna quote it
CCP you dumb. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 19:27:00 -
[92] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:Hey folks.
Being the guy writing this code, I think I should chime in a bit (disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread yet).
The corp hangars on ships code had to go. Sorry, but that's simply the reality of the matter. It's been broken since it was first put in the game and was made completely unfixable when fleet member access was added to the mix. And by broken I mean both design and implementation. Corp roles clashed and were inconsistent between usages, there was no way for the client to reliably know if it could access another players ship so it had to guess and handle errors (you can probably imagine how healthy and correct that was most of the time), you could put stuff in without knowing that you couldn't take it back and the list just kept growing. Every time someone fixed a bug in this code, at least two new bugs surfaced, usually within either POS corp hangar arrays or offices in stations as all 3 of them shared the same codebase. It. Had. To. Go.
So, taking as a given that we could no longer use the same code for the ships corp hangars as the other types, then the options really boil down to either a) rewrite the corp hangars on ships seperetaly, but keep the corp hangars concept, but not share the code with the other two types of corp hangars, or b) rethink the functionality. Having two almost identical corp-hangars implementations, except for a bunch of special cases, didn't ring particularly well with the engineer in me and having to construct some resemblance of sanity and to avoid code-duplication, either through inheritance or composition while doing it wasn't appealing either.
So, after asking around, both internally, via the CSM and within the player community where I know people, it was generally agreed that fleet hangars were the way to go.
I'm absolutely not dismissing any of your criticisms here, merely explaining why a change had to happen. We're putting significant effort these days to try to clean up some of the really bad code which has accumulated over the years that no-one dares touch anymore (this, crimewatch, POSes are getting some rethink Soon(tm)) because of the certain breakage said touching will cause.
That said, we can't please everybody at the same time, but we'll do our best to address your concerns wrt. the change in functionality here. We've already made a few changes to address stuff raised in this thread, but I'll leave it to CCP Habakuk and Grayscale to detail those. Keep watching this space....
Cheers.
Will the new hangar be visible trough cargo scanner? will the new hangar drop loot?
*wink* Hi-sec Orcas *wink* Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Cobalt Rookits
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 21:58:00 -
[93] - Quote
I'm not sure how much you use your corp hangars, but for someone who does, this is a really big nerf. IF you have to remove the current functionality, make sure you replace it with something comparable - having a decent number of "hangar"s while being able to set access would be great. |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
473
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 22:22:00 -
[94] - Quote
I would suggest that you guys figure out the solution before removing the functionality. I still think fixing containers in space, and adding new ones is the easiest solution, since you guys don't want to put :effort: into coding it correctly.
|
Zendon Taredi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:16:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:Hey folks.
Being the guy writing this code, I think I should chime in a bit (disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread yet).
The corp hangars on ships code had to go. Sorry, but that's simply the reality of the matter. It's been broken since it was first put in the game and was made completely unfixable when fleet member access was added to the mix. And by broken I mean both design and implementation. Corp roles clashed and were inconsistent between usages, there was no way for the client to reliably know if it could access another players ship so it had to guess and handle errors (you can probably imagine how healthy and correct that was most of the time), you could put stuff in without knowing that you couldn't take it back and the list just kept growing. Every time someone fixed a bug in this code, at least two new bugs surfaced, usually within either POS corp hangar arrays or offices in stations as all 3 of them shared the same codebase. It. Had. To. Go.
So, taking as a given that we could no longer use the same code for the ships corp hangars as the other types, then the options really boil down to either a) rewrite the corp hangars on ships seperetaly, but keep the corp hangars concept, but not share the code with the other two types of corp hangars, or b) rethink the functionality. Having two almost identical corp-hangars implementations, except for a bunch of special cases, didn't ring particularly well with the engineer in me and having to construct some resemblance of sanity and to avoid code-duplication, either through inheritance or composition while doing it wasn't appealing either.
So, after asking around, both internally, via the CSM and within the player community where I know people, it was generally agreed that fleet hangars were the way to go.
I'm absolutely not dismissing any of your criticisms here, merely explaining why a change had to happen. We're putting significant effort these days to try to clean up some of the really bad code which has accumulated over the years that no-one dares touch anymore (this, crimewatch, POSes are getting some rethink Soon(tm)) because of the certain breakage said touching will cause.
That said, we can't please everybody at the same time, but we'll do our best to address your concerns wrt. the change in functionality here. We've already made a few changes to address stuff raised in this thread, but I'll leave it to CCP Habakuk and Grayscale to detail those. Keep watching this space....
Cheers.
Something that's been working for years, albeit with a few kinks here and there "IT HAD TO GO"? I suggest you listen less to your in-house guys and instead listen to the players. We love the corp hangar, we need the corp hangar. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:22:00 -
[96] - Quote
Obviously lots of players are using corp hangars on ships, however recognizing that Team Gridlock is now aware of this I have full faith in them creating a good solution that doesn't curbstomp anyone too drastically...
Pinky |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
49
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 12:16:00 -
[97] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:Hey folks.
Being the guy writing this code, I think I should chime in a bit (disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread yet).
The corp hangars on ships code had to go. Sorry, but that's simply the reality of the matter. It's been broken since it was first put in the game and was made completely unfixable when fleet member access was added to the mix. And by broken I mean both design and implementation. Corp roles clashed and were inconsistent between usages, there was no way for the client to reliably know if it could access another players ship so it had to guess and handle errors (you can probably imagine how healthy and correct that was most of the time), you could put stuff in without knowing that you couldn't take it back and the list just kept growing. Every time someone fixed a bug in this code, at least two new bugs surfaced, usually within either POS corp hangar arrays or offices in stations as all 3 of them shared the same codebase. It. Had. To. Go.
So, taking as a given that we could no longer use the same code for the ships corp hangars as the other types, then the options really boil down to either a) rewrite the corp hangars on ships seperetaly, but keep the corp hangars concept, but not share the code with the other two types of corp hangars, or b) rethink the functionality. Having two almost identical corp-hangars implementations, except for a bunch of special cases, didn't ring particularly well with the engineer in me and having to construct some resemblance of sanity and to avoid code-duplication, either through inheritance or composition while doing it wasn't appealing either.
So, after asking around, both internally, via the CSM and within the player community where I know people, it was generally agreed that fleet hangars were the way to go.
I'm absolutely not dismissing any of your criticisms here, merely explaining why a change had to happen. We're putting significant effort these days to try to clean up some of the really bad code which has accumulated over the years that no-one dares touch anymore (this, crimewatch, POSes are getting some rethink Soon(tm)) because of the certain breakage said touching will cause.
That said, we can't please everybody at the same time, but we'll do our best to address your concerns wrt. the change in functionality here. We've already made a few changes to address stuff raised in this thread, but I'll leave it to CCP Habakuk and Grayscale to detail those. Keep watching this space....
Cheers.
Thanks for braving the forums. So, I'm no supercap pilot, but even capital and subcap pilots really benefited from this method of personal organization in w-space. Not only did it let you become a walking sorting facility for loot or a source of extra ammo for those prolonged fights or what have you, but when you weren't in combat, you had a better method for organizing your own things than what POSes give you, which is:
a) Put everything in containers, label the containers, and every time you want to access something, get in a ship with a big cargo hold and access the containers/anchor it in space.
b) Put things in the cargo hold of a ship. Never let that ship out of the force field.
c) Have your own POS.
Having a ship with its own CHA gave you all the convenience of having your own POS in terms of item storage without having to have your own POS. The general fleet hangar downgrades this to having an extra-large cargo hold that other people can access, too.
Maybe the future-POSes are going to address the long-term storage aspects, but even if they do, that's a long ways down the line and it still doesn't help cap pilots who need to change fittings quickly or find their extra fuel and quick and so on. After my experiences trying to offload loot into a CHA with multiple other people accessing it at the same time, I cannot assume that any search function or filtering of items in the inventory will be fast enough for OH GOD OH GOD FIT FOR CAP NOW NOW NOW. Maybe it will be soon, but right now...not quite. |
Rumpelstilski
Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 06:48:00 -
[98] - Quote
CHA had a multitude of in-game reasons to be implemented. One of those is that a carrier is a ship which among other things enables you and your friends to live for weeks in remote parts of hostile 0.0, the CHA enabled you to keep personal stuff in a high security area and stuff available to the fleet in another. Not to mention move ops suddenly turning into pvp ops
Is it possible to implement so players can create their own folders in the FHA and set access rules for each of them?
This way you will have pretty much everything that was good in the old system combined with the benefits of the new system? |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
490
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:14:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:We discussed these changes with the CSM
See, that was your first mistake.
This is the most ineffectual and clueless CSM for years |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
490
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:19:00 -
[100] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:It's like the people here complaining about losing their capital divisions have never noticed the Search function in the universal Inventory or that they can make custom filters they can toggle at will.
Or they can be lazy whiners instead of learning how to do these things, whatever.
So you have never had to fly a cap in combat then, and had to do a quick refit. Cap hanger with the refit mods in it for a quick swap. Easy. |
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
490
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:40:00 -
[101] - Quote
Kari Juptris wrote:CCP Habakuk wrote:
- Divisions: I am afraid that it would be very difficult to bring them back. I will discuss on Monday with the team, if we could find any good alternatives.
Mate, this was a wonderful feature that a lot of capital and super capital pilots used. Why did Team Gridlock have to go and gut it?
This. Another example of CCP forging ahead with a badly thought out ideas without an option to revert. Awesome. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
493
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:48:00 -
[102] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:With the important caveat that I am not a capital pilot:
How hard would it be to let cap pilots assign keyword tags to selected items, and then apply permissions by keyword? This doesn't cover all the bases (for instance, it is nice to allow miners to deposit ore into bays they can't take anything from), but it covers most of the concerns and it's far more flexible than containers or divisions.
Tag your pimp mods "refit" and give no-one permission; tag your rifters and dictors "fleet" and allow fleet members to access anything tagged "fleet"; etc. If you allowed more than one tag per item, you could even have overlapping permissions.
Far too complicated and time consuming |
|
CCP GingerDude
95
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:22:00 -
[103] - Quote
Ok, I've finally read through the whole thread. Is the following a fair summary of the issues and questions raised ?
* Granularity of access, i.e. the ability to offer access to the SMB and FH separately to either corp or fleet or both. * Visual organization, i.e. a single click to view groups of items. * Divisional security, i.e. the ability to have a (semi-)private section and "public" section, so far accomplished with corp roles. * Emergency fitting problem. i.e. the ability to Ctrl+A -> drag everything over the fitting screen because OMGTHEYREGANKINGMEOHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT. * Max pilots using fitting service as once. This is actually a red herring and in any case not something I've changed, but was raised, so lets include it anyway. Maybe the restriction should be changed. No promises though. * Question about scannability. Are FH contents scannable? Should they be? * Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it?
Am I missing something? Senior Server Programmer |
|
Alli Othman
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:25:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:Ok, I've finally read through the whole thread. Is the following a fair summary of the issues and questions raised ?
* Granularity of access, i.e. the ability to offer access to the SMB and FH separately to either corp or fleet or both. * Visual organization, i.e. a single click to view groups of items. * Divisional security, i.e. the ability to have a (semi-)private section and "public" section, so far accomplished with corp roles. * Emergency fitting problem. i.e. the ability to Ctrl+A -> drag everything over the fitting screen because OMGTHEYREGANKINGMEOHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT. * Max pilots using fitting service as once. This is actually a red herring and in any case not something I've changed, but was raised, so lets include it anyway. Maybe the restriction should be changed. No promises though. * Question about scannability. Are FH contents scannable? Should they be? * Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it?
Am I missing something? Looks like a fair summary. I believe there were also some WHers that brought up a couple other concerns as well. |
Grey Stormshadow
Fistful of Finns Ewoks
1457
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 12:03:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:Ok, I've finally read through the whole thread. Is the following a fair summary of the issues and questions raised ?
* Granularity of access, i.e. the ability to offer access to the SMB and FH separately to either corp or fleet or both. * Visual organization, i.e. a single click to view groups of items. * Divisional security, i.e. the ability to have a (semi-)private section and "public" section, so far accomplished with corp roles. * Emergency fitting problem. i.e. the ability to Ctrl+A -> drag everything over the fitting screen because OMGTHEYREGANKINGMEOHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT. * Max pilots using fitting service as once. This is actually a red herring and in any case not something I've changed, but was raised, so lets include it anyway. Maybe the restriction should be changed. No promises though. * Question about scannability. Are FH contents scannable? Should they be? * Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it? * The "drop-only" functionality, i.e. you can put stuff in, but not view or take
Am I missing something?
[edited to add that last part] Looks solid
Get |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
493
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 12:09:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:* Emergency fitting problem. i.e. the ability to Ctrl+A -> drag everything over the fitting screen because OMGTHEYREGANKINGMEOHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT.
You have pretty much covered it, with just a refinement on the above point....
It is also necessary to keep different sets of fitting change(s) in seperate hangers. Fuel and maybe faction mods etc (that aren't a complete fittings change) in another. So if you are thinking of just making one additional hanger, it would not really be enough. |
Dhaaran
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:33:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:Ok, I've finally read through the whole thread. Is the following a fair summary of the issues and questions raised ?
* Granularity of access, i.e. the ability to offer access to the SMB and FH separately to either corp or fleet or both. * Visual organization, i.e. a single click to view groups of items. * Divisional security, i.e. the ability to have a (semi-)private section and "public" section, so far accomplished with corp roles. * Emergency fitting problem. i.e. the ability to Ctrl+A -> drag everything over the fitting screen because OMGTHEYREGANKINGMEOHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT. * Max pilots using fitting service as once. This is actually a red herring and in any case not something I've changed, but was raised, so lets include it anyway. Maybe the restriction should be changed. No promises though. * Question about scannability. Are FH contents scannable? Should they be? * Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it? * The "drop-only" functionality, i.e. you can put stuff in, but not view or take
Am I missing something?
[edited to add that last part]
sounds good! while you are at it though - is there any reason to not just up the fuel bay for supers/titans by a factor of 5-10 so they dont need to store fuel in their corp hangars? not like we are gonna suddenly start hauling fuel from empire in our supercapitals ... |
I DontLikeWhatYoureDoing
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:36:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote: * Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it?
Please don't just pay this lip service by merely answering the question. We really need the loot situation handled for specialized bays. You guys back in August added loot from some of the bays onto API-pulled killmails (yay!). But they still don't show up in the Copy Text option from the in-game killmail. This wreaks havoc on killboards when somebody manually posts a mail ("The mods show up on the in-game mail, why aren't they showing on the killboard?!").
Additionally, there are many of us who would really, really, really like to see loot drop from some of the bays that currently have a 0% chance of doing so. Tons of m3 of player created goods disappear from the game every time one of these ships go boom (after the angel gets its wings). |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:01:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:Ok, I've finally read through the whole thread. Is the following a fair summary of the issues and questions raised ?
* Granularity of access, i.e. the ability to offer access to the SMB and FH separately to either corp or fleet or both. * Visual organization, i.e. a single click to view groups of items. * Divisional security, i.e. the ability to have a (semi-)private section and "public" section, so far accomplished with corp roles. * Emergency fitting problem. i.e. the ability to Ctrl+A -> drag everything over the fitting screen because OMGTHEYREGANKINGMEOHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT. * Max pilots using fitting service as once. This is actually a red herring and in any case not something I've changed, but was raised, so lets include it anyway. Maybe the restriction should be changed. No promises though. * Question about scannability. Are FH contents scannable? Should they be? * Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it? * The "drop-only" functionality, i.e. you can put stuff in, but not view or take
Am I missing something?
[edited to add that last part]
This sounds like an accurate collection of concerns from this thread. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 21:59:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote: * Question about scannability. Are FH contents scannable? Should they be? * Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it?
It has pros and cons
Pros:
Orca hi sec travel with expensive stuff
Cons:
Orca hi sec travel with expensive stuff
depending on witch end of the gun You are
but without corp hangar as safe storage suicide ganking will become even more iritating Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
|
Arcosian
EntroPrelatial Industria EntroPraetorian Aegis
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 01:09:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote: * Question about scannability. Are FH contents scannable? Should they be? * Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it?
I can already see drool dripping from every suicide ganker's mouth.
This change would mean Orcas could now be massive loot pinatas. I say "could" because making the fleet hangar scannable and drop loot would only mean indy/traders would find new safer means to transport goods be that fitting a bigger tank on the orca(it's pretty easy to get well over 250k ehp), using Red Frog to transport things or just transporting smaller loads with an "un-gankable" value. Nevertheless, I can see the gankers' argument for this change since "Those evil highsec carebears get a 100% risk free 40km3 cargohold to transport billions of goods. And they must all be killed with fire because they ruin nullsec and lowsec and the economy. blah blah blah. "Eve is hard noob, get used to it." blah blah blah"
Personally, I'm against this change since the orca takes months to train for so having an unscannable and undroppable cargohold isn't something a 2 week old noob would have access to. Suicide ganking is already a nuisance as it has become very easy with the introduction of the talos and tornado allowing a 10 man fleet to pop freighters with virtually no consequences. And gankers already have plenty of stupid people transporting billions in untanked T1 indy ships.
Now, I'm not against ganking since it's good for business and keeps people from messing with my markets more than they would otherwise but with no way to counter it other than being lucky with gate camps it seems like if this change goes through then there should also be a re-balance to ganking/criminal actions entailing greater consequences or buffing the EHP of all indy ships.
tldr: If this change goes through it will enrage EVERY highsec industrialist/orca pilot. Suicide ganking is a nuisance and already got buffed with the Tornado and Talos. |
Grey Stormshadow
Fistful of Finns Ewoks
1457
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 05:53:00 -
[112] - Quote
Yea what comes to the scannability and loot drops of fleet hangar, they should inherit their behavior from current corp hangar.
If you're willing to change these to one way or another there has to be broad discussion about the topic - not just something you do based on feedback from some test server thread.
Get |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
298
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:54:00 -
[113] - Quote
Changes, which reached Duality with today's patch:
- Fleet hangars: Assembled containers in fleet hangars can now be used fully by the owner of the ship.
- Force field passwords: They are now stored on the server per character.
Feel free to test these changes on Duality. Bonus points for whoever finds a bug and reports it here and with a bugreport.
Further improvements to fleet hangars are being planned to address many of your concerns, but CCP Greyscale will post them later, as soon as he had time to go through them in detail. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
De'Veldrin
East India Ore Trade Intrepid Crossing
433
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:40:00 -
[114] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:Changes, which reached Duality with today's patch:
- Fleet hangars: Assembled containers in fleet hangars can now be used fully by the owner of the ship.
- Force field passwords: They are now stored on the server per character.
Feel free to test these changes on Duality. Bonus points for whoever finds a bug and reports it here and with a bugreport. Further improvements to fleet hangars are being planned to address many of your concerns, but CCP Greyscale will post them later, as soon as he had time to go through them in detail.
I am just glad to see Team Gridlock taking those concerns seriously and handling them, especially the one about not letting my expensive faction mods go walk about because someone needs to get a shield hardener out of my Fleet Hanger. Unsub or don't.-á I don't care what your reasons are, and neither does anyone else.-á Just click the button and go away - or don't. |
Lord Haur
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:54:00 -
[115] - Quote
Containers do not fully address the concerns, partly because of the static nature of container-based divisions (although the bonus of increased storage space may alleviate this somewhat), but mainly because (as I read it) if you open the Fleet Hangar to public use, there is nothing stopping anyone simply removing the containers. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:59:00 -
[116] - Quote
so to recap as ive just tested it on duality... corp members and fleet members are now separately selectable to use the sma and fleet hangar. fleet hangar has no different hangars in them... its just 1 big hangar we still cant assign separate use of the sma on carriers from hangar access.
im sorry but how is this better than where we are currently on tranquility? |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
298
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:20:00 -
[117] - Quote
Lord Haur wrote:Containers do not fully address the concerns, partly because of the static nature of container-based divisions (although the bonus of increased storage space may alleviate this somewhat), but mainly because (as I read it) if you open the Fleet Hangar to public use, there is nothing stopping anyone simply removing the containers.
The current version on Duality is NOT how this will be released to TQ. Container-access will be changed for sure. Details will be posted by CCP Greyscale.
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:... im sorry but how is this better than where we are currently on tranquility?
Please wait for the post by CCP Greyscale. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:05:00 -
[118] - Quote
thanks for the swift response habakuk! =) |
Vonce forthelulz
The Ankou Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:32:00 -
[119] - Quote
Lord Haur wrote:Those divisons on the carrier hangers were kinda useful btw.
qft
Seems clear that everyone wants some organization to the hanger. |
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
244
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:21:00 -
[120] - Quote
Vonce forthelulz wrote:Lord Haur wrote:Those divisons on the carrier hangers were kinda useful btw. qft Seems clear that everyone wants some organization to the hanger.
And again. Its not only carrier pilots...anyone running mining ops w/ rorq/orca....those divisions were EXTREMELY useful. Its hard to do a filter search for who deposited what.
Why remove the functionality we had? What was deemed wrong with it? Other than the fact that your new Uni Inv and its bloody tree made it extremely unpleasant to navigate without a huge window. http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |