Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Awox
Advanced Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 07:45:00 -
[1]
Still having major problems with contract system:
a) Can't bid on or even accept contracts in a different region (what's the reason for this?)
b) Still cannot sort through loads of contracts easily, the database queries are complete fail in this regard
Current broken method 1. Client asks server how many contracts meet the filters 2. Server responds '400' contracts match the filters 3. Client asks for first batch (~25) of the 400 4. Client sorts that first batch by the "Sort page by" selection 5. User clicks "Next" and the next batch of the 400 are fetched
Ideal method 1. Client ask server how many contracts meet the filters 2. Server responds '400' contracts match the filters 3. Client asks for first batch (~25) of the 400 except it sorts the 400 before getting the batch 4. Client displays that batch, already sorted 5. User clicks "Next" and gets the next batch of 400, but sorted properly
Even better, let us fetch all 400 contracts like with escrow so we can browse one big ass list. I rather liked that.
Surely MS SQL can LIMIT with offsets too..
faction loot ║ affordable hosting |
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 08:05:00 -
[2]
Escrow was terrible to navigate you are crazy I tell you.
|
Xtreem
Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 08:12:00 -
[3]
the idea of the contract system is great, but it does have some major setback where the escrow system was vastly better, like seeing all contract, claiming from anywhere etc etc
if we could combine the both in a workable system i would be happier
|
Khanid Kutie
I R Teh Poasting Alt Corp
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 08:27:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Awox Still having major problems with contract system:
a) Can't bid on or even accept contracts in a different region (what's the reason for this?)
b) Still cannot sort through loads of contracts easily, the database queries are complete fail in this regard
Current broken method 1. Client asks server how many contracts meet the filters 2. Server responds '400' contracts match the filters 3. Client asks for first batch (~25) of the 400 4. Client sorts that first batch by the "Sort page by" selection 5. User clicks "Next" and the next batch of the 400 are fetched
Ideal method 1. Client ask server how many contracts meet the filters 2. Server responds '400' contracts match the filters 3. Client asks for first batch (~25) of the 400 except it sorts the 400 before getting the batch 4. Client displays that batch, already sorted 5. User clicks "Next" and gets the next batch of 400, but sorted properly
Even better, let us fetch all 400 contracts like with escrow so we can browse one big ass list. I rather liked that.
Surely MS SQL can LIMIT with offsets too..
as if you attention whoring on CAOD wasnt enough? Contracts are fine, stfu already
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 09:24:00 -
[5]
Contracts are fine. Contracts Mk II (Ideal solution with the ability to grab the list of 400), would be better though. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Damneia Achernius
Northen Breeze
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 10:18:00 -
[6]
contracts are cool.. but wouldnt mind a few changes tho... some stuff annoys me
like not being able to bid when your not in the same region
|
Awox
Advanced Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 10:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Khanid Kutie
Originally by: Awox Still having major problems with contract system:
a) Can't bid on or even accept contracts in a different region (what's the reason for this?)
b) Still cannot sort through loads of contracts easily, the database queries are complete fail in this regard
Current broken method 1. Client asks server how many contracts meet the filters 2. Server responds '400' contracts match the filters 3. Client asks for first batch (~25) of the 400 4. Client sorts that first batch by the "Sort page by" selection 5. User clicks "Next" and the next batch of the 400 are fetched
Ideal method 1. Client ask server how many contracts meet the filters 2. Server responds '400' contracts match the filters 3. Client asks for first batch (~25) of the 400 except it sorts the 400 before getting the batch 4. Client displays that batch, already sorted 5. User clicks "Next" and gets the next batch of 400, but sorted properly
Even better, let us fetch all 400 contracts like with escrow so we can browse one big ass list. I rather liked that.
Surely MS SQL can LIMIT with offsets too..
as if you attention whoring on CAOD wasnt enough? Contracts are fine, stfu already
You don't like my "poast"? I am deeply saddened.
faction loot ║ affordable hosting |
Fifth Horseman
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 11:06:00 -
[8]
There's something horribly broken with Contracts.
Because contracts seem to require the spamming of local with your contracts. The Markets do not seem to cause this requirement.
Therefore there is something horribly broken with Contracts.
I don't know what it is, but I think it's the interface. It's better than ESCROW was, but it's still pretty cumbersome, as it takes me ages to check all the item types I have an interest in. With markets, I have "Add to quickbar".
A market region called "Contracts" might be nice. (Hell a market region called "My Corp" would be nice). --- Fanboi noun: 1)Person who thinks you should be happy that Eve just got a little bit worse.
2) Idiot.
Fanboiz: Plural of Fanboi Doorknob: Collective noun for Fanboiz. |
RaTTuS
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 11:24:00 -
[9]
the *major* problem with escrow was the fact that there was a 300 ? limit - on global | region | constellation | solar system | station - so escrows would vanish from view unless you sat in the major Hub and spammed they all the time.
I agree that the contracts are not as viewable as the old system but it is much improved on what escrow could do ... yes there does need to be more stuff added to make itmore useful .. -- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve [Now Verified] & Recruiting
|
Z3r0n
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 11:25:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Escrow was terrible to navigate you are crazy I tell you.
I agree but the new contract system is not really better... Clearly was programmed by a person with Dev-rights that can simply spawn their items and don't actually ever have to use the contract system.
It's these small things that really get under your skin if you play eve for a while... the same goes for all the 30 second timesink-timers and the totally unresponsive UI... feels like you were playing eve through three terminal servers in high-load situations.
Currently Training: ePeen Compensation Rank (19) |
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2008.01.16 11:45:00 -
[11]
Contracts certainly aren't fine. Usable, but not fine.
Like the op says, sorting each batch individually when there are several pages of contracts is just moronic.
I've moved to simple view exclusively, much faster and more on the screen at once.
Is there a way for me to exclude Multiple Items contracts? If no, why the hell not?
Search terms are far too general, it's either all "Afterburners", or those containing Description keyword or it's Exact Item Type. Description doesn't work properly since all contracts don't have descriptions. Most faction modules have mirror modules from another faction, can I search for Repub AND Domi mwd's, without getting spammed with T1/T2, officer/deadspace gear as well as hangar clearouts and fitted ships? If no, ....why the hell not?
I can input a pricerange, which helps narrow the lists down to one page, i.e. so I actually get to see what is available sorted by price, but that's a stupid workaround, and the Multiple Items spam clutters it up far too much.
The system is so limited it's like a highschool kid spent a couple hours making it, when he really didn't want to make it at all but would have rather gotten high with some friends.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |