Hey, sorry we've been hogging up all your time trying to get you to fix something we didn't want released yet. I'm sure most people would have been fine waiting until the next main release for this instead of the half-assed version we've been dealing with.

Pretty frightening statement, especially as a lot of the fixes you have been working on have been performance related.

How did your internal testing miss so many noticeable performance issues and what steps will be taken to prevent this happening again?

So... U think U fixed it now mostly ?? LOL-¦

whats with that new "feature" I just encountered ? Why can I no longer open a Trade Window in Station
to someone beeing in same Corp ??
Trading inside Corp now forbidden ? Have to use Contract (Tax = new ISK-Sink) ?
>> U can do by corphangar -> member hangars ... ? rly ? everybody without proper roles f.e. too ??
Should not be - I hope ^^ (Guess those Roles for beeing able to see Memberhangars had a Reason)

Also what if it is a "real" "Trade" with Item vs. ISK ? not just the freegivaway into memberhangar ??



Next Thing:

Containers inside Corphangar still not fixed !

see:

1) open Shipcargo - aka Window #1
2) open Corhangartab - aka Window#2

now try to open a Container in there ^^ No matter if u try dblclick / rightclickmenu open to access..
it will open a new Window ..... with your Shipcargobay ^^
doh!

NO way to access a container in corphangar without scrolling thru that treehugger thingy
--thnx

Looting in Space ? fixed ? how ?? LOLOL
wreck appears in tree only AFTER u already clicked the wreck and therefore ur shipcargo was switched away
and replaced by wreckcargo





HTFU and start fixing that mess u made of the whole inventory handling system
it might be better now, compared to day 1 after release, but its still way beyond "rdy or working as intended"

"less windows" ?? -> failsauce par exellence
honestly, "realy" managing a corphangar requires now 7 windows instead of 1 with tabs to be open


B+ÿ+ÿM


[acc exp date: 24.06.12 - - - - no fix => no money]

Obviously CCP has done as much as they can to "Fix" inventory in as short a period as possible. Too bad some issues labeled as fixed weren't fixed to the level CCP project members desired. But then I think they are going farther than CCP as a whole should.

It is time for CCP to move back to more normal release schedule. Its time for everyone to recognize that fixing some UI issues needs to be given a long time on the back burner. Allow for sanity in design, coding and priorities rather than panic mode.

Developers ALWAYS hate to roll back stuff. Myself included.

You're right that it should only take 2-3 days at most to get p4 to give you back your old UI. But there's other stuff that'd have to be done as well -- maybe some database update scripts, or maybe some adjustments to code to handle any database changes that weren't reverted -- and certainly a bunch of testing.

You won't want to throw the stuff away; you'll want to preserve it in a branch, and fix it there -- maybe integrate it with the assets feature instead of the containers, and then merge it back into the main branch later.

So 2-3 days screwing around with P4 and several days doing and testing builds and running them through the old regression tests. Then maybe a week on SiSi to make sure it's not broken worse than the current one (which should be obvious quickly!).

But you know what?

Your regular release schedule should be on hold right now, to clear the decks for fixing this. The rest of the team can test new stuff on Duality in the meantime, but anyone involved should be focusing on this, and there shouldn't even BE a release schedule until it's addressed.

It's a blocking issue.

This is precisely why it's not the developer's decision. There are control mechanisms for quality developing, which obviously fail time after time.

Just to make it clear, I never brought up any ego issues, it was an unfortunate expression by the next poster. You can't seriously make statements like this, and I don't understand what's the point of answering them.
I would like to emphasize a point - The major problem IS NOT (probably ) in the development process. The main problem is with your customer awareness. Customer awareness produces User Requirements, which in turn produce System, Sub-System and other requirements. I.e. - Customer awareness drives (or should drive) the development process.
You drop a feature on TQ, and dig in for feedback, while producing workarounds and fixes.
The feedback that this is simply a bad feature - is not really accepted, is it?
In my business, dropping a new feature on my clients, without extensive research of the implications might result in a total disaster, and my competitors are to gain from this. In your business - you are still lucky, since you have no competitors up to standard, and it's a computer game after all. This will work up to a certain point, and i ask you - please don't get there, since i do like this game. And I will say again - i present these points in a rational way, not driven by emotions unlike most of the "**** this, i cancel my subscriptions" shouters on which i frown upon.

Did the ore mining barges get V3'd too? It looks a bit better today, or am I just hallucinating?

functionality is not the same with this new ui as with the old.

4 corp hangers at a pos.

old system, right clcik 4 times all 28 hangers in 4 stacked windows. change to corp division 1, click each corp hanger wondow and you can see whats in all 4 hangers corp division 1 with 4 click, rinse repeat with all 4 corp hangers, division after division

new system shift click 28 times. 28 windows, now try to search through 4 corp hanger division 1's... go on, try.
now try division 2, 3 4, 5, 6 and 7...

oh it gets better, warp away( all 28 windows become your cargo window and dont auto close), come back.... do it again and again and again... i bet you jsut give up as its a nightmare

why have you removed right click menus that actually have a function ccp?

I might be reading this wrong, but I don't see why you aren't using the tree view for this - it gives you the same functionality as before, but in one window (or 4 if you prefer one for each hangar) and you just 1 click to each division.

The default behaviour is now to use the tree view. For people that are not a fan of this, shift click is implemented to enable them to use separate windows. If you like I will ask the team if mapping these as shortcuts that individual users can customise is an option? (Note, even if this is possible, it will not change the default behaviour)

There's a reason why MANY softwares have moved the hell away from tree views and implemented tabs.

It's called basic, simple sense.

Writings are horizontal (western ones). That is, they take lots of horizontal real estate.

Tree views make already large windows unnecessarily larger by putting horizontal information to the left of the window.
Tabs make large windows functional because they take small vertical real estate and zero horizontal real estate.

The very fact you are going against all the accepted modern UI designs and find it good enough to "not going anywhere" is worrysome.

You are implementing outdated and unpractical concepts. The day the UI is bug fee, it will still be conceptually wrong.

See, many times I wanted to send CCP my curriculum but with decision makers taking this kind of directions and then sticking to them, I would feel embarassed. I would probably be bound to some "you won't publicly state your superiors borked grand time" legal agreement as well so I'd be put together the same people who can think these kinds of designs.

No way.

Except Shift-clicking on a pos array structure, either visually or from the overview does nothing. Shift-double-click causes you to approach the array only. Shift-click (and shift-dbl-click) from the tree on an array either expands or collapses the divisions.

Only way I have found to open multiple inventory windows is to shift-double-click cans I carry in my cargobay. So I get an inventory window for my ship caargo, and then one for each can. Then I have to keep the damn tree active (or expand it out each time) on each one so i can change divisions as I move minz, etc around between arrays to run jobs. I generally have a minimum of 4 windows open at one time when sitting at my tower doing work.

This UI has made working at a pos an absolute PITA.

Well, if the tree view is "not going anywhere", I can tell you that I will. One subscription cancelled.

Dear CCP,

The UI tree sucks. Change it back!

20 plus pages of it sucks and your still trying to defend it! Change it back!

This expansion was "light in the pants" and what should have been a key feature enhancement (improving the UI) has turned into CCP's 2012 Waterloo.

True up to a point. You should see the top of my browser window (Chrome), with 54 tabs, each one a favicon rather than something meaningful.

My Eclipse editors end up much the same way.

There comes a point where tabs start to fail -- you can go to multiple rows of tabs, but eventually that fails as well.

Trees have their place. When structure is important, they help. When the list is long, they help.

Where do we have the longest potential list of containers?

The Assets window.

Good point!

What happened, CCP? You had the right idea initially, how did you get side-tracked..!

That went right over my head - what?

The tree-panel is automaticly resizing when i resize the whole inventory window. This is really annoying. I'm not resizing the whole window to see more of the tree panel, I'm doing it to line up the columns of the items or to resize the tems view.

I fear this is some funky "UI Design" thing and is intentional as it proportionally resizes the whole window for me. Please keep the tree panel width static and only adjust it when I adjust that pane, not when I resize the whole window.

Before I consider taking advantage of the $10 / 30 days account re-activation offer, can somebody confirm that capital ship hangars (carrier, specifically) are:

1) easily accessed by the ship owner either sitting in the ship or when the ship is sitting in a station hangar unoccupied?
2) able to be accessed in-space by corp or fleet mates who either have the roles or are ganged up? Same for the ship hangar?
3) can be accessed via right-clicking the capacitor instead of using the left-nav index column (aka, the abomination)?
4) can be set up in a tabbed window configuration for easy flipping back and forth between corp hangars and the fuel bay?
5) that same tab-filled window be minimized and re-opened / clicked as needed whether in-station or undocked?

Thank you very much, in advance.

Down with one window. Im looking in containers, not browsing my hard drive. Theres a difference in immersion, visability and efficiency. And the new system is not an improvement to any of those.

I will only be satisfied if the game realises that;

Cargo Holds
Drone Bays
Corp Hanger Arrays
Fuel Bays
Station Containers
Cans in Space
Wrecks

...etc, are all different things (and not one unified file structure), and remembers where i set the previous contents window of any of those particular items.

For example, i buy a new ship and get into it, double click, opens cargo hold in the same location as where i set my last ships cargo hold window, as in, cargo hold window locations are persistent and stack with other cargo holds.
I open a wreck in space, it opens where i opened my last wreck, NOT OVER MY CARGO HOLD (unless the user stacks it with their cargo hold of course), then i can easy drag what i want from one to the other with the minimum number of mouse clicks possible.

The same as above applies to all other container types listed above and any others i may have left out. This way we are free to REDUCE mouse clicks and INCREASE visibility over what we are trying to accomplish with our assets.

If i want my drone windows AND cargo holds to open in the same location, then i can simple join the two stacks together.
Having EVE actually recognise where i put my last cargo hold and open a new ships cargo hold in that location would actually be an IMPROVEMENT over how it used to be.

The ONLY time i want to navigate using 1 window is when i open the navigation pane(in the ass) and manually navigate around. Though i dont see that happening alot if you can just please drop this nonsense and for once give us what we want without making thousands of players quit.

I hope this is clear. You are heading in the wrong direction with this.

In all fairness, the people that give shiny graphics and the people that mutilated the UI are two different groups. There's no reason to concentrate your efforts when you have enough people. You can only put so many people working on the same project. There comes a point where throwing more money/people at it just doesn't help. The opportunity costs aren't crystal clear (unless they had a dev blog saying "Hey, we cancelled X to do Y"). Realistically speaking, it's doubtful that upgrading the graphics came at an opportunity cost of content or functionality.

Also, you don't need cutting edge graphics, but when they get dated enough, it starts to matter. There's a reason Dwarf Fortress, in it's infinite awesomeness, isn't a major game with hundreds of thousands of players. When graphics get poor enough, people that WOULD play decide not to. Upgraded graphics won't bring back people that don't like the game, but merely help bring aboard players that would have skipped it before.

My guess was that this was probably one of the REAL goals of this downloadable FUBAR machine known as the Unified Inventory.

I missed this post earlier, and having read it, I am very disappointed. This closed-minded mentality WILL cause people to let their subscriptions lapse.

Honestly, I was planning to wait it out with my three accounts, and see if CCP pulled their heads out of their a$$es. The statement above might just change my mind.

Anyone have the skill book "Exit Strategy 101"?

Since this blog is the only AUTHORIZED place to talk about UI , let's go:

As of now this UI is still a pain to use because it lacks basic functionalities:
For example sometimes shift clicking an already open window closes it because it s a child window from the root window, and you cant guess it is a child window, or filters applied to a window somehow affect another window.

Even the best developpers team in the world can't improvise a UI out of the blue like this.
It s a long run project , not an AGILE SPRINT.
Even google failed with their new gmail, it s about DETAILS and CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP quality, and even with the so called new method you have this RELATIONSHIP IS HULL TANKING right now.

I realise i have to translate my last sentence since some people somewhere in this project DONT KNOW EVE AND DONT PLAY EVE AT ALL.
I suggest they get a free trial and try the product from the user perspective

It s not about performance but DESIGN, so stop the performance fixes already.
Please dont get offended by the rage, it s not about the code quality but the IDEA ITSELF which is questionable:
could this idea come from the same place than the MANDATORY HALF BAKED CQ?
I dont care if you buy a one million dollar RAMSAN to speed up the database queries to compute some fantasy average value of items : this feature IS NOT NEEDED in the first place.

Don't force DOWN THE THROAT of players half baked features, criticized over and over on the test server.
If you can't figure out what ' s wrong with it, HIRE good eve players, (not me) , pay them some eve stuff for 50 bucks and they ll point you in the right direction. While you are listening to paying customers to ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND what details are so annoying, make half baked features like the market value NON MANDATORY.

How much money are you loosing from ragequit over the UI CCP ?

Hint : in user interface there s the word USER.

PS I dont use bot and never will.

Dream Five... rip out your entire client and reinstall. you are getting some severe problems that I have not heard much about from other people.

Whatever makes you happy. But local clients do get messed up from time to time, and there may be no possible update in the world that will fix it...

From a purely troubleshooting standpoint, you need to reinstall your client before making one more complaint on that issue. You symptoms appear to be unique/rare, and nobody can really know for sure what is causing the problem until you take that basic step.

Or to put it another way; Prove it's not your client, so you can confidently shove it in CCP's face

Um. I'm all for irrational hate on the Unified Inventory, because frankly it's just THAT BAD that if you accuse it of anything less than genocide, I'm inclined to believe you. But that really does sound like a "you" problem, not a UI problem. Reinstall will probably fix it.

Whatever makes you happy. But local clients do get messed up from time to time, and there may be no possible update in the world that will fix it...

From a purely troubleshooting standpoint, you need to reinstall your client before making one more complaint on that issue. You symptoms appear to be unique/rare, and nobody can really know for sure what is causing the problem until you take that basic step.

Or to put it another way; Prove it's not your client, so you can confidently shove it in CCP's face

First, the restaurant analogy. The actual analogy is GÇ£A happy customer tells one friend, and an unhappy customer tells everybody.GÇ¥ This is why you rarely get vocal minorities shouting about how something is good. The first devblog on the Unified Inventory had 25 pages of happy feedback, then 25 pages of unhappy feedback. Almost all of the happy people were unique posters and did not repost later.

I don't deny your first point but would amend it to "in some cases" as it is not the case for all, or even most use cases.

I don't deny that you need to shift-click, but would say that firstly, sometimes things change, and secondly, I have been pretty clear that I have talked with the team about making this switchable with old functionality via a shortcut if possible and they are looking into that.

I don't understand "You can not deny that ship cargo does not open on login as it did before." - do you mean login to the client if you previously had it open?

We have acknowledged that there is some lag in cases of large inventories generally featuring containers. This is being worked on as we have stated.

As for the design direction and the Sisi feedback - that is not my place to comment on.

Off topic, but deemed - by me - to be neccesary:

I wish to express my gratitude to Goliath for listening in and replying to all the complaints even though he is not responsible for the problems and subject to some abuse he does not deserve.

I might explain some of the abuse by the sheer lack of respone we have received so far concerning our complaints. But lets not forget we are talking with a real person with real feelings, who is in defense of a problem he did not create.

So please everybody, try to stay fair. You, as I, may not be satisfied with all of the replies - but we should honor the fact that there is someone to at least listen to us. That is much better than in a lot of other threads where there is no reply at all.

So please give Goliath a break and try to reason without abuse. As for me: mea culpa, do as I say, not as I do

OK, I voted, but I don't think it's a good idea, albeit well-motivated.

Mostly, it's a bad idea because of selection bias.

Spreading the word may help alleviate the bias, if the spreading is relatively unbiased. Since you've gone and done it, I may try to spread it within our alliance. There's a bias there, but less than "people who come to this thread to complain".

So far, the results are more positive than I would have expected; if the poll were based on a good sample, that would be even more interesting.

My other problem with the poll is that it is too narrow.

I voted "It's terrible", but if it were integrated with assets instead, I'd have voted positive, myself. And I'd really like to understand what people like (I might learn something I can integrate into my workflow). And it would be helpful to know which aspects people don't like.

I'm going to hold off on broadcasting this, in hopes that CCP Goliath (or someone) would seek out the data in a more careful way, perhaps with more detailed questions and a random sample. I was actually contemplating suggesting it in response to his 'Metrics > Hyperbole' comment.

That is not a good poll at all. You don't even give the feature its real name, and like ZaBob has said your polling base selection leaves pretty much everything to be desired. I can say categorically right now that that poll will not feature in the slightest in any of our decision making, nor will it change my opinion about the spread of dislike for the Unified Inventory.

It's not that I have reason to think that they're biased.

The fact that they've come here is a selection process. I don't have any reason to think it's NOT biased.

Spamming it in Jita's better than here; that reduces my concern quite a bit.. It also makes those positives less of a puzzle, but more interesting.

I'd like to see it in new player systems -- and god knows, I try not to pay attention to what goes on in Jita local! :)

I also wish it had some indication of player experience level. And type of activity.

Doing a good poll is harder than people think. But even a bad poll is usually better than armchair theorizing or counting posts on a forum thread, and I'm certainly not going to dump on you for wanting to take positive action! :)

I think I just read that you didn't give a **** about what woe said on Audi unless it was a bug.

Ccp I defend your new item UI, but it is not popular. The majority of players don't like it, that's just a fact. The vocal mintority would be those players acting anrgy and calling for a 100% roll back.

But the majority of us still don't like the new item UI. We wondered why you didn't keep it on sisi untill it was ready, looks like your answer is " oh no, we listened to player feed back, but only bugs, we don't waste our time when every single post on a 4 page thread is negitive on the overall direction of the new UI.those are feature request and we don't listen to those"

So... That means you didn't think the rageless feedback that was contrutive on the test forums warning you that this would happen......

Do a real poll , man up. You might fund while the intention was noble, you failed tertibly when it came to how you put it in the game. Windows 7 wouldn't have icons on the desktop over write your windows, it'd just stupid. And has nothing to do with the tree view, the behavior if the new UI is poorly designed. Face the facts, its important in finding what must be done to fix the UI

I don't debate that there is a number of people who are disaffected at the moment, but your estimation of their percentage of the player base is grandly overstated.

That's why they cosmetics this topics. They deleted so much post (+baned players) which told many players dont like this UI.
This is why they separated the UI topics and this is why they want to cheat with vote system.
But everyone know this UI the worst development parts in the Eve history. Just CCP dont want to acknowledge this mistake.

You're a double-voting minority :)

Small sidenote for you on this. I just voted 5 separate times on your 2nd poll. I simply closed my browser after voting (which clears all caches), opened it back up, rinse and repeat. So anyone could skew the poll in a matter of minutes...

FYI - I voted 5 times for 'Terrible'. Still have yet to understand why taking 2-3 times longer to do the same tasks is considered 'new and improved'...