Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 18:10:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Gnulpie Awesome job!
Great to see that you, again, listened to the player feedback and changed the design accordingly.
I don't know many game companies who are doing the same! Well done.
This. I am very, very pleased to see the devs be very active in this thread, answering lots of questions and providing more information. This is one of the big reasons why I play Eve.
Also, I love CCP Shadow.
|
kano donn
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 18:35:00 -
[32]
Thank you CCP
|
Sasha Whiteeyes
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 18:47:00 -
[33]
Very minor issue, but can we change the orange to yellow for a little bit more visual differentiation? The light blue to dark blue is easily discernable, but the orange to red can be a bit hard to see.
|
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 19:51:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 22/03/2010 14:32:40 While we're at it, I'd like to mention that this post was emailed around prior to the meetings where we decided on these changes, and acted as a touchstone for a lot of the discussion. It's an excellent example of the kind of feedback that can have an immediate and direct effect on our decision-making processes.
I think these changes are a happy medium between the current system (people never like change) and improved/new functionality. Thanks for listening CCP :) Director of Education :: EVE University
CSM1 delegate and CSM3 chairman
|
Baneken
Gallente Aseveljet Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 20:00:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Baneken on 22/03/2010 20:00:39 What about the current limit of standings set for corporations and alliances or we still have to dance around the limit by forming alliances when our corporation red list gets full ?
|
Axemaster
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 20:32:00 -
[36]
I'd just like to say that since you're revamping the standings system, now would be a really good time to simplify the roles mechanic for corporations. As it is, it's very complicated and difficult to understand. It would really make a huge difference if you could at the very least add tooltips or something to say what the different roles do. Container(headquarters), Container(other) etc.... what?
Please please make fixing this a priority... Everyone will thank you. 1000 times.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 20:39:00 -
[37]
Good job CCP.
Also, in before the "Fix lag first emo rage tears."
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 21:04:00 -
[38]
I think I sort of preferred the alliance > corp > individual mechanic, but I don't really have enough standings conflicts to have a strong opinion on the matter. Other than that though, I fully endorse this decision. Advanced mode is A Good Thing(tm).
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 03:12:00 -
[39]
Sooo... Did I read it right and we will still be unable to have the very basic controls over CORP channel, that any random guy have obver player-created channels? -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Carina Riders
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 05:16:00 -
[40]
God bless CCP! I want increase my personal standing to CCP corporation by 3.5 units for response. Oops. No slider anymore?
Originally by: CCP Prism X
Q: Why not have an optional advanced mode for characters? A: Because it is just complicating things for no reason. If you have an optional "Advanced Mode" you're in your rights to expect using it to have an effect and when it doesn't we might have confused you for no good reason.
Who I need to blame about lack of "effect"? I suppose you just don't want to make this effect no matter what community say. It is easier to sacrifice some functionality with hope "next generation will clear all mess we do, we lack of resources to think ahead for them".
Originally by: CCP Prism X
Rather than keep your hopes up I'll just come out and say that all of this is outside the scope of the current release plan due to resource constraints. However, the team does agree with your assertion and given more time and man power this would rank quite highly on the list of should-do's we'd pull in. But alas.
I am only saying this in the spirit of transparency. I am not promising any work being done on behalf of my co-workers because that would be rude and I cannot promise you that we'll fit iterations of this into any specific date as it is not my decision. I can however tell you that we're not ignoring you, we simply yet sadly must pick and choose our battles.
As to the comments, you have the character notes. Having 'specialized' character notes all over the place sounds horrendously confusing compared to having them accessible at a single location. In my opinion at least.
Ok. Notes are great. They didn't disappear as standing change transactions do. They provide better sandbox effect (every player might develop their only system of records, you ever can write a number from -10.00 to 10.00 to emulate slider). They already exists (no need to plan folders or tags stuff). But again question about UI and usability. If I will be able to see first line from notes when I position mouse pointer over record in contact list ... Or maybe you can show all characters with notes in one big list?
In other word I ask you to provide some in exchange for functionality and complexity you plan to take away. You say: "slider is bad, granularity means nothing". I hear: "we don't want to improve UI to allow input numbers by hand to set standing, we don't want to make granularity meaningful for players (by assign tag to certain values or whatever)" You say: "use character notes". I hear: "we don't take out all bad implemented stuff, so you are welcome to try use it more intensive and start whining about, so we can take it away also in next step"
I agree I don't use all range of granularity current personal standing system provide. I believe someone ever don't care or don't know about it, and store all relations in their head. I agree to use notes as a compromise between "what I want to use" and "what you want to provide", but make it useful (popup on mouse hover character, comprehensive list of characters with notes, or even both of it).
Anyway CCP do what they promise, they listen community. Keep going.
|
|
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 05:45:00 -
[41]
In all honesty, I don't really use the standings features all that often. That said, I don't see the point in removing granularity on char-char standings. If you want to make the interface less confusing, fine.. below the slider have the 5 color coded buttons that would move the slider to the predefined -10, -5, 0, 5, 10 positions.
Personally, I had hoped fo an increase in standings usefullness, in such that the market could start to use it. I'd love for a change that would allow standings to go into market orders... (set a min standing, with a min standing price, and a max standing, with a max standing price). This would allow you to give discounts to friends, and charge a premium for those you don't necessarily like... removing granularity from the standings now would basically mean that feature would be that much harder to implement...
Also... it's not like retreiving a number from the database is going to be any harder than retreiving a state... Intel/Nomad |
Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 13:15:00 -
[42]
And what about the megablobnapfest, which ruin the game ? Why enable 30000 members in one block ?
|
L'Petit Object
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 20:35:00 -
[43]
Bravo guys. Having read a lot of that thread and seeing what you implemented, I think you did a great job compromising between top heavy nearly point-less granularity and over-simplified red v. blue.
Best!
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 21:25:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit And what about the megablobnapfest, which ruin the game ? Why enable 30000 members in one block ?
why not such an entity would probably quickly fall apart like xetic did years ago at 20000 members Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Mehang Zheng
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 05:09:00 -
[45]
Dear GM Grayscale.
I hope you do not take this personally, but from reading your comments on previous thread, I got one really bad hunch. Do you understand what roleplaying means? I just spend 20 minutes telling one player of my alliance what it means in order him to understand why I do it and what it matters. I am long time roleplayer - and I sincerely hope gamemasters aren't making RP any harder it is now.
First and most fundamental principle of roleplaying: Character is not the player. Or vice versa. Player may have friends with whom the character would never ingame do any co-ooperation. That is why RP alliances define convention how to express in-character and out-of-character expressions. Game mechanics is always out of character. Character knowing game mechanics would be equivalent to preson in real world who would understand quantum mechanics totally. There isn't many in the real world.
Another suggestion not fitting this thread - but it is suitable to say here. Please code system suggesting player names similar to NPC names in character creation - letting players to change it is fine, but that would start building better roleplaying environment, and more importantly, tells that CCP is supporting roleplaying not opposing it.
Thus I have to ask you - is the idea of the system you are creating for in-character social network or in-player social network? That is very important question to make, and which I hope you answer.
You said standing has no meaning at all. That means you do not understand that it is fundamental for roleplayers. Removing standing towards NPC corps would remove one of the few gamemechanics which helps and supports roleplaying. The standing towards other player corporations have not much meaning to most players game mechanically anyway - thus your case of no-use applies to it also.
And then comments in-topic more: Please create system of publicity of your corp and alliance membership on social contacts. And please, expand it to the showing certificates. As a programmer, creating module doing this thing UI and implementation in database should be used with minor details (like title and box text parameter change) for certificate view too.
The granuality is simple: public for alliance, public for corp, public for all, public for nobody. There might be check boxex private for stading class or public for standing class which would override default setting. The implemetnation of this kind of code isn't complex. And that should start important thing - modular implemetnation of the game IMPROVING maintainability on expense of slight loss of efficiency. Yes, I am programmer but not coder. Without movement towards such modularity you will lose all maintainablity of the system one piece at a time, like all spaghetti coders do. I have done that mistake several times.
Yours player of Mehang Zheng
|
Carina Riders
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 07:34:00 -
[46]
I just have seen EVE Gate. Contact edit window looks the same as on singularity. Five colored buttons and no slider. If main reason to cut granularity is to make web UI same as in game, and slider is hard to implement in EVE Gate, I beg you to add edit box. It is okay to input number by hands. It is not require so much scripting as slider do. It will allow to use same granularity and functionality as before and no one will be hurt.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 15:40:00 -
[47]
Very nice blog, made me all warm and fuzzy inside.
I apprecieate the problems and also at the same time the issues your trying to address.
As it stands you have a very granular albeit easy to manage scale of (-10)-(+10) and that has been used by the player base for a long long time and intertwined to the effect that any changes have an impact. So any changes would be very impacting.
To address this impact how about any proposed changes applied are done in parralel to what we already hae in place, maybe compliment them.
Basicly whatever the new system is - do it as a alternative to the existing system and allow the players/corps/alliances to have a choice. Slowly migrate at there own pace, and then review how its going and move on from there.
Now for corps the whole roles aspects and for effect template cookie cutter roles was a good thing and perhaps something along those lines could be implemented. You could have limits on the number of templates but a dozen or so if that could be managable with regards to standings - a look at what corps/alliances use standings for would need to be carefully looked at for an idea of this.
But from a ease of use this approach would afford and indeed offer us to define our own scale based around these templates, even add some fun to the whole aspect.
Its clear that the whole industry, running and PVP aspects of standings whilst intertwined are also very seperate and this approach would offer a easier way to define and as such manage in the form of complimenting what we have currently.
Bottom line, you listerned and we just love you for that.
I look forward to what you have in mind and others and hope my thoughts are of use.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:24:00 -
[48]
Originally by: CCP Prism X There is no implicit resolution FROM your corporation TO your alliance resulting in an implied standing. However, just like FROM your corporation TO your corporation resolves into the implied standing of 10, the FROM your alliance TO your alliance resolves in a standing of 10. This makes perfect sense as you're asking about how much you like yourself.
Is this something new that is being added?
I don't know about POS standings checks, but with fleet advertisement standings checks there does not appear to be an implicit standing "FROM your corporation TO your corporation" that "resolves into the implied standing of 10". When I create a fleet advertisement based on standings, if the character has not set an explicit personal standing to his own corp, characters from his corp will not be able to see the fleet in the fleet finder.
|
Odhinn Vinlandii
Minmatar Deuses Wild
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:26:00 -
[49]
Remove standings period.
It is a lame cope-out for good wargaming.
Instead,
Treaties for travel through sov space, trade, and resource use, should be added.
Add a free form text box to POS and OUTPOST that allows you to enter, a Character's name, a corp or an alliance with a simple 'allow or disallow'
and
a market version that allows you to set a percent above/below base price per character, corp, alliance.
Simple.
---
Also, fix the POS UI, make it like a ship fitting window, allow scripts and rigs on towers and pos mods.
..and make the UI in general less blocky, eye-sore and clumsy window oriented. Allow us to place stats/info/readouts in the HUD instead of full on windows.
I recently found out that I am not the only one that has eye damage from playing EVE.
|
Mehang Zheng
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 09:31:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: CCP Prism X There is no implicit resolution FROM your corporation TO your alliance resulting in an implied standing. However, just like FROM your corporation TO your corporation resolves into the implied standing of 10, the FROM your alliance TO your alliance resolves in a standing of 10. This makes perfect sense as you're asking about how much you like yourself.
Is this something new that is being added?
I don't know about POS standings checks, but with fleet advertisement standings checks there does not appear to be an implicit standing "FROM your corporation TO your corporation" that "resolves into the implied standing of 10". When I create a fleet advertisement based on standings, if the character has not set an explicit personal standing to his own corp, characters from his corp will not be able to see the fleet in the fleet finder.
The ability to set standing towards members of your corp or alliance as whole is very important and useful. Not all corps trust all members - thus ability to set the standing to lower woudl allow for example limiting access to POS labs. Unfortunately the notorious POS and Alliance/COrp management code seems to be something CCP would never want to touch. If taht is the case, you shoudl start rewriting that part at once - it is apparently beyond any kind of maintainablity, there is no other eason for such thing.
The reducion of granuallity of the standings is fine. I honestly think around 9 levels is enough, levels which are equal to -10, -7,5, -5, -2,5, 0, 2,5, 5, 7,5, and 10. When you revise the standing system PLEASE fix the bloody code calculating corp standing ignoreing non-existing entries. Why isn't the corp standing calcualtion "SELECT CorporationStandings.toCorporation AS corporationName, CorporationStadings.Standing/MAX(0,Corporation.memberCount) AS standing FROM CorporationStandings, Corporations where Standings.fromCorporation == Corporations.id GROUPED BY Corporation.toCorporation ORDER BY corporationName", where view CorporationStandindgs is assumed to have sum of standings of each pilot in the corporation with fields Standing for standing and toCorporation as corporation whose standing the row has. I need to think for a while to create such query. Using SQL AVERAGE function is flawed because it is average of tuples in the relation, not average of the members of the corproation because no standing is not present on the current standing relations. If your devs cannto understand that SQL and alter it, you need to get same Database desing courses at once. I suggest book Fundamentals of Databases. The MAX is function which may have different name on different database engines, and I am not familiar with MicroSoft SQL server functions. It calculates maximum and is out there to ensure that there is no divison by zero. It could be replaced by WHERE clause removing corps with no members.
Like I said earlier, CCP has to start making modular code to keep the system maintainable. Same code handles all towers with only the modifers to tower bonuses and fuel requirements varying. Simialr modular desing should be started to implement in all new features and moving to older features as they are altered - otherwise you cannot maintain the system at all.
|
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 11:29:00 -
[51]
go modular programming and supprot role paleyrs is a side suggestion Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 20:24:00 -
[52]
Well done for listening to your players who often know more about your game mechanics and what they are used for than you do.
It would be nice if your forum had some voting system (no not just thumbs up) to aid your developers finding the decent feedback from the drivel.
You, CCP Greyscale might also find the feedback on your dev posts/blogs interesting if it were upto the players to vote on it, out of 5 stars for example.
|
S810 Jr
Gallente Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 18:46:00 -
[53]
Will allied militia finally show up as allies in local and overview, or remain neutral like the current setup has it unless you personally set EVERY corp in the allied militia to blue?
|
Naomi Wildfire
Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 18:03:00 -
[54]
There is a problem i have since aeons, once i uncheck the "neutrals" for the overview, none or just the negative standings will be shown. Afaik there is no known option to show just war targets, will it be fixed too?
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 10:01:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Naomi Wildfire There is a problem i have since aeons, once i uncheck the "neutrals" for the overview, none or just the negative standings will be shown. Afaik there is no known option to show just war targets, will it be fixed too?
this is another option that screams fix me Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Kel'dar Drax
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 11:24:00 -
[56]
Originally by: HeliosGal
Originally by: Naomi Wildfire There is a problem i have since aeons, once i uncheck the "neutrals" for the overview, none or just the negative standings will be shown. Afaik there is no known option to show just war targets, will it be fixed too?
this is another option that screams fix me
Agree with the above...can someone also please tell me how to set a pilot or corp back to 'neutral' standings? the slider does not seem to have a 0.0 or 'neutral' setting..
|
Leocadminone
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 15:12:00 -
[57]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
As to the comments, you have the character notes. Having 'specialized' character notes all over the place sounds horrendously confusing compared to having them accessible at a single location. In my opinion at least.
Character notes DO NOT WORK. They can only be seen on ONE CHARACTER.
They give NO HELP WHATSOEVER on seeing why someone with a negative CORPORATE STANDING got that way.
The standings note should be visible to your entire corp/alliance, otherwise it is USELESS.
|
Leocadminone
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 15:28:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Sasha Whiteeyes Very minor issue, but can we change the orange to yellow for a little bit more visual differentiation? The light blue to dark blue is easily discernable, but the orange to red can be a bit hard to see.
YES! VERY LONG OVERDUE!
The current "orange" is SO close to the current "red" it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell them apart at a glance, and often impossible to tell them apart even when you're staring at them.
The "light blue" to "blue" are also hard to tell apart at a glance, but degree of friend is generally not something you need to differentiate rapidly, AND they're not quite AS hard to tell apart.
|
Gavjack Bunk
|
Posted - 2010.05.05 14:32:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Gavjack Bunk on 05/05/2010 14:33:21
Originally by: CCP Prism X Edited by: CCP Prism X on 22/03/2010 15:37:30
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
+Folders storaged on the server (the current folders are useless because they reset from time to time and all your work is gone, making impossible to reclasify old people that you don't remember). +Tags applied to characters. +Coments on why you put the standing that you can view quickly from the standings window.
Rather than keep your hopes up I'll just come out and say that all of this is outside the scope of the current release plan due to resource constraints. However, the team does agree with your assertion and given more time and man power this would rank quite highly on the list of should-do's we'd pull in. But alas.
I am only saying this in the spirit of transparency. I am not promising any work being done on behalf of my co-workers because that would be rude and I cannot promise you that we'll fit iterations of this into any specific date as it is not my decision. I can however tell you that we're not ignoring you, we simply yet sadly must pick and choose our battles.
As to the comments, you have the character notes. Having 'specialized' character notes all over the place sounds horrendously confusing compared to having them accessible at a single location. In my opinion at least.
To be clear, we're getting shafted on functionality for some pretty lights that the kiddies and bull**** mongers on review / advertising sites will like to see.
Don't try and sugar coat it seriously. My addressbook becomes basically useless if I don't know why somebody is in it. Even 1980's Filofaxs allowed you to record why you were keeping some contact details at all.
Get it sorted out, this is just weak. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |