Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Ehrine Ashbark
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 01:26:00 -
[1]
Seems that the latest patch-notes for SiSi have snuck in the line "The Alliance Contacts list is limited to 300 entries."
Now, we're a NRDS entity so have a very healthy red list (in the region of 900 entries). Now, a quick bit of testing on SiSi shows the list was copied over just fine, but now we cannot create any new contacts. This is going to be a major issue for anyone that doesn't just run as NBSI and is going to make being NRDS a major headache for pretty much anyone, if not making it effectively non-viable. I'm guessing those responsible for this change/oversight in CCP don't follow NRDS themselves
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 01:42:00 -
[2]
Pretty much the kiss for death for NRDS entities in 0.0 if this goes ahead in its current form. We could really do with that limit removed or increased to somewhere around the 1500 mark as a sensible minimum for combined standings.
Can we have some feedback from CCP on this please? Are we really going to need to lose our red settings in the new standings system?
True Knowledge |
claire xxx
Caldari Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 02:10:00 -
[3]
I doubt it was done with malicious intent and was probably just an arbitrary number put in by someone writing the code. However, with that said, CCP needs to seriously take a look at this issue. A lot of the longer standing and/or bigger alliances such as The Star Fraction, CVA, IT, etc, etc. will have more than 300 reds and blues combined.
So, how about it CCP? Answers?
Claire XXX
|
Aphoxema G
DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 02:14:00 -
[4]
This is a significant issue and were it to occur there would be no way to work around it (other than turning NBSI).
I'm sure keeping these values for every alliance is a significant use of disk space but I believe I can speak for many alliances when I say it is important information to keep available. ------------------------------- The fox chases for her meal, but the rabbit runs for her life. |
Skin Miner
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 02:15:00 -
[5]
Even considering the amount of space the current system is taking up; a limit of 300 contacts is quite small. Especially considering how many corps and alliances there are in Eve... So many alliances it seems that I can't load the rankings page to take a rough guess >.<;
|
Ehrine Ashbark
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 02:23:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Skin Miner Even considering the amount of space the current system is taking up; a limit of 300 contacts is quite small. Especially considering how many corps and alliances there are in Eve... So many alliances it seems that I can't load the rankings page to take a rough guess >.<;
Well, given that the system happily ported over our existing 900 or so negative standings, there's not a code limitation to it. It appears to be an arbitrary restriction that CCP have set.
|
Heartblood
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 08:26:00 -
[7]
This cannot be! Fix it! Limiting contact lists is a pretty stupid idea in general if you want to expand the game's social networking features!
|
Kedisa
Jericho Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 09:47:00 -
[8]
That's a stupid idea if ever I saw one...
|
Victor Valka
Caldari Endoxa Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 12:03:00 -
[9]
CCP's UI code doesn't scale well! News at 11.
This is in-game interface, I understand. What about the EVE Gate interface? Is it not possible to manage contacts, including setting standings, through there? (Just wondering, haven't tested it much myself.)
Originally by: Spaztick You are not outnumbered, you are in a target-rich environment.
|
General klinkerhoffen
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 12:23:00 -
[10]
It might be that they just want to limit it to begin with so that EVEgate isnt stressed too much, they'll be limiting how many people can log on at one with release but they might release these restrictions.
|
|
Ehrine Ashbark
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 12:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Victor Valka CCP's UI code doesn't scale well! News at 11.
This is in-game interface, I understand. What about the EVE Gate interface? Is it not possible to manage contacts, including setting standings, through there? (Just wondering, haven't tested it much myself.)
Oh, the UI handles showing them just fine. Just won't let you add news ones as you've reached this apparently arbitrary limit.
As for limiting it to protect eve-gate? Not being funny, but having important (from our point of view) in-game functionality being crippled in return for snazzy portal is not something I want to see.
|
Victor Valka
Caldari Endoxa Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 12:30:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ehrine Ashbark Oh, the UI handles showing them just fine. Just won't let you add news ones as you've reached this apparently arbitrary limit.
As for limiting it to protect eve-gate? Not being funny, but having important (from our point of view) in-game functionality being crippled in return for snazzy portal is not something I want to see.
I understand your concern completely. Arbitrary limits, fun are not.
Originally by: Spaztick You are not outnumbered, you are in a target-rich environment.
|
Darveses
DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 13:42:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Darveses on 13/05/2010 13:42:39 Seconded.
NRDS is also part of the sandbox, please think of that before before implementing such limitations.
--- The Providence Gazetteer Star Fraction YouTube Channel |
Forlorn Wongraven
Universal Army Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 13:45:00 -
[14]
This is bad. Limiting corps and alliance to 300 is not enough. Personal contacts can be limited though. ____________________
Lord Makk > I swear to god if there is a saviour, his name is Forlorn.
|
Captain Mastiff
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 14:15:00 -
[15]
The boundries of the sandbox that ISN'T Eve is crashing down on us.
|
Icarus3
Gallente DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 15:30:00 -
[16]
Horrible news indeed.
I thought CCP were on a mission to make the game friendlier for new players to adapt to? It seems as though people are going to be forced to operate under NBSI.
Completely ridiculous!
|
Amymuffmuff
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 15:38:00 -
[17]
This is not good news at all. With the amount of Alliances and Corperations there is how is this going to work?
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 15:54:00 -
[18]
Can we get some developer feedback on this please? Are you guys at least aware of the issue?
True Knowledge |
ChipMo
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 16:25:00 -
[19]
Please don't kill my standings list =/
Whats the point of warfare if you can't keep track of your enemies?
Got a dispute? Take it to court with the CCCNP! |
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 17:42:00 -
[20]
this SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO needs to get bumped to a priority for NRDS alliances, NRDS is a valid play style that this change is gonna majorly impact.
|
|
Chunky Milk
Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 18:36:00 -
[21]
signed. seems like a horrible idea.
|
Aphoxema G
DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 19:15:00 -
[22]
This is a serious issue and with Tyrannis so close it needs immediate attention. We're fortunate that someone noticed it before it hit us blind. ------------------------------- The fox chases for her meal, but the rabbit runs for her life. |
Tomahawk Bliss
Minmatar DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 19:17:00 -
[23]
300?
that wouldn't even cover the standings for more than 5 regions, let alone the mobile groups, the newly formed, the group the split, sub corps and corps that make faction warfare divisions
this game pushes large vast blobby groups with thousands of pilots in corps, alliance and coalitions. there has to be a way to detail who to shoot, who not to shoot and who it doesn't matter one way or the other.
find a different solution to your problem, what ever the problem is now? server lag? how about less states? don't have degrees of standings, just neutral, blue or red. There is no point in having flexability in a sliding scale of standing if its going to be nuked into a rediculous minor use.
********************************
www.eve-chatsubo.com
A long term Role-Play, Fiction and EVE storyline community. |
Skogen Gump
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 19:33:00 -
[24]
Just adding my voice to the throng, 300 is low for an alliance half our age, and extremely low to an alliance of our age.
Some response on this would be welcome CCP, it's going to hurt the NRDS community a lot :(
|
Clipso Majesto
Caldari Dead Cow Cult
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 20:23:00 -
[25]
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 22:38:00 -
[26]
Would really like an answer here, if its a mistake please let us know so we can stop worrying about our 900 negative standings being lost please!
True Knowledge |
Wrongsides
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 22:42:00 -
[27]
I don't really see how I can keep playing the way I do if we're restricted to 300 standings. I have played the pirate, the NBSI, the militia man, none have held my interest like my time in The Star Fraction. Please, do not cripple us like this.
|
Karn Mithralia
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 23:33:00 -
[28]
300 total .. we need blues too, that limits reds to even fewer.
Reconsider CCP, this will kill NRDS.
|
Punx Loki
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 23:36:00 -
[29]
Surely this is an error. 300? That's simply not going to work for the older NRDS alliances.
-Punx
|
claire xxx
Caldari Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 23:41:00 -
[30]
Still waiting for some sign that CCP isn't asleep at the helm.
|
|
Eno Lacigol
Amarr DAEDALUS X
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 00:20:00 -
[31]
Originally by: claire xxx Still waiting for some sign that CCP isn't asleep at the helm.
It may not even be the case. Could this be signs CCP has a vendetta against NRDS? *puts on my tinfoil hat*
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 07:50:00 -
[32]
Take off the tinfoil hats. It seems pretty blatantly obvious what this is about. It's lag. Every person appearing on your overview has to be checked against the standings list of you, your corp, and your alliance. When there's 800 guys on grid fighting, that's a lot of checks, and they cap the list sizes to minimize how much the server craps itself.
It's a dumb decision, and it'll kill NRDS. I don't like it. But this really doesn't sound like it was a vendetta. It's just CCP being CCP, fixing the problem that's obvious to them and that we ***** about incessantly, while not really noticing the equally real, but less obvious, problems it'd create. It's not like we haven't seen this before.
|
Azure Skyclad
Amarr Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 09:04:00 -
[33]
signed.
I would love to get an insight on your rationale for thise decisions CCP.
Ta,
;) http://ultravixen.co.uk/ |
Alison McCarty
Gallente Ancient Spirits The Exodus Project
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 09:09:00 -
[34]
I seriously doub that 300 are enough for a single person but for alliances this is just a horrible idea.
CCP fix this please
|
Tareen Kashaar
Gyoza Society The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 11:25:00 -
[35]
Come on, devs - this is a stupid and arbitrary limitation that will kill the NRDS lifestyle. Our blues and reds are based on a long history of interaction, are we supposed to just throw that out? You can do better than that! ____________
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 12:23:00 -
[36]
This decision destroys a major aspect of the sandbox and social play that you say you support, CCP.
Reverse it.
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 13:30:00 -
[37]
Postscript:
If the following from the RC patch notes is accurate:
Quote:
oEntities labeled "non-agression pact" are moved to Excellent (+10) standing. oEntities labeled "friend" are moved to Good (+5) standing. oEntities labeled "competator are moved to Bad (-5) standing. oEntities labeled "enemy" are moved to Terrible (-10) standing.
Then there's a mistake here because at present 'friend' setting in game = +10 and 'non-aggression pact' setting in game = +5.
I hope this is corrected if the notes reflect what is actually going to happen in the patch or a lot of people's standings are going to be messed up.
I'm inclined to think this is another piece of evidence that some more thought and feedback is required before this change takes place.
If it is locked in for release could we at least have some acknowledgement that it would be considered an issue for a post-release patch?
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Tyrael Primus
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 14:12:00 -
[38]
Increasing the number of alliance levels contacts would help the social networking of Eve a great deal. With alliance level standings becoming the primary standing mode if corps opt in, this number needs to go up.
|
Evanda Char
Minmatar Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 15:29:00 -
[39]
This little time of not being capped at 300 standings has been heaven for us - we've finally been able to keep a decent picture of hostile/friendly in local and we no longer have to say to people "You're too small to have a standing with us."
Please, please raise or remove the cap.
NRDS is a valid and fun way to play the game. The low number of available standings makes it nearly impossible. -Eva-
Electus Matari - taking it one bad guy at a time |
Eno Lacigol
Amarr DAEDALUS X
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 16:12:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Take off the tinfoil hats. It seems pretty blatantly obvious what this is about. It's lag. Every person appearing on your overview has to be checked against the standings list of you, your corp, and your alliance. When there's 800 guys on grid fighting, that's a lot of checks, and they cap the list sizes to minimize how much the server craps itself.
It's a dumb decision, and it'll kill NRDS. I don't like it. But this really doesn't sound like it was a vendetta. It's just CCP being CCP, fixing the problem that's obvious to them and that we ***** about incessantly, while not really noticing the equally real, but less obvious, problems it'd create. It's not like we haven't seen this before.
Perhaps my post didn't come across as intended. I was not seriously thinking CCP has it out for NRDS,not atm anyway, but I was making a silly joke. Often times when your part of multiple committees, you take for granted others in community A don't have the same thought process as community B. As a Team Fortress 2 fan and an EVE fan, I forget sometimes that just because I think like a TF2 player, and also play eve, not every eve player does.
|
|
FlopSter
Caldari Imperium Technologies Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 16:22:00 -
[41]
Signed.
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 16:46:00 -
[42]
Hi all. Yes, this has been brought up and dealt with now. Alliances can have other alliances as contacts/standings. You can have up to 2600 of them. Should be more than enough.
|
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 17:40:00 -
[43]
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Hi all. Yes, this has been brought up and dealt with now. Alliances can have other alliances as contacts/standings. You can have up to 2600 of them. Should be more than enough.
Thank you very much CCP Sisyphus, and respect to the dev team for making this a priority.
All the best.
True Knowledge |
Melissa Lyrus
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 17:42:00 -
[44]
Just like to echo Jade's comments here. Thanks for resolving this as quickly as you did (less than 24 hours from post to resolution!).
As an alliance we're not exactly shy about setting negative standings to people and in the 5 years or so the alliance has existed we're reached about 1000. I'm sure 2600 will last for a while yet
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 17:44:00 -
[45]
An optimal response.
Much appreciated.
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Icarus3
Gallente DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 17:47:00 -
[46]
Awesome news :-)
|
Victor Valka
Caldari Endoxa Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 18:40:00 -
[47]
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Hi all. Yes, this has been brought up and dealt with now. Alliances can have other alliances as contacts/standings. You can have up to 2600 of them. Should be more than enough.
Much appreciated.
Originally by: Spaztick You are not outnumbered, you are in a target-rich environment.
|
Randall Alba
Gallente Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 18:43:00 -
[48]
Much appreciated.
|
Saul Dhampir
Caldari Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 18:54:00 -
[49]
Sense prevails
|
Forlorn Wongraven
Universal Army Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 20:46:00 -
[50]
Thank you very much!
(already was thinking how to put that into roleplay) ____________________
Lord Makk > I swear to god if there is a saviour, his name is Forlorn.
|
|
Skogen Gump
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 21:59:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Skogen Gump on 14/05/2010 21:59:59
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Hi all. Yes, this has been brought up and dealt with now. Alliances can have other alliances as contacts/standings. You can have up to 2600 of them. Should be more than enough.
Phew! Thank you so much Sisyphus!
Edit: 2600; is that a Captain Crunch easter egg ? ;)
|
Darveses
DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 23:48:00 -
[52]
Thanks very much :) --- The Providence Gazetteer Star Fraction YouTube Channel |
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 11:27:00 -
[53]
You should see the full list of contacts for your alliances on sisi now. Recent patch now includes the corrected alliance contact limit (and the mirrored standings from TQ)
|
|
Alveolus
Core Synthesis Unlimited
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 21:05:00 -
[54]
Agreed with others, a good response on a potentially important issue.
Out of curiosity (and call it the sceptic in me...) is there scope for this number to be raised with minimal fuss / effort in the future should the need ever arise? |
Tatiana Lapin
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 03:12:00 -
[55]
So is the 2600 just for alliance contacts or does each person get 2600 contacts or are we still stuck at 300? Which between blocked people from jita and my regular people just doesnt seem like enough slots.
|
Cadde
Gallente 221st Century Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 03:29:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Tatiana Lapin So is the 2600 just for alliance contacts or does each person get 2600 contacts or are we still stuck at 300? Which between blocked people from jita and my regular people just doesnt seem like enough slots.
You might wanna unblock all older entries and start the blocking process again... I don't know how old your blocklist is but if you have isk spammers from the past year in there you are probably way over the limit and those isk spammers are long gone anyways.
My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 14:01:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Tatiana Lapin So is the 2600 just for alliance contacts or does each person get 2600 contacts or are we still stuck at 300? Which between blocked people from jita and my regular people just doesnt seem like enough slots.
300 is the limit. Blocked contacts does not count towards that limit.
EVEwatch Sidebar soon "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. " |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 14:17:00 -
[58]
I want my 799 personal contacts back, and i want them back NOW!!!!
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |