EVE Search - New EVE Online forums temporarily disabled

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

New EVE Online forums temporarily disabled

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 36 post(s)
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.09 23:29:00 - [1] At least you've finally done the sensible thing.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.09 23:37:00 - [2] Originally by: Jada Maroo What we experienced was not delivery. It was like the UPS man coming to your door with a package, opening it, letting you play with it, and then grabbing it from you and driving off! That UPS man is an *******! Actually since what was in the package was a massive steaming ermm... Revenant... I don't think many people would mind all that much.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.09 23:47:00 - [3] Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod there was also a lag issue... I could type faster than the letters would appear on the screen. Theres gotta be an issue there, and its not my connection or Id have the same issue here, which I dont I think someone mentioned that the new forums were essentially streaming your post back to the server as you typed it
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.10 00:55:00 - [4] Originally by: Diomedes Calypso But, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that they are attempting something unique? They took off-the-shelf forum software and bodged their own auth methods with a fair helping of dynamic bling.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:03:00 - [5] Originally by: dexington Originally by: Akita T how about an assurance that user feedback will be actually USED next time you ask us to test the forums ? eve user feedback... 50% says the font is to small, 50% says it's not big enough... 50% says the background color should be black, 50% says it should be white... 100% of user complaints could be fixed by 2 user option settings? I'd call that an easy win.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:14:00 - [6] Originally by: dexington Disable images in you browser if it's that big a problem... I don't even think that would help him as much as it should. Someone reported a 980k pageload at one point, and only 200k of that is the background image.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:18:00 - [7] Originally by: Miilla Firefox, prefbar, disable images, flash and colours. Found it. Originally by: Ix Forres I can't be arsed to restate everything already mentioned but here's some "what the ****?" selections from a few moments of poking around. 18 external JS references per page. That means 18 HTTP requests per page, at least on first load, to get JS stuff up and running. Slloooow. Gzip compression is not enabled. Could pull the page size down by ~100kb by enabling that, which is utterly trivial to do. None of the static content (images, JS etc) have cache expiry times. This means browsers may well not cache them at all, redownloading every time they load a page. They're also not set to have cache-control:public. You get cookies with all those images and CSS/JS files; 60kb a page load. And according to Chrome's auditer, "122.90KB (94%) of CSS is not used by the current page." That's some prime wastage right there. To load this thread page took 980 kilobytes. That's 4 seconds on my connection (50Mbit/s). 1 second of that is the server coming up with the page I asked for, which is pretty shoddy. Using what my browser's caching, it's still 150kb. This whole thing stinks to high heaven of bad programming and poor understanding of what makes web applications tick.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:26:00 - [8] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Jack Tronic Dude needs to be less silly. If css file is cached, and it contains all the css for all the pages regardless of how much is used on the current page, it's fine. àexcept that, as mentioned, the server doesn't pass along any expiry information so there's a distinct risk that the browser won't cache it. And is it typical for a single page on a site to use 6% of the entire site's unique CSS rules?
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:50:00 - [9] Originally by: SupaKudoRio Perhaps all the CSS for the entire EVE-Gate domain was loaded all at once... that might explain it. Evegate loads a different file global.CSS, which is 2846 lines and includes plentiful formatting and whitespace is about 9k. The forum main CSS file does seem to be almost entirely .yafnet tags, is 72k fully compacted, and expands out to 3842 lines when breaking on ;s Ix's page load test was done on the "reasons this forum sucks" thread, on a page that was maybe 1/2 full of posts at the time
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.11 22:02:00 - [10] RE: Miilla Dear God make it stop! Originally by: NinjaSpud ok, I just skimmed threw the last 20 pages of people flaming CCP for the new forums....Seriously People? You're getting that riled up about a few bugs in a forum? A lot of this CCP has done to themselves. It's not just that there are bugs in the forum, but the way that they had several rounds of public testing and the utter disregard for the feedback they received. That set the tone for this whole thing going in, that now not only have they ignored almost all of the feedback and have made very little visible progress on the thing otherwise, but they've also released it with bugs that appear to be due to elementary incompetence. All of these little (and not so little) pokes combine to be a very not nice thing. Now getting feedback from others is part of the very core of my industry, so I understand that taking feedback doesn't mean just doing everything that anyone tells you to do. Feedback needs to be filtered and not every suggested change is appropriate, but what I've seen so far doesn't look at all like a good professional approach to it. It really does appear that we are just being outright ignored. People keep bringing up the email and bugreport thing and I'm not really sure where it's all coming from. People are outraged claiming that the vulnerability was reported in beta and not acted on, and that is what Darius is asking for proof of. Given that it took a couple of hours for the exploits to start appearing in the wild once the forum went live I don't think that anyone knew about the vulnerability from beta at all (at least no one that has said anything about it at all) So this isn't at all an issue that was brought up and not acted on, and the delay in responding to petitions was all on ones that were submitted after the forum went live.

Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.11 23:10:00 - [11] Originally by: Barakkus simply a lack of thinking outside of the box about matters of security by their web team... That's part of what I don't understand about this whole mess (as I've said before I'm barely even a hobbyist programmer) Sure it would have been much more difficult to exploit if they had encrypted the cookie, and it's fixable by confirming the clients credentials on each action. But if the server can verify that the particular char ID that is submitted with the session belongs to that session, why bother having the client manage any of that data in the first place? All of that should be maintained entirely server side where it's safe and protected, the only thing that the client needs to provide (and that needs to be constantly verified) is it's specific session. The entire idea behind taking such an important part of the authentication process, tearing it out and putting it in the untrusted client, only to re-authenticate it every step of the way (which was missing here) seems like such a total WTF to me. This isn't a clever exploit of some obscure loophole or code gotcha, it's just such a fundamentally flawed idea on the conceptual level, or at least that's what it seems like with my understanding.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.04.11 23:25:00 - [12] Originally by: CCP Sreegs Originally by: Jada Maroo Originally by: CCP Sreegs I just had it published... It lacks an overly optimistic estimate of when the new forums will make their grand return. Not my department. :) I believe the official CCP translation of that is "Soon TM" :p

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.