EVE Search - CCP Guard: The new forums

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP Guard: The new forums

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Mortania Minmatar Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:15:00 - [1] Reposting from the "welcome" thread... Ok, how about a blog about those "new" forums. And no, I don't mean the security issues, Sreegs is handling that just fine. I mean CCP not listening to the community. We are divided on the visuals, so I don't really want to hear about that. What we are not divided on is: The new forums are clearly inferior in function to the current forums. Why was this pushed through? Why was nearly none of the suggestions from the community listened to and iterated upon? The new forums clearly needed multiple more rounds of beta testing, or a process by which changes pointed out and requested from the community are listened to. Why was the old forum turned off instantly instead of easing into the new forum? Why isn't the content of these forums being pushed to the new forums? At least the stuff that is 90 days or less? We desperately need assurance that there will be CONTINUITY when you guys decide to roll out the new forums, or what's the point of these forums until the unknown date of the new instant roll out and turn off? Assured continuity means we can have legit conversations here and know that they will continue when the new forums come online. Why are the new forums customizable? Does CCP even understand why this is such a big deal? The forums are the second most important communication tool in the game behind in-game chat. You guys screwed the pooch on the new forums (and I'm not talking about the security issues). The security issues are just the single largest problem that the community is rallying behind it because it's the best way to attack and defeat the perceived enemy... the new forums. The community is upset because CCP failed to listen to us. That is our perception. As soon as the back slapping stops, please start stepping up like Sreegs is on the security side and DEAL with us. Converse with us.
Jack Tronic	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:16:00 - [2] Inferior in function?? tell me, are you still dialing into a bbs over there in russia?
Gavjack Bunk Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:22:00 - [3] Originally by: Jack Tronic Inferior in function?? tell me, are you still dialing into a bbs over there in russia? No, but they are calling it like it is.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:22:00 - [4] Edited by: Akita T on 14/04/2011 16:26:18 Originally by: Jack Tronic Inferior in function? Yes, inferior in function. Less readable overall (font/contrast/whatever choices), unable to select a different (larger) width and a general waste of space on both horizontal and vertical (and just about THIS main point I could keep going on and on and on and on), harder to distinguish which threads you already visited, inability to post images, nonfunctional or barely functional signatures (depending when), resizing/zooming worked shoddily on most browsers, full of duplicate buttons/links at the most inappropriate places, they worked slower when they worked at all (especially for larger threads, YOU should have tried to load the "like threadnought" and see how it worked) and many, many more deficiencies and annoyances. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE LACK OF IMPORT OF ALL OLDER CONTENT THAT EXISTS IN THIS OLD FORUM. And I'm not even going to dignify the issues of security with more than a brief mention. So, yes, again, INFERIOR in functions that really mattered. The fact it had some nicer additions was irrelevant if what people used most was now broken or lacking. _ CCP LEADERSHIP MENTALITY NEEDS TO CHANGE FAST ! "New junky features sell, old polished content doesn't" ? KILL IT WITH FIRE.
Steve Thomas Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:26:00 - [5] however the ability to go in and post as anyone, including CCP, Eddit posts by CCP and anyone elseso on are clearly proves that the forums security was superior to what we have now... .End of line. If your too paranoid to play EvE. . . ...then your not paranoid enough to play EvE ----------------
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:27:00 - [6] Edited by: Cipher Jones on 14/04/2011 16:28:14 The new forums are clearly inferior in function to the current forums. Why was this pushed through? Because you used the word clearly but didn't support your idea. Why was nearly none of the suggestions from the community listened to and iterated upon? They listened to mine and others. Sounds like sour grapes? The new forums clearly needed multiple more rounds of beta testing, or a process by which changes pointed out and requested from the community are listened to. The problem with the forums was not pointed out by the beta testers. There was no lack of listening. Why was the old forum turned off instantly instead of easing into the new forum? *They were not turned off instantly, and the new forums were eased into. You have gone from using suggestive language without evidence to stating the polar opposite of what actually happened. You are CLEARLY* misinformed. Why isn't the content of these forums being pushed to the new forums? At least the stuff that is 90 days or less. You should have just made a polite thread asking that question, and CCP probably would have answered. More than likely, they have already answered that question and you failed to search for it before asking.** . Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:27:00 - [7] Quote: The community is upset because CCP failed to listen to us support for new forums thread had more replies than support for old forums thread. get lost.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:32:00 - [8] Edited by: Akita T on 14/04/2011 16:33:57 Originally by: Cipher Jones The new forums clearly needed multiple more rounds of beta testing, or a process by which changes pointed out and requested from the community are listened to. The problem with the forums was not pointed out by the beta testers. There was no lack of listening. Why was the old forum turned off instantly instead of easing into the new forum? *They were not turned off instantly, and the new forums were eased into. You have gone from using suggestive language without evidence to stating the polar opposite of what actually happened. You are CLEARLY* misinformed. Why isn't the content of these forums being pushed to the new forums? At least the stuff that is 90 days or less. You should have just made a polite thread asking that question, and CCP probably would have answered. More than likely, thay have already answered that question and you failed to search for it before asking. The fudge ? You were clearly not reading the test forum feedback then. Most of the stuff people still complain about is stuff that was mentioned back from the FIRST beta test. They were turned off as good as instantly, namely a few hours. A halfway decent transitional period would have taken at least a month, if not longer. The only answer CCP gave is that "it was their choice". No details as to how/why. No mention of technical difficulties or required work or anything like that. It would have fallen on deaf ears because, come on, it's a collection of text snippets, how bloody hard could it possibly be to create an automated method of parsing it all and inserting it in the new format before the new forums opened to the general public ? Originally by:** MotherMoon support for new forums thread had more replies than support for old forums thread. get lost. Right, because THOSE tiny threads you'd have to dig for had oh so many people participating, whereas threads that were dozens of pages long complaining about the new forums are to be discounted ? Pfft. _ CCP LEADERSHIP MENTALITY NEEDS TO CHANGE FAST ! "New junky features sell, old polished content doesn't" ? KILL IT WITH FIRE.
Soma Khan Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:37:00 - [9] Originally by: MotherMoon Quote: The community is upset because CCP failed to listen to us support for new forums thread had more alt/troll replies than support for old forums thread. get lost. fyp __
Zangorus	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:38:00 - [10] Oh look a corpmate

Mortania Minmatar Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:45:00 - [11] Originally by: Cipher Jones They listened to mine and others. Sounds like sour grapes? Oh, I'm all ears. Let me guess, you were the one that requested the limit to only 5 quote blocks? OH! wait, it was the really LARGE quote blocks that you wanted, right? Was it the lack of working img tags you requested? No just sigs in general being borked that you requested? Maybe it was the lack of font changes or color changes, that you requested and received, right? Originally by: Cipher Jones Why was the old forum turned off instantly instead of easing into the new forum? *They were not turned off instantly, and the new forums were eased into. You have gone from using suggestive language without evidence to stating the polar opposite of what actually happened. You are CLEARLY* misinformed.** Potentially you're limited in your knowledge of new forum rollouts. 2 preview releases that get about 1000 posts before they are brought down again and then a simultaneous release with a removal of activity from the previous forums isn't what most people would consider easing in. A smooth rollout would often include a time where both forums are up for an extended period of time. A chance for people to move between the two. CCP could have moved Information Portal over to the new forums and left the rest of the activity on the old forums. Drive usage through content. But you're probably right, it's likely I wasn't involved in both rounds of testing of the new forums and that I didn't post useful problems on those forums. It's likely I'm just bitter about trivial stuff like wanting a sense of continuity and well working forums to use.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:46:00 - [12] Quote: They were turned off as good as instantly, namely a few hours I had over a months notice by simply reading this forum. Its almost impossible to say anything else about it w/o being insulting. . Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:51:00 - [13] Originally by: Jack Tronic Inferior in function?? They couldn't even get the smilies to work right, let alone the rest of the issues. Ganked anyone? Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Mortania Minmatar Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:52:00 - [14] Originally by: Cipher Jones Quote: They were turned off as good as instantly, namely a few hours I had over a months notice by simply reading this forum. Its almost impossible to say anything else about it w/o being insulting. You're confusing notice of change with transition period, I mean the latter when I say easing in.
Emmely Chi	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:54:00 - [15] Edited by: Emmely Chi on 14/04/2011 16:56:11 I wonder if CCP even listen to people who want to maintained the old forum. Or have CCP completely turned a deaf ear. what is the point of the new forum. What it simply because they thought it was time to make a new, or get people to use Eve gate more, or introduce more certain technical stuff. Did they even have gave an answer ? If they have... I have missed it..... Ps ... sorry for my english and pray you will understand what I have written
Kyra Felann Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:56:00 - [16] The new forums were better in every way except for their security problems. So stop saying "we're not divided", acting like people unanimously don't like the new forums. -----WARNING SIGNATURE BELOW----- Bring back the NeoNeoCom!
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:58:00 - [17] Originally by: Cipher Jones Why isn't the content of these forums being pushed to the new forums? At least the stuff that is 90 days or less. You should have just made a polite thread asking that question, and CCP probably would have answered. More than likely, they have already answered that question and you failed to search for it before asking. What's the point of being polite when this is a pretty clear case of laziness at best and/or veiled attempt at sanitizing history at worst. ...
Jack Tronic	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:01:00 - [18] Edited by: Jack Tronic on 14/04/2011 17:03:19 Edited by: Jack Tronic on 14/04/2011 17:02:37 Edited by: Jack Tronic on 14/04/2011 17:02:16 Edited by: Jack Tronic on 14/04/2011 17:01:21 Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 14/04/2011 16:26:18 Originally by: Jack Tronic Inferior in function? Yes, inferior in function. Less readable overall (font/contrast/whatever choices), unable to select a different (larger) width and a general waste of space on both horizontal and vertical (and just about THIS main point I could keep going on and on and on and on), harder to distinguish which threads you already visited, inability to post images, nonfunctional or barely functional signatures (depending when), resizing/zooming worked shoddily on most browsers, full of duplicate buttons/links at the most inappropriate places, they worked slower when they worked at all (especially for larger threads, YOU should have tried to load the "like threadnought" and see how it worked) and many, many more deficiencies and annoyances. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE LACK OF IMPORT OF ALL OLDER CONTENT THAT EXISTS IN THIS OLD FORUM. And I'm not even going to dignify the issues of security with more than a brief mention. So, yes, again, INFERIOR in functions that really mattered. The fact it had some nicer additions was irrelevant if what people used most was now broken or lacking. 1. Display width isn't that much of a functional aspect, it's more lack of good design 2. You can't post images on these forums anyway without CCP threatening to ban you for even a LOLcat image. 3. People care about signatures really? I enjoy not seeing **ty "LOOK AT ME IM SPECIAL, IM ALSO A *" signatures. 4. To be fair, browsers have conflicting standards for zooming in and out which makes it come out funny. 5. 90% of old content is troll. There's no point in keeping it, you can't go one thread in C&P or CAOD without trolling Security issues are barely a functional inferiority, it is a technical oversight. Don't mix up functionality with design and technical issues.
Emmely Chi	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:04:00 - [19] Edited by: Emmely Chi on 14/04/2011 17:05:30 Originally by: Kyra Felann The new forums were better in every way except for their security problems. So stop saying "we're not divided", acting like people unanimously don't like the new forums. even if the new is better, There's no reason change layot. They Could. make a new forum with the old layot and give us new stuff. if it so important to Them Most people...
Mortania Minmatar Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:06:00 - [20] Originally by: Kyra Felann The new forums were better in every way except for their security problems. That's just bonkers to claim. So, you liked not being able to do img in your posts? Or color changes? Or Have working sigs? Or you enjoyed the lack of clarity between a thread you've read and one you haven't? You liked the not quite correctly implemented take me to my last read post in a thread feature? Or the limited number of quote blocks?

Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:08:00 - [21] Originally by: Jack Tronic 1. Display width isn't that much of a functional aspect, it's more lack of good design And a car that's 20 inches wide is not a functional problem, it's just lack of good design too ? Quote: 2. You can't post images on these forums anyway without CCP threatening to ban you for even a LOLcat image. Actually, there is at least one subforum where posting at least one image per OP is perfectly allowed. Quote: 3. People care about signatures really? I enjoy not seeing **ty "LOOK AT ME IM SPECIAL, IM ALSO A " signatures. And that's why you can have the OPTION to turn them off. Speaking of options, they were completely lacking in the new forums. Quote:* 4. To be fair, browsers have conflicting standards for zooming in and out which makes it come out funny. To be fair, I don't care. CCP web design should have taken care of that. What the bloody hell do they pay them for anyway ? Quote: 5. 90% of old content is troll. There's no point in keeping it, you can't go one thread in C&P or CAOD without trolling Right, and Ships&modules, Science&industry, New Players and others like it have to also go just because C&P and CAOD are a cesspool ? Quote: Security issues are barely a functional inferiority, it is a technical oversight. Potato, tomato. Quote: Don't mix up functionality with design and technical issues. Tomato, potato. _ CCP LEADERSHIP MENTALITY NEEDS TO CHANGE FAST ! "New junky features sell, old polished content doesn't" ? KILL IT WITH FIRE.
Mortania Minmatar Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:10:00 - [22] Originally by: Jack Tronic 1. Display width isn't that much of a functional aspect, it's more lack of good design 2. You can't post images on these forums anyway without CCP threatening to ban you for even a LOLcat image. 3. People care about signatures really? I enjoy not seeing **ty "LOOK AT ME IM SPECIAL, IM ALSO A *" signatures. 4. To be fair, browsers have conflicting standards for zooming in and out which makes it come out funny. 5. 90% of old content is troll. There's no point in keeping it, you can't go one thread in C&P or CAOD without trolling Security issues are barely a functional inferiority, it is a technical oversight. Don't mix up functionality with design and technical issues. Agreed, which is why I tried to exclude the layout and design issues from my post. But, at the same time, you can't poo-poo the functional aspects that people expect from a forum. Yes posting images and signatures is entry level expected function from a forum. Despite the too cool for school attitude that some people may have about them. The fact is a large number of people use both those functions. Yes, I too have images and signatures turned off, but I recognize that most people want these functions and that their normal operation should be working before launching new forums.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:18:00 - [23] Originally by: Jack Tronic 1. Display width isn't that much of a functional aspect, it's more lack of good design Designing it in such a way that there was no options for size changes and so that it even broke some browsers' built-in size adjustment functions is a matter of functionality. Quote: 2. You can't post images on these forums anyway without CCP threatening to ban you for even a LOLcat image. Doesn't change the fact that it was reduction in functionality (and at the same time a lost opportunity to change that policy now that they designed a ù supposedly ù modern forum where such things can be adjusted automatically). Quote: 3. People care about signatures really? I enjoy not seeing **ty "LOOK AT ME IM SPECIAL, IM ALSO A " signatures. Doesn't change the fact that it was a reduction in functionality. Hell, if that's how you feel about sigs, it should have upset you that they removed the functionality not to* see sigsà Quote: 4. To be fair, browsers have conflicting standards for zooming in and out which makes it come out funny. Yes, but a well made design doesn't break any of them. Quote: 5. 90% of old content is troll. There's no point in keeping it, you can't go one thread in C&P or CAOD without trolling àexcept, of course, that they are keeping it, just not integrated into the new forums. Quote: Security issues are barely a functional inferiority, it is a technical oversight. Seeing as how the issues were a direct result of functional inferiorityà yes, yes it is. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Bodrul Caldari The Illuminatii Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:18:00 - [24] CCP could have easily paid for a license from IPB or VB and since they are basicaly open to modification, CCP could have modified them to the needs of eve and have a better forum in terms of functions and Visuals. ............ "you dont need a reason or a three piece suit to argue the truth" Game Reviews
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:18:00 - [25] Originally by: Soma Khan Originally by: MotherMoon Quote: The community is upset because CCP failed to listen to us support for new forums thread had more alt/troll replies than support for old forums thread. get lost. fyp I disagree, the support for old forums thread was nothing but someone with 12 altsa all posted for themself. and then therw was a bunch of post in that thread in support for the new, and some posts trolling back and forth. and yes despite all that, the other thread had no one saying they wanted the old forums, and still had more replies. it's nice to just say "GRR ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ME IS A ALT OR A TROLL" get over yourself. this reminds me of the 18 page thread after trinity came out of people saying the new trinity graphics models were WORSE than the old. and that no one would use them because they looked terrible. anyone posting in support of trinity with something like "omg the new models are so pretty" was pointed out as a troll. GUESS WHAT, people that like something and are content don't tend to post as much. and most people think the old eve graphics were **, it's not a troll, it's a fact. Its just most people don't give a * about arguing over it on a forum, they would rather just use it. also that huge 20 page thread was no purely anti-new forum people. people that have an issue with someone also speak up more. but I counted more people posting in support of the new forums when I was reading them . talk about rose tinted glasses I should note I didn't think they were ready for release either. but the level of whine has gone far beyond that, stop trying to pretend it hasn't.
Mortania Minmatar Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:25:00 - [26] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Soma Khan Originally by: MotherMoon Quote: The community is upset because CCP failed to listen to us support for new forums thread had more alt/troll replies than support for old forums thread. get lost. fyp I disagree, the support for old forums thread was nothing but someone with 12 altsa all posted for themself. and then therw was a bunch of post in that thread in support for the new, and some posts trolling back and forth. and yes despite all that, the other thread had no one saying they wanted the old forums, and still had more replies. it's nice to just say "GRR ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ME IS A ALT OR A TROLL" get over yourself. this reminds me of the 18 page thread after trinity came out of people saying the new trinity graphics models were WORSE than the old. and that no one would use them because they looked terrible. anyone posting in support of trinity with something like "omg the new models are so pretty" was pointed out as a troll. GUESS WHAT, people that like something and are content don't tend to post as much. and most people think the old eve graphics were **, it's not a troll, it's a fact. Its just most people don't give a * about arguing over it on a forum, they would rather just use it. also that huge 20 page thread was no purely anti-new forum people. people that have an issue with someone also speak up more. but I counted more people posting in support of the new forums when I was reading them . talk about rose tinted glasses I should note I didn't think they were ready for release either. but the level of whine has gone far beyond that, stop trying to pretend it hasn't. I don't know about Tippia or Akita T (ok I do know), but I liked the new forums, for the most part. I thought overall they were more modern typographically and I found them easier to read. That's not the part I have a problem with. They could have had a chance to be better in every way than the old forums, but they weren't. They were visually completely different (which will always **** some people off) and they didn't even have all of the functionality of the old forums. I think the best comparison I've read thus far is someone pointing out the way in which the new contract search was rolled out in game, versus the way the forums were rolled out.
IsTheOpOver	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:33:00 - [27] Originally by: Mortania Why was the old forum turned off instantly instead of easing into the new forum? What better way to bury the hate included in the 1.4 feedback & issues threads? Originally by: Mortania Why isn't the content of these forums being pushed to the new forums? At least the stuff that is 90 days or less? See above.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:34:00 - [28] Originally by: Razin Originally by: Cipher Jones Why isn't the content of these forums being pushed to the new forums? At least the stuff that is 90 days or less. You should have just made a polite thread asking that question, and CCP probably would have answered. More than likely, they have already answered that question and you failed to search for it before asking. What's the point of being polite when this is a pretty clear case of laziness at best and/or veiled attempt at sanitizing history at worst. Illustrate how it is a case of laziness please. . Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
Jack Tronic	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:35:00 - [29] Edited by: Jack Tronic on 14/04/2011 17:35:45 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Jack Tronic 1. Display width isn't that much of a functional aspect, it's more lack of good design Designing it in such a way that there was no options for size changes and so that it even broke some browsers' built-in size adjustment functions is a matter of functionality. Quote: 2. You can't post images on these forums anyway without CCP threatening to ban you for even a LOLcat image. Doesn't change the fact that it was reduction in functionality (and at the same time a lost opportunity to change that policy now that they designed a ù supposedly ù modern forum where such things can be adjusted automatically). Quote: 3. People care about signatures really? I enjoy not seeing **ty "LOOK AT ME IM SPECIAL, IM ALSO A " signatures. Doesn't change the fact that it was a reduction in functionality. Hell, if that's how you feel about sigs, it should have upset you that they removed the functionality not to* see sigsà Quote: 4. To be fair, browsers have conflicting standards for zooming in and out which makes it come out funny. Yes, but a well made design doesn't break any of them. Quote: 5. 90% of old content is troll. There's no point in keeping it, you can't go one thread in C&P or CAOD without trolling àexcept, of course, that they are keeping it, just not integrated into the new forums. Quote: Security issues are barely a functional inferiority, it is a technical oversight. Seeing as how the issues were a direct result of functional inferiorityà yes, yes it is. 1. There are no size changes on these forums so no loss of functionality. 2. They probably used these "modern forum" features that you speak of and simply disabled the img tag in the admin cp, which they did because it is an option in the yaf acp. :P 3. Ah well, I get to report people to bad signatures and thus grief them. 4. Not exactly, even simple css divs styled with css only can get epically fudged by zooming in using a browser depending on the arrangement of the dom structure. 5. How is the security issue a result of functional inferiority? They didn't make it so you had to manually type in your character name in and draw a picture of each time to confirm it. They just mistakenly trusted the client side cookies(tbh they do the same with the eve client which is why ~sphere~ exists) instead of using proper session management.
T'Laar Bok	Posted - 2011.04.14 17:36:00 - [30] CCP needs to sneak over to phpbb (as just one example) to see a feature list of a modern forum.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.