Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Burn Jita Down
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:17:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Burn Jita Down But yeah they always touted that it would be optional and I assumed it would be.
So you can see now why the current state of affairs is not pleasing us...
Yeah now I do! I'm actually in the process of getting upset about it but considering I was a lot more behind then I thought I was I feel more lost than anything.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:17:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Akita T on 05/06/2011 20:22:08
Originally by: Scorpii Orion
Originally by: Akita T botwhine
Just NO! Kill the BOTS! Force CQ! Only botters use crappy PC's and good enough PC costs like 150$ and even in Africa they can afford on that.
I surely hope you're attempting to make a joke. Or being sarcastic, but not getting it quite right. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Soden Rah
Gallente EVE University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:19:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 05/06/2011 20:16:48
Originally by: Burn Jita Down [...]I wasn't aware they went back on their word.[...]But yeah they always touted that it would be optional and I assumed it would be.[...]
So you can see now why the current state of affairs is not pleasing us ; why Tippia, I, and a lot of others keep talking about it in a mild angry tone.
hey I don't get a name drop??? My petition's got to its fifth page now...
__________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Tuxford bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function
|
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:20:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Grey If something could be changed, after docking, I would rather like to see the hangar and my ship from balcony, pilot still in the ship (invisible ofc) and option to leave ship given to me. Some animation would be bonus.
Isn't that pretty much a part of what I suggested would be necessary ?
Naa... I was referring more to CQ balcony view without the toon in it... image stolen from other thread :)
Anyways was just another unimportant detail in the mix. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:21:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Soden Rah hey I don't get a name drop??? My petition's got to its fifth page now...
We require more Vespean gas links !
Originally by: Jita Bloodtear That being said, what is the alternative to no CQ? Black screen? Current ship spinner?
A perpetual "LOADING" screen that never goes away. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Jacque Cruix
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:31:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 05/06/2011 20:15:45 So you can see now why the current state of affairs is not pleasing us... and why me and Tippia keep talking about it.
I hope you're not so big on yourself that you are saying "us" as the entire Eve player-base, but only the "few" that have decided to complain about this.
Nothing can be so annoying than a self appointed "speaker" who thinks they have the pulse of the whole.
For your op; if you think about it, CCP has consistently been removing old assets from the game to allow their development time to be more focused on what the majority uses in regard to hardware. Players complaining about this new enviroment requiring newer hardware probably won't get much traction.
I support the static load screen that is currently on Sisi, but not retainig the old hanger assets. Players clinging to that are probably simply resisting change and they need to either suck it up or go somewhere else. Eve will always be about change, since there will probably never be an Eve Online II.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:33:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Akita T on 05/06/2011 20:36:21
Originally by: Jacque Cruix stuff
See bottom part of previous post edited in.
Also, I would not consider a GTX 460 as "old hardware", not even close to the average of what the EVE player base uses, but above the average... yet still the performance of CQ with the current TQ "in space" settings is just barely acceptable while also fully utilizing the GPU. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Kerrisone
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:35:00 -
[38]
It seems to me it wouldn't be so hard to leave old stuff as is with little or no updates as an option for players. CCP chooses to remove those things and move forward with new shiny regardless of player concerns or it seems their own issues in making a stable/quality product.
IT makes no sense to run the incarna engine/aspect of the client if I am not going to use it. Why force the run of it whenever we dock, waste of resources and increased risk of having bugs/issues come about when it won't be used. It makes as much sense as forcing open the market, wallet, character sheet, mail box, science and industry tab, contracts, map, browser etc when you dock if they were not open in the first place, suck up more memory/resources just because.
|
Jacque Cruix
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:44:00 -
[39]
I use a HD 4800 series card and it runs CQ fine.
One needs to expect that some level of re-optimization will need to be done when dealing with WIP on a test server.
|
Soden Rah
Gallente EVE University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:46:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Jacque Cruix
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 05/06/2011 20:15:45 So you can see now why the current state of affairs is not pleasing us... and why me and Tippia keep talking about it.
I hope you're not so big on yourself that you are saying "us" as the entire Eve player-base, but only the "few" that have decided to complain about this.
Nothing can be so annoying than a self appointed "speaker" who thinks they have the pulse of the whole.
For your op; if you think about it, CCP has consistently been removing old assets from the game to allow their development time to be more focused on what the majority uses in regard to hardware. Players complaining about this new enviroment requiring newer hardware probably won't get much traction.
I support the static load screen that is currently on Sisi, but not retainig the old hanger assets. Players clinging to that are probably simply resisting change and they need to either suck it up or go somewhere else. Eve will always be about change, since there will probably never be an Eve Online II.
I refer you to my earlier post in this thread.
It is entirely possible to argue convincingly for the keeping of the current hanger view (or use nice shiny new hangers, which would be even better) rather than trying to make CQ do the job of intro into incarna AND do everything the old hanger did so well. Without at any point mentioning performance... although the performance arguments are not without there own merit.
Plus on the having separate graphics settings front...
It is quite common to turn graphics settings right down for in space if you are expecting a big fleet fight in the near future and don't want to lag out at a crucial moment.
However you might want to run Incarna on higher settings as you're not worried about being poded if you lag, plus CQ is atm a solo environment, and in quite a few places the amount of in station traffic is likely to be quite low.
So you might want HIGHER graphics settings for in station than in space. As the client doesn't really like changing graphics settings on the fly, it usually likes you to re-log,
It makes sense to have separate graphics settings for both incarna and space so that you can move from one to the other without having to change your graphics settings and have both at your desired setting. __________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Tuxford bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function
|
|
Jacque Cruix
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:52:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Soden Rah ...It is entirely possible to argue convincingly for the keeping of the current hanger view...
Yes, there are probably 20 different ways to implement this. Most players will probably be happy with 17 of those ways. Some would only be happy with a few.
But there are also some who would only be happy with "their" way.
|
Mirabi Tiane
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:57:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Mirabi Tiane on 05/06/2011 20:58:56
Originally by: Jacque Cruix Nothing can be so annoying than a self appointed "speaker" who thinks they have the pulse of the whole.
Originally by: Jacque Cruix Players clinging to that are probably simply resisting change and they need to either suck it up or go somewhere else.
Were you trying to demonstrate your own point?
...I for one have no problem with change. I have a problem with CCP doing a disservice to EVE's own lore/PF. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Jacque Cruix But there are also some who would only be happy with "their" way.
And let me guess... you are oh so "subtly" implying that I or any others who have objections regarding the current CQ implementation would be part of this particular group, eh ? _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:01:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Jacque Cruix But there are also some who would only be happy with "their" way.
Yes. This is the group who really hate the idea of having the option not to load CQ. 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 |
Soden Rah
Gallente EVE University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:04:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Jacque Cruix
Originally by: Soden Rah ...It is entirely possible to argue convincingly for the keeping of the current hanger view...
Yes, there are probably 20 different ways to implement this. Most players will probably be happy with 17 of those ways. Some would only be happy with a few.
But there are also some who would only be happy with "their" way.
Part of my argument was about what we as players might want... but a large part, that you ignored, is that its bad design to implement CQ the way they are currently doing it.
The fact that in this particular instance good design is safer, more flexible, easier to build and allows the greatest number of people to happily use the feature than the bad design.... actually no that's what good design is all about. __________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Tuxford bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function
|
Hannibal Ord
Minmatar Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:06:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Hannibal Ord on 05/06/2011 21:06:41
That's it in a nutshell. What we are proposing is like the finest solution to all the issues CQ creates. It caters to all without detracting from any.
|
Soden Rah
Gallente EVE University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:08:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Soden Rah on 05/06/2011 21:08:34 Damn... my eco is better spoken than I am...
EDIT: it was better before the edit __________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Tuxford bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:24:00 -
[48]
The big problem with current CQ implementation, aside from being a vanity option forced into users hands. (Though now there's an option to disable it, now my docking process on SiSi even faster than on TQ.) Well, the problem. Is the ship floating in mid-air in front of the balcony. ANY camping manger would smack anyone trying to park their vehicle on the grass border under cottadge's windows. There's 3 landing pads visible from Amarr balcony, but ship isn't on the either of them. It's just... somewhere. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Cailais
Amarr Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:37:00 -
[49]
CQ is the point of sale portal for micro-transactions so I think its very unlikely that CCP will want players to circumvent that marketing tool.
All those screens in CQ are there for a reason - and that reason is to persuade you to get your credit card out. No marketing / sales strategy would want you to miss that vendor space so we can be 99% certain that CQ will be pretty much the only option available.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:37:00 -
[50]
CCP could've saved so much time and effort if they'd have just bought the rights to the habbo hotel engine... And most people would've been just as happy
|
|
Jacque Cruix
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:39:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Jacque Cruix But there are also some who would only be happy with "their" way.
Yes. This is the group who really hate the idea of having the option not to load CQ.
I could agree with that.
|
Nieero
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:49:00 -
[52]
for me it is as simple as that:
Having the choice is fun. Being forced is immersion-breaking and therefore not fun.
|
Jacque Cruix
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:57:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Jacque Cruix But there are also some who would only be happy with "their" way.
And let me guess... you are oh so "subtly" implying that I or any others who have objections regarding the current CQ implementation would be part of this particular group, eh ?
I guess it would depend on if one is suggesting a change or demanding a change. Demanding too often will lead to future demands being frequently ignored.
|
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar Fleet of Doom RaVeN Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 22:35:00 -
[54]
I think they think that by forcing everyone to look at their avatar, they'll make more money on their micro-transactions selling leisure suits.
|
Takseen
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 23:12:00 -
[55]
I think its somewhat immersion breaking to think my character hops out of their pod and gets all dressed up every time he goes for the Internet Spaceship equivalent of a refill of gas.
If I'm settling in for a bout of market trading or item hangar reorganisation or fitting a new ship, sure. But I don't want to have to do it every time I pop in to drop off my loot or ask my agent for a new mission.
|
San Severina
Minmatar Autocannons Anonymous
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 23:15:00 -
[56]
Akita, I agree.
I had hoped we would be able to load the old hangar instead of CQ.
I'm thinking I might have a few months off from EvE starting the 21st, just to let the devs sort out the incoming shoot storm of bug, complaints & issues.
Enjoy EvE for the next few weeks while you can because after incarna launches it's a different ball game, that much is very clear.
|
Amber Accelerando
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 23:24:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Nieero
for me it is as simple as that:
Having the choice is fun. Being forced is immersion-breaking and therefore not fun.
^^+1
|
Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 23:25:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Akita T CQ and space need to have two completely separate sets of graphics options, and a much lower graphics detail option than the ones available now needs to be present.
THIS ____________________________________________
|
Komen
Gallente The Night Crew
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 23:49:00 -
[59]
I support optional CQ loading. I further support differentiated CQ quality settings. I further support game devs who don't break their promises. 'Incarna will never be mandatory' - many devs along the way. And that was the only reason I was willing to tolerate this foolishness.
Let me be blunt. **** Captain's Quarters. Having no option to NOT disembark my pod is greatly displeasing.
For those people who want to make use of the feature, fine. By all means. Let them. Just don't make ME do it too. Or have you guys forgotten what a sandbox is?
|
Kogh Ayon
|
Posted - 2011.06.06 00:00:00 -
[60]
As far as it perorms better than WOW. Anyone like to have a compare?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |