EVE Search - Q. for a DEV: Why is CCP removing the hangar view as an option?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Q. for a DEV: Why is CCP removing the hangar view as an option?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.15 16:50:00 - [1] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 15/06/2011 16:56:22 I'm making this thread in an attempt to get a straight answer from one of CCPs Developers. For how many times has this been asked by both myself and other people, and yet I still have not seen a straight answer to the question. Why are you removing the hangar view as an option? What purpose does it serve to force players (even veterans) to always use the CQ? Why not keep both and allow the player to switch between the Hangar View and the Captains Quarters environment at will? My argument: If this is all about the new player experience: simply force new players to use the CQ until after the tutorial or only allow them to access their tutorials from the CQ. Why have you changed your stance on this? 3 years ago you had the right idea, to create the captains quarters as a separate area to the hangar. To me it does not make sense to force players to use the captains quarters all the time, both in terms of immersion, performance and gameplay. Immersion wise it does not make sense because: Its not easy to enter and exit your pod, why would I as a pod pilot decide to exit my pod when all I want to do is change from one ship to another and undock again. Wouldn't it be much easier to allow the player to dock either to the hangar as is right now, OR dock and disembark directly to the captains quarters, but only when a player wishes to do this. Adding another Dock command (Dock & Disembark) is all it would take to allow players to go directly to the CQ when docking. By keeping the hangar and the CQ seperate, CCP could also at a later date decide to add additional flair to the CQ, like optional cutscenes when you enter/exit your pod or when you have been podded and receive a new clone. Performance wise it does not make sense because: Low end systems, as well as people who have multiple accounts running, according to a recent blog, are advised to use the "temporary" DISABLE CQ OPTION. Not to mention CQ loading times are longer than hangar loading times because the CQ requires almost a gig of system memory. By keeping the current hangar view as an alternative to the CQ, this problem is solved in a much more graceful way, without screwing older PCs. If both the CQ and the Hangar are kept, any problems POST patch will only affect the Captains Quarters. By forcing players to use the CQ, by removing the normal hangar view, any uncaught bugs will effect the entire EVE population. Gameplay wise it does not make sense because: CCP has always had the goal to create the most expansive universe. Why remove the ability to stay inside your ship and just view the hangar when docked. Not all ships when seen from the hangar balcony in the CQ are properly representive of their true size (due to the re-positioning mechanic that brings smaller ships closer to the balcony.) By keeping the hangar view you would allow players another way to judge scale, and still allow them to look around their ships and the hangar. The player always seems to spawn on the end of the hangar balcony, walking into the other section of the CQ every time is tiresome... which will cause a lot of people to stick to the NeoCom, why even force players to load the CQ environment then. Some players will use the CQ, others won't, most I recon (me included) will use it when they want to use it, and otherwise just want to use the hangar view as it is right now. Forcing it on people isn't going to make them any happier... --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.15 17:05:00 - [2] I am aware of those threads, However, none of them have actually answered this particular question. Since Incarna's release is only days away, I felt it was time to take the issue head on and ask for a straight answer directly. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.15 17:43:00 - [3] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 15/06/2011 17:43:46 Originally by: Razin Yeah, I'd also like to hear something concrete and unambiguous (!) from CCP on this subject. Near as I can tell the current compulsory nature of CQ/Incarna content comes from a business requirement to maximize exposure to MT merchandise. I.e. the more-longer you are forced to stare at your avatar (and other avatars in some future), the more likely you are to spend some Aurum. Ironically and sadly this is the most justified explanation yet... However if this were to be true, I would seriously question CCPs commitment to the game... and mine. I most certainly wouldn't be a happy customer if design decisions now and in future were going to be motivated by a cash-shop. Especially considering this is only the start of Incarna, annoying people like that is more likely to drive people away than keep them interested long enough for the cash-shop to become effective. Besides, since there more in depth incarna expansions to come out in the future, why force it in when its always better to develop something naturally over time. Regardless, I'd still like to hear a straight and honest answer from CCP. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.15 18:17:00 - [4] Originally by: Sandviched -10/10 tribibad troll Yes if I were trolling this would be a horrible trolling thread, but since this is a genuine question, go seek your sandviches somewhere else. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.15 18:46:00 - [5] While I appreciate the response and I agree with you. Its best not to feed the troll and let them simply hunger away. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.15 20:10:00 - [6] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 15/06/2011 20:12:12 For the record: I have a 1 year old high end gaming laptop with a 330M Geforce and 6 gigs of memory and a I7-CPU that I play EVE on. When I tried the most recent CQ test on duality, Loading times were substantially higher due to CQ being loaded. When I tried to run 2 accounts docked (in space is fine) my game started running rough. Even with 6 Gigs of memory to use, its a massive increase in demand on my system compared to what eve uses now. I'm a student of game development myself (third years), and such an increase in resource demand for a game as massive as EVE-online is not something to take lightly. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.15 20:24:00 - [7] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 15/06/2011 20:28:46 Originally by: Ranka Mei You have a mobile graphics chipset: what did you expect? The 330M is 6.8x slower than my GTX 580, and is comparable to a weak GeForce 7800 GS. Its still capable of running many new games among which the Witcher 2 on medium settings and Starcraft 2 on highest settings. Regardless, this GPU is capable of running several EVE clients without a problem as is. I paid 2000 euros for this rig a year ago, you really can't say its outdated. H.T.F.U. simply can not apply here, we are talking about a game that's played by a large demographic, a sudden mandatory increase in system resource requirements could mean the weaker part of the player demographic suddenly can't properly play the game, not the wisest business decision a company could make. The problem can be avoided however by simply not making Captains Quarters a mandatory feature by making it optional, preserving the hangar view as an alternative for those people. Not too long ago I read that Activision/Blizzard canceled an update on their WOW netcode that would have improved the network performance on their game for 99% of all players. The update however caused significant network problems on the remaining 1 % of the player base. When they eventually implemented the functionality they did so by allowing players (this 1%) to toggle to the old netcode. (Yes I know I mentioned WOW, get over it, its an example). --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.15 21:55:00 - [8] Yes, but considering the Hangar view is something that is already in the game and functional. At the simplest we are talking about the following to recreate the current hangar environment based of the CQ. 1 - Not or unloading the CQ, leaving just the hangar environment. 2 - switching to the original controls for the hangar. 3 - Using a different camera that centered around the ship. 4 - Re positioning the ships to the hangar center. 5 - Adding a button to switch between these 2 states. I'm aware this won't make it into the upcoming Incarna release. But it shouldn't have to take till the next expansion either to reinstate the hangar view either. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.16 09:54:00 - [9] Even if the CQ is more efficient on Sisi as opposed to Duality,That wont help gameplay and immersion concerns. And for a feature that doesn't add anything to the space side gameplay yet, I simply don't see why it should be mandatory. I'm still hoping CCP will answer the questions I put out for them. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.16 10:48:00 - [10] Yeah I have to admit, its a pretty pathetic way to beat around the bush. Its possible they have been told not to answer this question. Especially considering yesterday I saw a thread in general about "new shipwreck models" which got an instant reply by a Dev saying O GREAT IDEA. I'm getting quite disillusioned about CCPs true goals for Incarna. Especially since they came back on their promises and statements that Incarna would be an optional aspect of the game. See older Walking in Stations tech demos and the interview on it in one of the older EON magazines if you want to see for yourself. And now suddenly its to replace a core element of the game, changing several mechanics we are used to along with it. For the biggest concern people have about Incarna, CCP sure doesn't seem to be in any hurry to clear it up. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.16 15:46:00 - [11] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 16/06/2011 15:46:18 Off Topic: Personally I like the Euro, but yeah the current mismanagement is not leading it any place good. /Off Topic. If CCP wants CQ to be used often they should ensure it had useful and usable features. Forcing it isn't going to tell CCP if they are doing a good job. I foresee that if the CQ is going to really replace the current hangar view, in a month or 2 many players will simply stand still on the hangar balcony and use the Neo-Com to navigate... --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.17 22:06:00 - [12] I do agree with people that say that incarna will allow players to discover other aspects of eve that have otherwise been hidden. I for one still havn't discovered how to actually start the galente epic arc. And i'm hoping the CQ will point me in the right direction. So don't get me wrong, I do want to see Incarna become a usefull addition to EVE. I'm worried however that if the CQ is going to be forced onto players to sell some more in game monocles, that it will quickly lose its charm. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.18 10:38:00 - [13] Originally by: Taedrin GOOD GOD, why do you people have such short memories? CCP is not supporting both hangar view and CQ for the same reason why they don't support a Linux version of the client on top of Mac and PC and the same reason why they no longer support the "classic" client. MOre code to support is more expensive to support, produces more bugs to fix, which makes players unhappy. NOW TO BE HONEST, CCP should do what they did with the "classic" client - continue to support both code bases for a period while people take their time upgrading their computers to handle CQ reasonably well. Code wise the CQ is a layer on top of the current hangar system. The entire set is still there, the hangars, the ships, the lighting and rendering engine are un-altered, or at the very least, still capable of supporting the same functionality as it has been since the start of EVE. The MORE code your talking about is the code thats adding in the CQ using the carbon tech. So, I can't believe that supporting both the hangar and the CQ as separate environments is as hard to achieve as you think. Because if the CQ layer is not active the hangar is still there, supporting the original camera drone view really doesn't add that much more code... especially since the main HUD of the game, the NeoCom has been unaltered. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.19 08:41:00 - [14] Yesturday during the tournament broadcast the dev behind Incarna was on the show. One of the first questions they asked him was why they removed the option to spin ships. He said something among the lines of that they wanted to fully connect the space and walking environments for immersion sake and that you can still SPIN YOUR CHARACTER IN PLACE. I call bull **** on that one. To be quite frank: Incarna is not some feature tweak that CCP is introducing. Its a full blown new game engine they have bolted onto the existing one. And while it might have been in development for a long time... There is no way that it will run smoothly for 100% of all players, There are bound to be people that can't use it due to their hardware's or OS configurations. Why they are making it a mandatory and intricate part of the game then is beyond my comprehension. Cause once this go's live, there will be lots of people that will be unable to play the game properly for weeks or even months until this is sorted out. Now CCP seems to understand this, but go's about it the wrong way. Adding a "Temporary" Do not load CQ toggle that leaves the user on a loading screen is incredibly crude. If the entire goal of Incarna is to create immersion then WHY of all things leave the player with a black screen, why haven't you thought of this before and simply kept the hangar view... Hell not loading the CQ layer and leaving the camera focussed on the players ship is more desirable than this. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.19 09:28:00 - [15] Originally by: Zora'e Just got back from SISI. New build. Lets see where to start... A: Esc menu audio & chat tab produces a blank wall of nothing. B: 1 client on sisi uses the same CPU as three currently on TQ C: 1 client on sisi uses 5-6 times as much GPU resources as one client on TQ (I.E. I can run 3 clients on TQ and still not use as much CPU/GPU resources as ONE client running CQ). D: Non-Intuitive UI interface while in CQ (i.e. it's even worse than what is currently on TQ) E: Option to turn off CQ leaves you with a static picture. F: Docking times for a single client is 3 times longer than on TQ. G: Docking times for three clients takes 1.5 minutes ( -vs- 15 seconds on TQ for three clients) H: Overall UI functionality is... while not reduced... greatly more troublesome to access with CQ controls My Prediction for Incarna's success: Not a snow balls chance in hell CCP isn't going to have to do damage control and undo 3/4 of the garbage they are doing before all is said and done or face losing quite probably 1/4 or more of their subscription base due to the ultimate fiasco Incarna is shaping up to be. This is a shame because I was looking forward to the possibilities Incarna could bring. If this is true... then CCP is heading for a wreck. They should postpone the deployment of CQ now they still can, and improve on their alternatives to the CQ. Cause if it go's live like this... it will be a disaster. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Hyperforce99 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.22 16:11:00 - [16] Still havn't seen an anwser, anyone else still wants to know? --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/

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.