|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 22 post(s) |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
276
   |
Posted - 2012.10.19 11:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Team Gridlock has been working in the last months mostly on improving server-side parts of the inventory system (and related systems). Many of the changes won't be visible to the player (except that a few old bugs should be gone), but there are a few important changes, which are now on Duality for testing:
Fleet hangars:
Corporation hangars on capital ships and Orcas have been converted into fleet hangars. These fleet hangars have no divisions and corp roles are irrelevant. The size of the fleet hangar is the same as the old corp hangar and all items are moved from the corp hangar to the fleet hangar at deployment of the patch.
The access rules to the ship maintenance bay (SMB) and fleet hangar have also changed:
- It is always possible to use the fitting service of the SMB of a corp member and a fleet member
- Corp members can access both the SMB and the fleet hangar with the setting "Allow corp member usage"
- Fleet members can access both the SMB and the fleet hangar with the setting "Allow fleet member usage"
We discussed these changes with the CSM and we hope that they improve the usability of the fleet hangar and the new access rules should make it much clearer on what is possible when.
Known issue in the build on Duality: The right-click option to open containers in fleet hangars is not doing anything.
Storing the settings for SMB and fleet hangars on the server:
The above mentioned settings for SMB and fleet hangars are now stored on the server and they stay always on the ship (as long as it is not repackaged). It is no longer necessary to re-configure the ship after a jump or after a relog. Be careful when boarding a ship from your corp mate or similar - it will be using the settings, which he set.
Storing the forcefield password of ships on the server
Forcefield passwords are now stored on the server. But: We are currently working on another iteration of this to improve the consistency. Please do not send bugreports about this yet. ;)
Storing the "lock items" setting for audit log containers on the server
The "lock items" setting on audit log containers is no longer a personal setting, but it is stored on the server and applying to all users. The new default setting is "unlocked". In corporation hangars the role "Configure
Please reply here, if you find any bugs or other problems, which we might have missed. The changes should also be covered in a DevBlog later, but I have no idea yet on when it will be ready.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
280
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 01:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sorry for the late reply - I was not in the office this afternoon.
Trying to cover the most asked questions / complaints:
- Divisions: I am afraid that it would be very difficult to bring them back. I will discuss on Monday with the team, if we could find any good alternatives.
- "too many people" issue/feature - I will investigate this in the following days, but I don't think there has been any changes made to this.
- Scanning: Items in the fleet hangar can not be scanned by cargo scanners - this has not changed. Customs officials on the other hand will find items in the fleet hangar - this has also not changed compared with the corp hangar on TQ.
- Forcefield password: They are not being transferred to other pilots. We are currently changing the way of how this is being enforced (Probably by storing the password on the character and not on the ship).
- Separate access options for SMB and Fleet hangar: I will discuss this on Monday with the team.
- "Will we be able to drop items *into* a fleet hangar if the box isn't checked?" - No, you will be unable to open the fleet hangar.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 17:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Monasucks wrote:...
there are so many good ideas here like the one with diffrent access levels for fleet or corp or just you personal - that's the way to go I think.
Would be nice to get you're feedback on monday.
It is clear to us, that we need to improve something in regards to the lost divisions and the simplified access-settings and I promise to post here on Monday after I had a talk with the team. I cannot promise, that we find a solution on Monday, but we'll try our best.
I personally like some of the posted suggestions a lot, but I am neither a programmer nor a game designer. ;)
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
291
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 18:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hey all,
Short update: We had some discussions today, but our programmer for these changes was not in the office today, so we have to wait with any decisions. I'll post here as soon as anything is decided.
A short explanation for the fleet hangar changes from my point of view: Why are doing this and removing a feature (divisions)?
The concept of having corp hangars on personal ships had some benefits, but it was a constant source of bugs and inconsistencies and it made changes to related features more difficult. For many players (and devs  ) it was also quite confusing which rules and roles apply exactly in which case. After quite some internal whining about bugs and inconsistencies it was decided to rework the whole system and convert the corporation hangars into fleet hangars - with the goal to improve the experience for all players. Unfortunately we underestimated the current usage of the corp hangars - so we need to fix this part. 
Bloodpetal wrote:
When people wonder "Do you really play this game?"... these kinds of feature changes are why.
Many of us play the game, but we cannot cover all parts in the game in the same extent. I'm personally playing the game quite a bit (and since beta) and I have some experience with capital ships - but I am for example lacking experience with super capitals (only used them on test servers). This is why these feedback threads are really important. It might have been good to get feedback form your guys before starting to code the changes - but it's at least better to get the feedback now than after the changes are on TQ.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP GingerDude
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 15:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Hey folks.
Being the guy writing this code, I think I should chime in a bit (disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread yet).
The corp hangars on ships code had to go. Sorry, but that's simply the reality of the matter. It's been broken since it was first put in the game and was made completely unfixable when fleet member access was added to the mix. And by broken I mean both design and implementation. Corp roles clashed and were inconsistent between usages, there was no way for the client to reliably know if it could access another players ship so it had to guess and handle errors (you can probably imagine how healthy and correct that was most of the time), you could put stuff in without knowing that you couldn't take it back and the list just kept growing. Every time someone fixed a bug in this code, at least two new bugs surfaced, usually within either POS corp hangar arrays or offices in stations as all 3 of them shared the same codebase. It. Had. To. Go.
So, taking as a given that we could no longer use the same code for the ships corp hangars as the other types, then the options really boil down to either a) rewrite the corp hangars on ships seperetaly, but keep the corp hangars concept, but not share the code with the other two types of corp hangars, or b) rethink the functionality. Having two almost identical corp-hangars implementations, except for a bunch of special cases, didn't ring particularly well with the engineer in me and having to construct some resemblance of sanity and to avoid code-duplication, either through inheritance or composition while doing it wasn't appealing either.
So, after asking around, both internally, via the CSM and within the player community where I know people, it was generally agreed that fleet hangars were the way to go.
I'm absolutely not dismissing any of your criticisms here, merely explaining why a change had to happen. We're putting significant effort these days to try to clean up some of the really bad code which has accumulated over the years that no-one dares touch anymore (this, crimewatch, POSes are getting some rethink Soon(tm)) because of the certain breakage said touching will cause.
That said, we can't please everybody at the same time, but we'll do our best to address your concerns wrt. the change in functionality here. We've already made a few changes to address stuff raised in this thread, but I'll leave it to CCP Habakuk and Grayscale to detail those. Keep watching this space....
Cheers.
Senior Server Programmer |
|
|
CCP GingerDude
95
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ok, I've finally read through the whole thread. Is the following a fair summary of the issues and questions raised ?
* Granularity of access, i.e. the ability to offer access to the SMB and FH separately to either corp or fleet or both.
* Visual organization, i.e. a single click to view groups of items.
* Divisional security, i.e. the ability to have a (semi-)private section and "public" section, so far accomplished with corp roles.
* Emergency fitting problem. i.e. the ability to Ctrl+A -> drag everything over the fitting screen because OMGTHEYREGANKINGMEOHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT.
* Max pilots using fitting service as once. This is actually a red herring and in any case not something I've changed, but was raised, so lets include it anyway. Maybe the restriction should be changed. No promises though.
* Question about scannability. Are FH contents scannable? Should they be?
* Question regarding loot drops. Does FH content drop as loot? Should it?
Am I missing something?
Senior Server Programmer |
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
298
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
Changes, which reached Duality with today's patch:
- Fleet hangars: Assembled containers in fleet hangars can now be used fully by the owner of the ship.
- Force field passwords: They are now stored on the server per character.
Feel free to test these changes on Duality. Bonus points for whoever finds a bug and reports it here and with a bugreport.
Further improvements to fleet hangars are being planned to address many of your concerns, but CCP Greyscale will post them later, as soon as he had time to go through them in detail.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
298
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lord Haur wrote:Containers do not fully address the concerns, partly because of the static nature of container-based divisions (although the bonus of increased storage space may alleviate this somewhat), but mainly because (as I read it) if you open the Fleet Hangar to public use, there is nothing stopping anyone simply removing the containers.
The current version on Duality is NOT how this will be released to TQ. Container-access will be changed for sure. Details will be posted by CCP Greyscale.
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:... im sorry but how is this better than where we are currently on tranquility?
Please wait for the post by CCP Greyscale. 
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
302
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 15:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Abditus Cularius wrote:Currently on Duality, the change to the fleet hangar has broken Rorqual compression. The input output options are still based on corp hangar names, but no "fleet hangar" option, making it impossible to install a compression job.
Thank you for the report! It is being fixed.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
302
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 15:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Habakuk wrote:Abditus Cularius wrote:Currently on Duality, the change to the fleet hangar has broken Rorqual compression. The input output options are still based on corp hangar names, but no "fleet hangar" option, making it impossible to install a compression job. Thank you for the report! It is being fixed. Any word on the feature changes from Grayscale?
Unfortunately he is busy with other work at the moment. I hope we can give you more information soon.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
1650
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 13:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ok, so here's our current complete plan:
- Corp hangars are now fleet hangars
- Volumes will all stay the same
- Divisions are gone, as is any other reliance on corp roles
- Ship fitting array is always available to everyone in your corp and/or your fleet
- Ship fitting arrays on ships and starbases no longer restrict the number of characters that can use them simulataneously
- Fleet hangars and ship maintenance arrays on ships both now have "allow fleet member use" and "allow corp member use" in the inventory UI
- We're adding five new non-compressive containers (from 250k m3 down to 1k m3)
- For containers in a fleet hangar, only the pilot will ever be allowed to open or remove the container; other characters will only be able to drop into the container (with a warning)
- Fleet hangars will now behave like normal cargo hold when it comes to ship scanners and loot drops (ie, will be scannable, and loot will drop from them)
We're hoping this will be the final set of adjustments, but obviously we're reading the feedback here :)
-Greyscale |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
1650
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 13:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
Salpun wrote:
Looks better but some will complain. Any word on pos security improvements or will that have to wait till the new poses?
Might want to clearify which corp hangers are effected. All ship equiped corp hangers for example.
No official word, no, sorry. And yeah, cleared that up, my bad. |
|
|
CCP GingerDude
103
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 16:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
<3
How difficult would it be, instead of having multiple different non-compressing containers, to simply create a plastic wrap which acts as a container (can be renamed), and always takes up the size of whatever its contents are?
Out of the question :) We rely heavily on items having fixed volume, particularly client side. The plastic wraps are a source of constant pain and I regard them as a spawn of Cthulu. They will be exorcized out of my codebase next time I'm in the mood for such shenanigans.
Senior Server Programmer |
|
|
CCP GingerDude
103
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 17:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
WolfSchwarzMond wrote:The removal of wrapping will imho destroy the entire Courier Contract System.
Gankers will now know exactly what's being hauled. So ganking will just get worse.
The hauler will now know what he's hauling leading to more theft of the Courier Contract unless you have a large Collateral, if the collateral is too large people won't take the contract at all.
Don't read so much into what I typed. My gripe is solely with the fact that "plastic wraps" have variable volume and that's a pain I wan't to get rid of. There are more ways around that then just flat out removing them from the game ... I'll go back to my corner now.
Senior Server Programmer |
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 19:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
m0jo wrote:#50 Posted: 2012.10.20 01:16 | Edited by: CCP Habakuk
Scanning: Items in the fleet hangar can not be scanned by cargo scanners - this has not changed. Customs officials on the other hand will find items in the fleet hangar - this has also not changed compared with the corp hangar on TQ.
#136 Posted: 2012.11.01 13:04 | Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Fleet hangars will now behave like normal cargo hold when it comes to ship scanners and loot drops (ie, will be scannable, and loot will drop from them)
So what happened here? Who had the brain fart? Also why not work on functions in the game that are broken, like say high sec ganking? High sec ganking is completely broken with no penalties at all considering what the gain is.
The design changed, mostly based on the feedback in this thread. I have to agree, that it makes much more sense to be able to scan stuff in the fleet hangars and that this stuff drops as loot.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
1662
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 23:25:00 -
[16] - Quote
Hi everyone,
Just FYI I've been out all evening and I'm not in the office tomorrow, so there may be a couple of days' delay before I get back to this thread. Panic ye not in the meantime, I'll get to it :)
-Greyscale |
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 13:36:00 -
[17] - Quote
mrpapageorgio wrote:...
Fleet hangar and SMA access controls should be totally separate. Just because I want to hand someone a rifter doesn't mean they should have access to modules in my now division less fleet hangar, or vice-versa.
...
Just for the case that this was not clear enough in the post of CCP Greyscale: Fleet Hangar and SMA access controls will be separate.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 20:12:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:
Make in-space refitting out of containers in cargo / CHA behave consistently if you're going to introduce container dependent mechanics. It's a mess that makes no sense right now.
Currently you can refit in space to fitting screen from container in cargo, CHA, cargo, but iirc not container in CHA.
You can refit from anywhere (including container in CHA) while docked to fitting screen.
Incongruously you fan refit in space to empty module slots on module bar from only cargo, not CHA or containers. The mouse icon changes like it wants to do something when dragging from container, but when you drop onto the empty module slot nothing happens. You can even more confusingly unfit from the module bars to a container.
Note: some of this may be inaccurate, I didn't re-test the mechanics to construct this post and can't recall all the specific convolutions. Suffice to say, it's a ******* mess.
I just tested this in our current development version and refitting directly from a container in a fleet hangar works fine, including dragging and dropping multiple items onto the fitting screen. We were not doing any changes to Corporate Hangar Arrays (CHA) at a POS, so any problems there will still be around.
Please feel free to test containers in fleet hangars in detail on Duality or Buckingham as soon as one of them are updated with these changes - it is easily possible that I missed some cases (but I will also test more in the following days).
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock
Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP GingerDude
107
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 15:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
Panhead4411 wrote:
So, by your statements, is it safe to assume that you are pushing for us to fill our new 'simpler' fleet hanger with containers in order to maintain a semblance of organization that we had before you decided that hanger divisions were evil?
It's not divisions that are evil, it's the fact that all the different hangars on ships *are* divisions in tech-terms. The absolute horror that was corp hangars on ships was evil and that had to go. The goal was not to remove divisions, but without some seriously major work, we can't create divisions within divisions which is why they're unlikely to come back. Sorry.
Panhead4411 wrote:
Why can we not have atleast a 'personal' hanger and a 'fleet' and 'corp' versions as well. What is wrong with us being allowed to have private hangers without the need to clutter the hold up with password'ed containers?
Aren't you basically asking for a larger cargo hold here? And you don't need any passwords on them containers. No one but the pilot will be able to open/take them/from them as long as they're in the FH.
Senior Server Programmer |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
1665
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 13:44:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cain Leigh wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Salpun wrote:
Looks better but some will complain. Any word on pos security improvements or will that have to wait till the new poses?
Might want to clearify which corp hangers are effected. All ship equiped corp hangers for example.
No official word, no, sorry. And yeah, cleared that up, my bad. In the CSM minutes of May/June 2012 p. 68 Two Step came up with this during the discussion about the new POS system and you said GÇ£We would like to code that in ASAP, even for the current system.GÇ¥ You were considering adding a new item hangar with personal storage for each pilot. Is this new item hangar still in the works? Will we get it this winter expansion?
Again, no official word, no, sorry.
Forlorn Wongraven wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Ok, so here's our current complete plan:
...
We're hoping this will be the final set of adjustments, but obviously we're reading the feedback here :)
-Greyscale Great changes right there. Can we get drops from SMA as well, please? 
Yup. Anything in any kind of bay should now be able to drop (including drone bay, SMA, ore bay etc).
Alli Othman wrote:Changes are looking much better on the user end now. I still see containers as an inferior way of managing that, but it's an adequate compromise so long as they actually work. The changes to scanability are great, can't wait for more orcas to actually be tanking out. To clarify that I am indeed reading this portion correctly... Quote:Fleet hangars and ship maintenance arrays on ships both now have "allow fleet member use" and "allow corp member use" in the inventory UI Each one has its own options now?
Yes.
Tippia wrote:Andski wrote:rodyas wrote:Ah, I did not know the ganked wreck belonged to the ganker. Then yeah that will be easy to sidestep. No, this is only the case with NPCs. Player wrecks belong to the player that lost the ship. GǪalthough it was mentioned somewhere, either in the blog or in the comment thread, that the looting rights for player wrecks would be extended to whomever caused that wreck. Combine this with the new s-flagging for theft, and it essentially creates a situation where the ganker would own the wreck.
No, the wreck-flagging change is that if you could legally kill the ship that died, you can legally loot from its wreck. Suicide-ganking does not fall into this category. |
|
|
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
852
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 13:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Fleet hangars will now behave like normal cargo hold when it comes to ship scanners and loot drops (ie, will be scannable, and loot will drop from them) FINALLY!!!!!111oneone CCP Greyscale wrote:We're adding five new non-compressive containers (from 250k m3 down to 1k m3) Are they scanable/dropable? Can they be launched from fleet-hangar and scooped back? Any timers to restrict spamming of those? Can they be opened and looted when floating in space? There are some limitations for using General Freight containers - are they applicable to those new cans? Why? Can those be used on freighters? Why? CCP Greyscale wrote:For containers in a fleet hangar, only the pilot will ever be allowed to open or remove the container; other characters will only be able to drop into the container (with a warning) Honestly, I think this is not a good decision. Fleet hangars are supposed to be usable by fleet. If the owner of the ship wants some stuff to be only accessable to him - it's when he uses normal cargo bay. I can understand the pilots of supercaps - they have to carry a lot of thing as they are not allowed to dock. I'd suggest to increase their cargo bay dramatically, same for fuel bay. As it was mentioned, noone is going to use supers as haulers anyway ;-)
Hey! Sorry for the late reply on this.
Quote:Can they be launched from fleet-hangar and scooped back? Any timers to restrict spamming of those?
Can they be opened and looted when floating in space?
There are some limitations for using General Freight containers - are they applicable to those new cans? Why?
Can those be used on freighters? Why?
The new containers will act the same as old containers. This means you cannot eject them from your fleet hanger, but you can move them to your cargo bay and eject them from there. The same timers for ejecting stuff apply to all the containers, including the new ones.
The new containers if ejected into space and be opened and looted, same as all the other containers. Well all but the station containers.
What limitations are you speaking of regarding general freight containers?
Yes, these new containers can be used in freighters. We are allowing them to be used in freighters as they are the same capacity as they are volume.
Hope that helps. :)
Content Designer | Team Five 0
@regnerBA |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
859
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 12:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
David Zahavi wrote:Aphatasis wrote:OK, here some thinkings:
Only the character flying the ship can remove the containers:
- What if the container-size is bigger than the real cargo of the ship? 3k m-¦ container in the corp hangar of a supercarrier => u need a pos to remove it or move it to another carrier. Or can u just "jettison" the container right out of the corp hangar?
If u have a container with (let's say) 25k m-¦ in a titan to store things like your named turrets, bridge mod, dd mod and it's full, so have to put stuff in the public corp hangar where it can be stolen. But if u have fitted most/all the mod of the large sizes, then the container is nearly empty, but public there are only 75k m-¦ avaiable cause the empty container need the space.
Why not: Make 2 tabs, private and public area. so u don't need to bring containers to the supers.
And: Will the pilot be able to rename the container on their own? ATM u can't and have to bring container to a station to rename it.
Will ships in the ship maintainance bays dropp too if the carrier/supercarrier/titan/rorqual/orca get's destroyed? If not, y not?
Awesome thing on the removing of the fitting-service-limitation. Was one of the most useless things i ever encountered when i got my first carrier! This. So much this. Why isnt this getting a response? This container situation is a very limiting and tedious factor to be added into the game, and seems very sub-optimal. If you're going to implement something new, do it right the first time, and don't make the situation worse.
I will pass a link to this post along to the guys working on this.
Content Designer | Team Five 0
@regnerBA |
|
|
|
| |
|