|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 22 post(s) |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
28
   |
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Indeterminacy wrote:Wibla wrote:1. Separate access options for SMB and Fleet hangar
2. Do not remove divisions from the fleet hangar. I disagree. The current mechanism being tested is simpler. Simpler = better IMO.
Tell me about the billions of isk and hundreds of items you have stored in your capital ship. No?
We need divisions to maintain organization in bays. The names of the divisions are always the corp names, but in my capitals they're all used for my personal use and allow me to quickly find a bunch of items that I want grouped together. EX: OH GOD, SWAP FROM CAP FIT TO TANK FIT NOW NOW NOW |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:Sorry I didn't realize a bunch of you were insane and just lugging around valuable equipment in capital hangers 24/7 for whatever reason instead of either keeping them locked away in stations/POS hangers or actively using them. Guess I'm a weirdo and put my toys away when I'm not using them?
I've spent enough time in the S&I window, POSes, PI, and the such to stop trying to meticulously place everything in perfect little stacks. Waste of effort, truly. I just fill things up and hit build/transfer/whatever until everything's done and move on with my day.
You don't have a supercarrier or titan do you. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP, what I think we'd all REALLY like to see is a customizable hanger layout for ships with an overall max m3 limit. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 01:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:
- 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.
Mate, this was a wonderful feature that a lot of capital and super capital pilots used. Why did you go and gut it? |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 13:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tetania wrote:
Because standing still and not iterating on the already dated feeling UI is what Eve needs for it's next 10 years.
There is a difference between iterating on functionality and outright removing it. You never take functionality away. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 17:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:
When people wonder "Do you really play this game?"... these kinds of feature changes are why.
Not empty quoting. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote: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?
* The "drop-only" functionality, i.e. you can put stuff in, but not view or take
Am I missing something?
[edited to add that last part]
This sounds like an accurate collection of concerns from this thread. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
53
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 17:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:
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.
You what? 
So do you just suggest that freighters bound for lowsec with goods to be jump freighted into nullsec should make 100 runs instead of 10 runs? Logistics for moving goods into null are already a pain, and null doesn't have the industrial might to make everything on our own. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
55
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
No, there will be no more divisions. The new coders are unable to read the old code, so it has to go. They're also unable to recode it in code they can read, in order to copy the functionality that is already provided, so we'll get containers instead.
To be fair, I can sympathize with what CCP is going through codewise. A lot of the codebase I work in at work is from the 70s and it has evolved into a twisted mess after 40 years worth of revisions. Sometimes you just need to bite the bullet and gut everything so you can build it back up in a way that is straightforward instead containing a decade's worth design decisions twisting the code in different ways.
I don't agree with them dropping functionality however, but I'm more or less okay with the container based replacement for corp hangers in ships. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
55
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
All CCP would do is increase the number of other required components to account for the drop off in hanger bays. This is a non-issue compared to most other problems. |
|
|
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
56
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 18:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
Cid Tazer wrote:(slight bit of ignorance but if you have a carrier now, but do not have permissions to the director's division, can stuff be put into your carrier that you cannot access?)
What a surprise! Someone who doesn't have a capital is perfectly fine with this change and is telling us it's fine. 
As for your question, no. Corp hangars in ships allow the pilot of the vessel full access to each hangar, and allow people with appropriate roles access to whatever hangar they would normally be able to access in a station when the ship is in reconfig mode. |
|
|
| |
|