Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Valkyrie D'ark
Armed Resistance Movement
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 19:50:00 -
[271] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Misanth wrote:Damn horrible change.
EVE always rewarded those who understand mechanics, now you reward people who slack and don't know what they do. You even put a giant big icon in their face to tell them what is happening. Horrible, horrible change, absolutely horrendous, this is the kind of stuff that would never have happened the first few years of this game.
You're going in the right direction when it comes to game balance (ship, ewar etc), even tho you still do some mistakes there (HML etc); but the game in general is really going towards a happy fluffly la-la land a'la Hello Kitty's Online Adventure. Good riddance, have fun getting your customer service flooded with people who want their ship back after being killed :anywhere:. This is the kind of people you attract, and that is disregarding all the kills that used to happen that won't.
Several of my latest kills have been people I probed down after they logged off, you probably deprived me personally off a good source of kills. Because I bothered to learn game mechanics, and they didn't. And yet you reward them. Not sure how you think this is a good way to "progress", but yay to the brainiac who figured this out. Probably that lazy guy who likes to live off others. There's always someone. Grayscale would make highsec a handheld Wow-esque themepark if he could get away with it. That isnt a compliment. I have yet to see an actual change made by him or his team that isn't to the detriment of the entire game as a whole. This concept that highsec should be a bubble-wrapped experience he seems to be going off of is possibly one of the dumbest ideas ive yet seen from any patch made to EVE yet, second only to the fiasco that Zulu unwrapped with the 1000 dollar jeans thing.
I actually agree with you. While the Unified Inventory was horrid in the state it was released it didnt put you into a carebear mode by default on login which you have to switch off everytime you want to use an AOE module or commit an illegal action. Lowsec ppl will really love this. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1182
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 21:19:00 -
[272] - Quote
MainDrain wrote:Too many posts, struggling to find the answer to my quick questions
Scenario 1;
Im a high sec mission runner, im undocking and warping to the site to shoot NPCs. Do i need to set my safety to at least YELLOW to allow me to fire at the mission NPCs (as this generates a suspect flag)
Scenario 2;
Im a high sec incursion runner, im in a site. As they are concord sanctioned hostiles do i need to have my safety set to at least YELLOW to allow me to fire at Sansha.
As a general rule im very happy with this change, i was a victim of the typical can baiting as a new player when i first started, however as the new players will be killing NPC rats they will likely have their safeties set to yellow at least. This will not prevent them opening a can baiters can as this only generates a suspect flag (from memory)
Can i anyone say 100% the answers to the above You can shoot rats, mission rats, and incursion rats with the safety set to green. You can also assist anyone (rep them, etc) as long as they are not a suspect or a criminal with the safety set to green.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kevin Emoto
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 21:56:00 -
[273] - Quote
*DoubleFacepalm* so we not only have to deal with this annoying new 'feature' but will have to re-set it every time we log in?
CCP Greyscale wrote:Eli Green wrote:Jing Xin wrote:I hope safety setting is persistent through docking, jumping, logging off. If it constantly defaults to green, some people will be seriously annoyed. currently unless it has changed since last week it is not persistant Should be persisted per session, but not currently between sessions (see above). Ie, so long as you stay logged in, it stays the same; log out and it goes back to default.
|
Kevin Emoto
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 22:00:00 -
[274] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:SERIOUSLY WHO THE HELL THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA? Greyscale. This game has persistence in the majority of its features. Default orbit. Most of the UI. The configuration of our modules on the HUD. Etc. Etc. Etc. Persistence between login sessions is a default bit of design in nearly every feature CCP adds to this game, where persistence is applicable. Nobody can reasonably argue that persistence is not applicable where the safety is concerned. People are flat-out gobsmacked that it was left out of the design, because it's common sense that it would be persistent. Which suggests that leaving it out was a conscious design decision, not some oversight, or something left out due to lack of time. To maintain persistence here is the easiest thing in the world (hyperbolic, but you get the point.) Load safety setting at login. Save safety setting at logoff. That's it. Carbon probably has an API call for saving settings. This is a Greyscale initiative. And he wants to see if player whining on the issue dies down after a few weeks of it being in play. I think one thing we've all learned about Greyscale is that he really does not like PvP, and most of his design ideas reveal that as bright as day. (Notice in a quote above, when answering about persistence, Greyscale not only states he can't say when it will be fixed, he states he can't say IF it will be fixed.) Well what does it really change? PvP opportunities will be lost. You try to lock someone up, only to realize that you forgot to reset your safety back to red. By the time to correct that, the target has warped off. Ah ok I read what you mean now.... Greyscale...thats just a little change in the code...Do it please...I mean its possible to save every other little UI detail so if you do not implement it you simply do not want it. If we have to change that every single time than it is just like the infamous popup window we have now...
This....because it needs be done |
Kevin Emoto
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 22:12:00 -
[275] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:This is all EPIC - like everything that is comming out on the 4th!! It's like EvE has really REALLY stepped up to the bar.
Love it.
your troll may be a bit too subtle. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
88
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 03:13:00 -
[276] - Quote
ROXGenghis wrote:The new safety system is pretty terrible for me, as a FW pilot in lowsec.
Case 1: In a big furball, I want to be able to shoot a neutral but can't because my safety won't let me. Case 2: In the same furball, I don't want to accidentally shoot a neutral but do because my safety didn't stop me. Case 3: As a logi pilot, I want to rep a friendly who is "gcc" but can't because my safety won't let me. Case 4: As a logi pilot, I don't want to accidentally rep a friendly who is "gcc" but I do because my safety didn't stop me.
My point is, the current popup system is very useful when you're in grey areas where you aren't a pure "good guy white night anti-pirate carebear" or "bad guy flashy pirate ganker." The new system will make life very difficult for morally complex people.
^This is why you tell us about these things ahead of time. You obviously can't think of all the scenarios and uses yourselves. Please fix them ASAP, preferably before the launch.
-Make the settings persist -Keep the warning pop ups when safeties are off, with an option to permanently disable them.
How hard can it be? No, really, tell us. How hard can that be?
Thank you. |
Terrorfrodo
GNADE Inc.
243
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 09:50:00 -
[277] - Quote
Misanth wrote:30sec is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too short log off time. Have you ever combat probed people? I have. Alot. [...]
Edit; So to summarize, the only way to catch someone who logs off during safe-system now: use a cov ops pilot, with great skills, with probes pre-launched, and a smartbomb fitted so he don't have to worry about locking the pilot when landing. Preferably he also has his friends able to arrive within 10sec (titanbridge or blob or already in system etc) as you'll die immediately if this guy clicks "aboard" and kill you. I.e. this is another small-scale PvP nerf, blob boost. You shouldn't be able to catch someone who is not online anymore if he logged off without active timers and on a safespot. That's lame. The guy didn't do anything wrong or stupid, he just has to turn off his computer instead of staying logged in and going afk. Of course there should be a way to log off safely under such circumstances. . |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
547
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 10:00:00 -
[278] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Grayscale would make highsec a handheld Wow-esque themepark if he could get away with it. That isnt a compliment. I have yet to see an actual change made by him or his team that isn't to the detriment of the entire game as a whole. This concept that highsec should be a bubble-wrapped experience he seems to be going off of is possibly one of the dumbest ideas ive yet seen from any patch made to EVE yet, second only to the fiasco that Zulu unwrapped with the 1000 dollar jeans thing.
I remember failscales ideas for "improving" lowsec fighting: He wanted gate gun damage to scale up so quickly that they'd obliterate a capital in under four minutes.
Because having gate guns that, in a very short time, ramp up to capital ship melters would do wonders for small fleet fights in lowsec. Yeah, definitely *sigh* |
ANGRY23
the united Negative Ten.
29
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 10:39:00 -
[279] - Quote
Mr Greyscale by your silence and non replying to statements and concerns over this unfinished feature that has to be reset every single time we log in with no option to make it persist or have it switched off. Can i assume you are going to ignore all concerns and push this useless unfinished feature in anyway saying FU to anyone outside of high sec and then have us suffer it until you get around to finishing it in 2013, if you think it even needs finishing.
Do the right thing and scrap this rubbish until you have actually finished the content and it can be set to persist or have an option to turn the eveoneasymode button off. The button doesnt even have its own place on the hud, its just stuck on top of % read outs which makes it look even more unprofessional and rushed. Has it even been properly tested yet?
This just reminds me of the sentrygate idea where it took a shitstorm brewing before you realise its ******** and wrong. WTF are the CSM when this idea was getting thrown around and why didnt they speak up when it came to light this content is getting added in an unfinished state?
Lots of tryed, tested, taken feedback on board content in this patch and hats off to the teams that actually did complete thier content for 4th dec and who also read threads and threads and took feedback on board and acted on it before it meets tq. Then less than a week before we're hit with this rubbish unfinished useless content thats gonna be foreced on us no matter what gets said or fedback to the designers responsible,
You're gonna find another shotstorm brewing come retribution if you ignore all the concerns and this could have the potential to take the shine of an otherwise decent release. Do you want ppl talking and bigging up all the changes or do you want them on here whining about features that got rushed in regardless of customer opinion and feedback. Do the right thing Greyscale do what the other teams do and actually llisten to the ppl that help pay your wages every month by paying for said unfinished substandard content.
Was looking forward to 4th Dec now i couldnt care less cause i know i have to be force fed a feature everytime i log in that was called as being **** before its even impllemented but was just added anyway. Im sure im not the only one. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
903
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 10:47:00 -
[280] - Quote
StevieTopSiders wrote:Can a dev shed some light on where and why you appear in space after a safe log-out?
Doing some preliminary testing, I usually end up a few AU away from celestials (and where I logged out) after a safe log-out. I tried safe logging-out in a POS: on the first try I appeared near my other log-in points (not near where I logged out and a few AU away from celestials in space), but not there exactly; on the second try, I appeared back in the POS.
Thanks! Yes, there's currently a bug on Buckingham where the location of your ship is not persisted to the DB when using the safe-logoff. This has already been fixed internally, and will probably make its way on to the test server either today or tomorrow. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
Landrae
Sacred Templars Unclaimed.
386
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 11:11:00 -
[281] - Quote
This isn't a pvp whine or tears just an observation as a seasoned MMO gamer. These kind of subtle changes were how the decline of games like World of Warcraft started. And yes I know what all you forums troll's are going to say "LOL you play wow you noob." Wow was once a very decent game, the gradual decline in game quality by way of making the game less challenging in order to appeal to a wider audience for the purpose of increasing company profit. Now I know that is blizzards new company policy by their obvious decline in their games quality across the board and I just hope and pray that this is not the direction Eve is headed. Welcome to Eve Online |
Veronika Kastrato
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 11:35:00 -
[282] - Quote
lol make safety mechanics for not burning my modules rather |
Andy Moo
the united Negative Ten.
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 11:45:00 -
[283] - Quote
Greyscale, why does everything you touch end up being a clusterfuck ?
I mean seriously you're saying that this won't persist when you log out so I'll have to turn off your latest creation every time I log in and there will be no way you can implement that before the patch ? Says to me that this is yet another feature you're bringing in half finished.
Can I please request that in future when you implement a new feature the first thing you work on is the disable function, test that and then continue coding your latest abomination. |
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada The Veyr Collective
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 12:23:00 -
[284] - Quote
For all the people moaning that it doesnt persist between log on times ... does it really matter ... it will take 5 seconds to perform the two clicks required to disable it, it will just an extra 5 seconds when you turn on your defensive modules as you undock.
It is dumbing down the game a bit in favour of new players and those that don't engage in any suspect activity, but increasing the retention of new players is key to keeping the game alive. This change is not something that should really put off any dedicated Vets
just my 2isk worth anyway |
Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
77
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 13:51:00 -
[285] - Quote
Masterplan: Since you are obviously following this thread, please respond to this non-persistence problem instead of pretending it's not there while answering others. Also as I said on Twitter last night, if we're to be force fed this "feature", at least have the decency to have yellow be the default, please. |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 14:01:00 -
[286] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:So, i'm infering from your 'safety feature' that you think the average EVE player has the intelligence of a turnip and need their hand holding
I've seen the following sentiment all over this thread.
Gaufres wrote:So, as I see it, if I warp to the next room in a Complex or mission and my client freezes, I do not go away and the rats kill me because I have aggression and my client is frozen. Is CCP going to give me my ship back when this happens?
It seems that some EVE players are, in fact, dumb asses. Unless there's an effort made to log in hundreds or thousands of ships and shut down a node, if your client freezes and disconnects, it's because your machine sucks, or your connection sucks. Neither of which are CCP's responsibility. |
Kambiri Zoltana
the united Negative Ten.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 14:03:00 -
[287] - Quote
Grayscale is a stupid ****. Great, each time I loggin I have to press that gay button. Eachtime i login an extra client I have to press it again as pirate.
As a pirate, everytime I want to undock, I get a pop-up box do u want to undock with agression. We told u so at fanfest 2012, its still there. Its been there 3 years.
Grayscale I told u at fanfest 2011 how a battleship should never escape from a 2k scanress interdictor with a cloak and mwd, you smiled like an ingorant moron and forgot about it the next morning. this bug still presists in the game.
Fire this moron and hire a good worker that doent implement stupid stuff. If this is all he does, make a button that will enoy the hell out of pirate he should be looking for a new job. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2772
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 14:57:00 -
[288] - Quote
Some Rando wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Well, if you've been shot, you can return fire without changing them That's a good point, but when I'm out roaming I like to shoot first as much as possible and with targets (unwilling or not) as rare as they are in some places, well... maybe you can see what I'm getting at.
I stand corrected. I forgot that they likely need the suspect flag to trigger gate gun aggression.
For now the saving grace is that if you forget it only takes a split second to switch it to a different state. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
1851
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 14:59:00 -
[289] - Quote
I thought the current system worked perfectly fine...meh...can't hurt to have options I guess. I think all the lowercase letters for "Time until safe logoff" looks rather dumb...should just capitalize all of them. Or at least put a period or three at the end... <----like that. EVE is not about PvP.-á EVE is about the SANDBOX! |
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
269
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 15:05:00 -
[290] - Quote
Cool!
Another feature that caters towards the stupid and ********, good job and well spent dev hours, I heard POS and various other core elements of the game work perfectly fine.
|
|
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 15:12:00 -
[291] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:For now the saving grace is that if you forget it only takes a split second to switch it to a different state. Eh... Don't you have to "confirm" changing safety state?
I know it's not the end of the world, it's just... stupid. |
ANGRY23
the united Negative Ten.
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 15:41:00 -
[292] - Quote
I'm still waiting on valid reason from dev's from this team for implementing this unfinished product that isnt persistant and cant be set to default red/off. This shouldnt be force fed to low sec or null sec players if it cant like everything else in the client be customisable by the user and remembered when i log off. Every other team has been making changes based on customer feedback from testing and forum posts and have listened to feedback from us, so far i see devs only replying to questions regarding parts of this blog people arent whining about. Lots of cool stuff coming on tuesday and this just puts a massive smudge on the icing of an otherwise decent expansion.
Have it remember our prefences or dont add it till it can. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2772
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:24:00 -
[293] - Quote
Some Rando wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:For now the saving grace is that if you forget it only takes a split second to switch it to a different state. Eh... Don't you have to "confirm" changing safety state? I know it's not the end of the world, it's just... stupid. If you are lowering the level of safety, yes. I'm not saying it should not be made persistant, however it takes far less than a second to make 2 mouse clicks. Of course that IS just long enough to miss getting a point on something. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Jouron
Hadon Shipping
41
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:27:00 -
[294] - Quote
TLDR: 1. The new log off timer is just ugly and could be implemented in a more stream lined way. 2. Persistence mechanics were fine the way they were they just needed better explanation to new players 3. Safety is an interesting idea from a simulator stand point, and just because can/mission baiting is dead doesn't mean all forms of non invited pvp are dead. Text wall apologies all around.
"Happy Safe Fun time!" Probably not the best title for this blog considering how much negative fire its drawn, people hear that name and they automatically think: "Hello kitty Online."
Honestly I dont think any of the devs behind this are "idiots or fools" I just have to say that the giant timer, was a little much. I mean when I saw how much real estate It took up on the screen. It was almost comical.
1. Now changes that make eve more inviting to new players could be helpful because it means theres more new players to pew. But changes that are too hand holdy seem slightly counter productive to the whole EVE is hard image. The timer is just too in your face. For crime watch you have these great little timers and sound effects for keeping track of flags, why couldn't that have been used instead of this giant bulky interrupting counter that pops up on your screen. Why not just have some kind of top left hand counter that would slowly tick down to a green check mark and then when you mouse over it it would simply state:"Clear to log off safely" or something along the lines of that.
2. I have never had a problem with the log off timer being a minute. Honestly other then bot ratters in nullsec I dont think any one has had a problem with that. The first time I got killed when I was logged off aggressed was a shock, but once It was explained it made sense. I dont think you need to mess with current persistence mechanics I just think you needed to explain the current ones better to new players.
Now for the safety button at first i thought it was cool because Im a big fan of realistic flight simulators like F18 super hornet etc, games where if your joystick has a safety you actually have to disengage it if you want any of your weapons to go hot. Simulator wise I liked the idea of it. The lack of explanation in eve meant people who did there homework had an advantage. Knowledge was power. So can flipping would be dead essentially, or tricking mission runners would be dead as long as they never touched the little green button. Un complicating aggression did seem a very Un EVE thing to do. You should always be able to gank some one if that gets your jollies off, but at the same time, some one shouldn't die because they didn't dig through the forums on day one to read some archaic rule regarding agression mechanics.
When I brought up some of the concerns i read on this forum about the safety with a friend he simply asked: "Can I still gank some one in high sec?" "Yes," "So the other players safety doesn't stop me from ganking them even if its on?" "Right" " Then why would I care?"
Its going to be very easy to pick up a suspect flag come the 4th. If you think no one will be flagged because there too afraid of getting blobbed I think you'll be surprised. Will you be able to 'trick' people. No. But honestly I feel thats a leveling of the playing field. If a random person flying by is flagged people may just decide,"What the hell Ill go for it," and still end up dying any ways the same way they would if they saw some one go red next to there can or mission.
3. It may be more costly but we can still gank people in high sec, so no, just because mission and can baiting is gone doesn't mean all forms of that kind of pvp in high sec is dead. With the bounty system people like goons may just start putting bounties on miners directly to encourage there ganking and to make it profitable. People will just have to learn how to get fights with the new system. It doesn't mean those same fights just will cease to exist. We claim were more clever then people who dont read the rules. On dec 4th we'll have to prove it when rubber meets the road. It will be more about being a pool hustler, and less about being a lawyer. You cant win every case because of sub section b clause a any longer. You have to make people think they can beat you when they dont have a chance. Its eve. How hard is that? In both those situations you used miss direction to win. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2772
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:28:00 -
[295] - Quote
ANGRY23 wrote:I'm still waiting on valid reason from dev's from this team for implementing this unfinished product that isnt persistant and cant be set to default red/off. This shouldnt be force fed to low sec or null sec players if it cant like everything else in the client be customisable by the user and remembered when i log off. Every other team has been making changes based on customer feedback from testing and forum posts and have listened to feedback from us, so far i see devs only replying to questions regarding parts of this blog people arent whining about. Lots of cool stuff coming on tuesday and this just puts a massive smudge on the icing of an otherwise decent expansion.
Have it remember our prefences or dont add it till it can.
1: Yes, it should be made persistant as soon as feasable, preferably in the point release that will follow shortly after the main release (since everything is feature locked at this point).
2: It would be incredibly stupid to make the default of a safety to be the "Off" position. Anything else would be extremely counter intuitive and user unfriendly. Don't undermine the only valid point you have.
3: How many alts are you going to post in this thread with. So far I count 2... or is it 3 now? To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Keyanu
the united Negative Ten.
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:32:00 -
[296] - Quote
Yet another half finished, half thought feature to implement the game brought to us by CCP Useless.. sorry Greyscale.
I would have thought it was obvious that if it isn't working properly on test server, then don't put it on TQ.
Someone should moderate this guy. |
uNtOldPAIN
the unified Negative Ten.
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:33:00 -
[297] - Quote
Sees a target *clicks module to shoot* Box pops up " Dont you want to shoot? Yes/No" Clicks "Yes" Another box pops up" Do you really want to shoot? Yes/No" Clicks "Yes" Another box pops up "Really, are you sure you want to shoot? Last time I will ask. Yes/No" Clicks 'Yes" Looks for target that has now jumped 5 systems away. |
SB Rico
the united Negative Ten.
33
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:33:00 -
[298] - Quote
Andy Moo wrote:I mean seriously you're saying that this won't persist when you log out so I'll have to turn off your latest creation every time I log in and there will be no way you can implement that before the patch ? Says to me that this is yet another feature you're bringing in half finished.
Can I please request that in future when you implement a new feature the first thing you work on is the disable function, test that and then continue coding your latest abomination.
Edit: Person attack removed, CCP Phantom
Fantastic!
Now when I log on I will get to play "where the hell are my ships?" with the stupid inventory I can't turn off, (at this point enjoying a momentary feeling of relief that CQ at least can be turned off for good) then after several weeks of looking and having finally found it I undock, (which thanks to another CCP "improvement" takes another week) rush to join the fleet, several decades late, lock up a target hit F1... and watch the target escape as I hadn't thought about turning off the damn, stupid feature I turned off yesterday.
Thanks CCP for improving the gaming experience.
So I want to second Andy here, PLEASE before you implement a change add in that little bit of code that let's us remove it completely. |
CracatusMilo
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:34:00 -
[299] - Quote
getting Concorded and trying to work out why, is one of the first steps in new players turn to all those great wikis and guides made by players past and present.
Have lost far more ships double clicking in space and not noticing.
IMHO think the safeties are unnecessary at best and a dumb-down at worst.
"If u loose one rifter to Concord, its a misfortune. to loose two is carelessness." |
SB Rico
the united Negative Ten.
33
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:36:00 -
[300] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:ANGRY23 wrote:I'm still waiting on valid reason from dev's from this team for implementing this unfinished product that isnt persistant and cant be set to default red/off. This shouldnt be force fed to low sec or null sec players if it cant like everything else in the client be customisable by the user and remembered when i log off. Every other team has been making changes based on customer feedback from testing and forum posts and have listened to feedback from us, so far i see devs only replying to questions regarding parts of this blog people arent whining about. Lots of cool stuff coming on tuesday and this just puts a massive smudge on the icing of an otherwise decent expansion.
Have it remember our prefences or dont add it till it can. 1: Yes, it should be made persistant as soon as feasable, preferably in the point release that will follow shortly after the main release (since everything is feature locked at this point). 2: It would be incredibly stupid to make the default of a safety to be the "Off" position. Anything else would be extremely counter intuitive and user unfriendly. Don't undermine the only valid point you have. 3: How many alts are you going to post in this thread with. So far I count 2... or is it 3 now?
Corpmates agreeing with him, yes but he has posted on no alts tyvm.
Oh and for a pirate setting the default to green/on is a pretty stupid idea which is why Angry is asking that we all as players have the ability to choose the default setting for our own needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |