Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Konflikt
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 11:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Team Pink Zombie Kittens has been hard at work making new features for your entertainment pleasure.
These include: * Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare. * The New Neocom * Corporation Locations (Bookmarks) can now be saved directly into the Corporations folder.
When Singularity next starts these will be available to you. Your feedback and bug reports would be invaluable to us. |
|
McFly
Peanut Factory Good Sax
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 11:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote: * Corporation Locations (Bookmarks) can now be saved directly into the Corporations folder.
Thank You.
|
Rixiu
North Star Networks The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 12:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:* The New Neocom
Curious about this, is it an improvement or a redesign like that ... thing we got a year ago?
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 12:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
Oh my! :O |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
546
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 12:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Quote:* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare. Inevitable I guess.
Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind?
(Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-)) |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
488
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 13:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
shift overload works great, tested toggling... perfect. neocom is cool too, customizable, integrated skill progress, area for minimized windows... I like it very much.
small improvement could be made with the blinking neocom animation. its currently hard to see. But this is only cosmetics.
great work overall! a new bounty system for eve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
|
CCP Konflikt
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 13:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:Quote:* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare. Inevitable I guess. Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind? (Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-))
All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained.
A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance.
Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW.
Feel free to ask more. |
|
Rixiu
North Star Networks The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 13:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Jesus ******* christ, third time I'm writing this now. These forums are ******* ****.
The new neocom is nice and pretty.
Some early feedback:
- The "click once to open twice to minimize" behaviour for the icons need to be changed back to "click once to open, twice to close" since it makes more sense in the way we use eve windows. I rarely want to minimize and if I do I click the minimize button.
- "Accessories", "Business" and "social" need their own unique icons in the eve-menu that still show that it's a group. The time it takes to open the menu need to be shorter. Animation is fine but the delay before the animation starts and the fact that the beginning of the animation itself is a bit slow need to be fixed.
- Right clicking on a icon should bring up more things than "remove" (remove should not be there when the necom is locked), mail should have "new mail", people and places "add location", wallet "give money" etc. Either via a regular right click menu or something like what you get when right clicking on the task bar on windows 7 (latter would probably be more inline with the rest of the new neocom design).
- Dragging the fitting icon to chat windows could share your fit much like dragging the name of the ship in the fitting window itself to the fitting window would do.
|
DelBoy Trades
Enslave. GIANTSBANE.
194
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 13:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
/me stares dubiously at the new neocom. Damn nature, you scary! |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
170
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 14:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sweet. Will bug report the following after the next release if not fixed.
Right-click mod changes to Neocom do not work with the new neocom. Ships and Items still show in the Neocom even if they show in station services. Drag and drop of icons on the Neocom that are in lower folders would be nice. Option to show name tabs of folders at the bottom of the screen if minimized needs to come back. Option to turn on or off would be nice to.
|
|
Seriphyn Inhonores
Eleutherian Guard
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 15:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
If an alliance holds sovereignty, can they still join FW?
Because if they can, that means you'll have massive, supercap-hotdropping alliances who play nullsec sov wars being able to come in and play FW at the same time. How is this balanced? Current corps to FW don't have access to supercaps and all this 300-man blob fighting. You're basically allowing monolithic entities like PL being able to have their foots in both camps, and you're also adding to the mission running endemic.
"Hm, nothing going on? Let's clonejump to empire and carebear up the missions with 0% risk to our ships"
Or "No new sov to take? let's go **** up some FW subcap fleet". They can sit on the periphery and do their nullsec thing, then intervene on a rainy day when they feel like it. |
Rona Atani
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 15:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
Interesting. On the one hand, not all alliances will be able to join the amarr/caldari side, since they will then incur faction standing penalties when shooting at each other. On the other hand, if some of them join the gallente/minmatar side, then they lose access to the jita/amarr trade hubs (at least on their mains).
Konflikt, could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)? |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
546
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 15:50:00 -
[13] - Quote
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:Current corps to FW don't have access to supercaps This is (sadly) wrong. :-/ |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
717
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 15:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
As one of the principle people trying to organize and funnel feedback from the FW community to the CCP Devs, let me say right now I think that this proposal for adding Alliances to Faction Warfare is completely premature. I also think it demonstrates a lack of consideration for the FW community and their list of top issues that need to be resolved.
I'll say it again, as have hundreds of us before, time after time -
The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Adding more pilots to an already broken system will not "fix" Faction Warfare.
The goal is NOT simply to add more pilots to militia rosters. It is to make the gameplay fun enough and meaningful enough that people will be attracted to it.
This is precisely why most of us soundly rejected Soundwave's proposal to extend FW boundaries into highsec - expanding a stagnating warzone doesnt deal with stagnation.
I personally have always been open to adding Alliances into Faction Warfare, and I understand historically it was ratified by CSM and placed on CCP's official agenda, but that was years ago. A lot has changed since than, CCP's approach should be to listen to those of us trying to organize the feedback about the way Faction Warfare is TODAY, and not just plow forward on an itemized list of fixes from the past without considering the current community or how this affects them.
My own opinions about Alliance participation aside, I want to state for the record that majority of the current FW community is strongly opposed to simply allowing Alliance participation into FW given its current state. Numerous reasons have been cited - the missions are still broken and easily farmable, meaning Alliances will be attracted to mission income, not to the warzone PvP, and again, adding more pilots doesnt give them any reason to fight. Without reworking plexes or station gun mechanics to discourage "blob warfare", Alliance numbers could potentially kill the small fleet feel of Faction Warfare that is the reason most current pilots participate.
CCP should STRONGLY reconsider the timing of this, and very much consider waiting to allow Alliances into Faction Warfare once it has been truly iterated upon and has a solid mechanical base to build from, the current system is simply not engaging enough to support a large influx of players who may be disappointed in what they find and leave as quickly as they joined. The goal should be LASTING improvements to the system, not simply implementing items that are easy to program first without considering how this will affect current players.
Faction Warfare pilots are already teetering on the edge in terms of subcription commitments given the years of neglect - and I personally know many that will unsub immediately if this becomes implemented before a REAL set of Faction Warfare fixes is taken care of first. CCP should pay heed here, and respond to these issues before simply waving a wand and allowing Alliances in.
Think of the bottom line here CCP - I've heard far more pilots who currently fly in a militia say they'll unsub over this change than I ever have heard an Alliance pilot say "I'm going to unsub if I cant stay in my Alliance AND join FW". You could stand to lose isk (the real kind) over this if not handled respectfully towards the FW community. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:06:00 -
[15] - Quote
Rona Atani wrote:...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)? A fix for that has just gone in for testing today. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
717
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Rona Atani wrote:...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)? A fix for that has just gone in for testing today.
Excellent news! THIS is a step in the right direction....the Alliance issue, however, needs some serious evaluation from developers before moving forward onto Tranquility.
Keep in mind that with the Alliance changes Singularity will NOT appropriately model the effects of this change. We're not talking module stats or combat performance, we're talking waves in the social fabric of New Eden that doesnt exist on the test server.
I strongly suggest that the developers review this very important poll on Shalee Lianne's popular "Sov Wars" blog that highlights the FW community and acts as a voice for those of us who participate. The poll is divided, but developers should keep in mind that even amongst those that are open-minded about allowing Alliances in, it is with certain caveats and protections (such as forgoing Soveriegnty in nullsec) that are not currently being considered, unless Konflict has more to share with us.
Please devs, I URGE you to respond to the community's concerns about this change, and not simply move forward because its one of the oldest "fixes" on the list or one of the easiest to implement. |
mkint
604
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
Hooray for the final death of Faction Warfare!
Can we have the final death of Sov Warfare next? |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:Arkady Sadik wrote:Quote:* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare. Inevitable I guess. Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind? (Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-)) All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained. A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance. Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW. Feel free to ask more.
I would suggest you change the standing requirement dramatically. I would say all corps in a FW alliance must have in the neighborhood of 3.0 to 5.0 standing or higher with their faction. This might keep it to alliances being formed between existing FW corps and existing RP alliances, both of which already have good standing to their respective factions. 0.5 will allow every alliance in the game to join a faction, because why not?
Also, you need to add the cannot hold sov requirement as well. |
Hrett
Quantum Cats Syndicate
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
I was going to post on our corp boards today to comment about lack of targets since it seems many caldari have moved on. I appreciate the addition of possible new targets, but this is a bit overkill. ;). Thanks for the attention though.
Keeping an open mind... |
Pyre leFay
True Blue Haulers
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
The updated Compare Tool should be added to new neo-com accessories list and given a shortcut. Its too nice of a feature to be buried under ship/item info windows and tabs to use.
|
|
Mystical Might
The Imperial Fedaykin
69
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote: I would suggest you change the standing requirement dramatically. I would say all corps in a FW alliance must have in the neighborhood of 3.0 to 5.0 standing or higher with their faction. This might keep it to alliances being formed between existing FW corps and existing RP alliances, both of which already have good standing to their respective factions. 0.5 will allow every alliance in the game to join a faction, because why not?
Also, you need to add the cannot hold sov requirement as well.
1.0+ maybe, but not too high. Most of the militia corps don't actually have that high a standing. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
237
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:07:00 -
[22] - Quote
Most militia corps do not have access to null in general .. different cakes .. it is a choice, simple as that.
Here's a wrench: If alliance XY joins militia YY, then all members of militia YY become blue to everyone XY is blue with overriding all player settings. Blue-on-Blue violence, best violence! Betcha alliances would think twice before sitting down to milk our cow!
Seriously though, ask around the office as to why one of the first and most persistent requests with regards to FW has not been implemented if it was so easy to code. Want to bet that there's a wall with some holes from some hapless Dev trying to think of ways to add it without killing FW in the process?
A lot of consciously chose not to do the blob thing, aka. null, don't force it down our throats now .. at least not without adding some other venue where we can kill each other. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
719
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:19:00 -
[23] - Quote
Hrett wrote:I was going to post on our corp boards today to comment about lack of targets since it seems many caldari have moved on. I appreciate the addition of possible new targets, but this is a bit overkill. ;). Thanks for the attention though.
Keeping an open mind...
I absolutely agree, FW needs more numbers. But it needs improvement so much more so. It's not the idea of allowing Alliances into FW, its the timing of this change. I think Faction Warfare should see its fixes and improvements worked on first, and once the core system is finally iterated upon, THAN the floodgates should be open to invite a larger participation level. This change should take place after summer expansion, when FW should see some actual improvement to the core system.
Increasing numbers without making Faction Warfare fundamentally more entertaining and more meaningful in terms of occupation / sovereignty effects does nothing for the community or the feature. People have been slowly leaving over the years, its not that there's not fun fights amongst those of us that are left, there certainly are, but there isn't a true "carrot in front of the horse" that keeps people sticking around for the long haul other than for purely arbitrary reasons.
This will simply increase the amount of people passing through the revolving door, joining FW and leaving when they realize its pointless other than being a large wardec more or less.
One advantage though, once Alliances join up, if CCP hasn't worked on anything else in the FW system, we'll have that many more players demanding improvements here on the forums!! FW will have a lot more exposure in terms of people complaining about the core issues that need to be fixed if CCP's approach here is to increase participation in a system without fixing it first. Still, that's not much of a "bright side" to this change. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
719
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:23:00 -
[24] - Quote
A reminder for the Devs - much feedback about this Alliance issue will likely be appearing in this thread, the primary one regarding Faction Warfare changes. I'll do my best to herd the cats into either this thread or the other, but due to its nature the main thread is bound to have as much feedback as this one will regarding the issue. Definitely keep an eye out here if you're genuinely seeking the community's thoughts regarding the proposed changes. |
Shaalira D'arc
Quantum Cats Syndicate
342
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
The remote rep standings fix was long overdue, so kudos for that.
I would have to agree that a re-examination of fundamental FW mechanics, such as plexes and missions, is more urgent than shoehorning Alliances into FW.
That said, I'm rather ambivalent about the 'alliances in FW' prospect. There are a number of corporations that would like to join FW, if they didn't have to break up their alliance to do so. On the other hand, there is a danger of inducing hundreds-strong blobs and supercap warfare into an area of PvP that largely goes without. I think the standings requirement isn't enough. One proposal fielded by the community, which I endorse, is that alliances can enter FW as long as they don't hold sovereignty.
If you want an RP explanation behind that, say the Empires would rather not allow capsuleers to bear their flag, when those capsuleers are making competing territorial claims. |
Princess Nexxala
The Rock Hard Roosters
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
I have to disagree with you on this point. While what you state is in fact a problem...the primary problem facing FW right now is a lack of stuff to shoot. In relation to that point is the standings bug that occurs when repping flashy friendlies...making it harder for many FW members to expand beyond standard war targets when it comes to finding stuff to shoot.
This addresses both of those issues nicely.
I for one cant wait to see terrible alliances joining FW in order to own all us FW noobs :) Should make for a good time.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Is sexy time? |
MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
Shaalira D'arc wrote:The remote rep standings fix was long overdue, so kudos for that.
I would have to agree that a re-examination of fundamental FW mechanics, such as plexes and missions, is more urgent than shoehorning Alliances into FW.
That said, I'm rather ambivalent about the 'alliances in FW' prospect. There are a number of corporations that would like to join FW, if they didn't have to break up their alliance to do so. On the other hand, there is a danger of inducing hundreds-strong blobs and supercap warfare into an area of PvP that largely goes without. I think the standings requirement isn't enough. One proposal fielded by the community, which I endorse, is that alliances can enter FW as long as they don't hold sovereignty.
If you want an RP explanation behind that, say the Empires would rather not allow capsuleers to bear their flag, when those capsuleers are making competing territorial claims.
I totally agree that fixes to current aspects of FW need to take priority over adding new features. Fixing the -5 rep is a huge step for that (as many of the corps operate as "privateers" for more targets). Other fixes/changes are also needed. Victory points: Remove them or make them useful. Occupancy: Again, give it a practical (and not just RP) purpose (i.e. bonuses to the occupant, negative modifiers for the opponent, etc.)
As far as alliances go, I am certainly for them IF they cannot hold sov. The only thing you would accomplish by not doing this is making lowsec a sort of null sec without the bubbles/bombs. Am I also to assume that by adding alliances into militia, those alliances would be able to participate in the Alliance Tournaments? There are plenty of good pilots in militia that can't do that right now unless they leave for null. |
SPYDERWOLF
The Black Pigs The Black Pigs Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:11:00 -
[28] - Quote
I like that idea make it advantageous to join FW no alliances that hold sov would probably make a lot more appealing to people |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
17
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Rona Atani wrote:...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)? A fix for that has just gone in for testing today.
My hope is the that following question can be answered no:
Do you lose any faction standing for repping any gcc or perma-flashy(who is <-5 but not currently gcc) regardless of whether that perma flashy is in your corp, militia etc?
If not, then read on:
My question is about the scope (e.g. corporation members, militia, anyone? gcc or perma flashy?)
Is there any difference between repping a gcc or perma-flashy person?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy at all?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your militia?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your corporation? |
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar
190
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
I think FW itself should be fixed before allowing whole alliances to join. I've done reading and heard a lot of opinions.
Yes, it would encourage blobbing on a gross scale. I enjoy organized fleet fights (see also: the recent defense of a CTRL-Q customs office, iirc), but not wanton blobs whenever a large corp is bored. Of course, if a large group wants to blob, they'll blob.
And there is where FW can be fixed. Give larger groups something to do other than camp stargates. The plexing system is a bit better, now that the complexes respawn every half hour. Even so, there is not a lot of incentive to take complexes and occupy a system. Why? There is no reward, other than bragging rights!
I think, for example, it would be cool if Incursion-like debuffs occured if you occupy an enemy sov system, especially if such debuffs applied directly and only to the faction that lost the system. Let's say the Minmatar militia takes Arzad. I think it would be neat if all Amarr FW suffered some slight debuffs while in Minmatar-occupied Arzad, as this would provide incentive for the Minmatar to take it (and reap easier kills after), and for the Amarr to defend (so they don't suffer the debuffs). And for a system that is completely uncontested and occupancy matches sov, provide a "home field advantage" buff.
Something, people. Ever since the Incursions started we know you can do system-wide buffs/debuffs, and it would certainly make FW interesting and occupancy worthwhile. Once that's done, alliances can come in and sway the tide of battles.
Fix FW, make it worthwhile. Then talk about alliances joining. |
|
Ava Starfire
Teraa Matar
173
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
How about "cannot dock in system controlled by opposing Militia"
Always found it odd I can dock up in a 24th IC station in a system that is under Amarrian control... |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:42:00 -
[32] - Quote
Rek Jaiga wrote: I think, for example, it would be cool if Incursion-like debuffs occured if you occupy an enemy sov system, especially if such debuffs applied directly and only to the faction that lost the system. Let's say the Minmatar militia takes Arzad. I think it would be neat if all Amarr FW suffered some slight debuffs while in Minmatar-occupied Arzad, as this would provide incentive for the Minmatar to take it (and reap easier kills after), and for the Amarr to defend (so they don't suffer the debuffs). And for a system that is completely uncontested and occupancy matches sov, provide a "home field advantage" buff.
I am very much against any stick (as opposed to carrot) mechanism in FW. This will just encourage people to leave for the winning side when things look bad. The big thing that discourages plexing for me right now are NPC's: what you suggest cripples fighting in systems even more.
I am all for carrots to make plexing worthwhile though, but don't mess with the ability to pvp. If you do, the underdog at the time (who is usually the underdog for lack of active people) will have even more against them. |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
97
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:44:00 -
[33] - Quote
Any chance that the in-game calculator can get some love?
I would like to be able to use the number pad for operators (+ - / *) and = (num pad enter)
The fact that I cannot do this makes me want to keep a real calc at my desk or tab out of the game. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
721
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:50:00 -
[34] - Quote
chatgris wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Rona Atani wrote:...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)? A fix for that has just gone in for testing today. My hope is the that following question can be answered no: Do you lose any faction standing for repping any gcc or perma-flashy(who is <-5 but not currently gcc) regardless of whether that perma flashy is in your corp, militia etc? If not, then read on: My question is about the scope (e.g. corporation members, militia, anyone? gcc or perma flashy?) Is there any difference between repping a gcc or perma-flashy person? Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy at all? Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your militia? Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your corporation?
Agreed, we need a clarified set of rules from the developers outlining what will cause what post-bug-fix. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
237
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:23:00 -
[35] - Quote
"Fix FW first, open door after" .. this seems to be the mantra du jour .
I can live/work with that
- Occupancy needs consequences attached (carrots for the wabbits!) - NPC balance needs to be addressed one way or another. - Missions need tweaks to discourage the annoyingly common solo bombers. |
Night Epoch
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
51
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
New NeoCom Screenshots
Great work m8s. |
VonKolroth
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:10:00 -
[37] - Quote
I like the functionality of the new Neocom, especially the scaling. The only thing it is lacking that I really, really have had my heart set on was, "Align Top/Bottom". If I could have that with the window icons center in the bar, it would be phenomenal for Eyefinity setups. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
233
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:12:00 -
[38] - Quote
chatgris wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Rona Atani wrote:...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)? A fix for that has just gone in for testing today. My hope is the that following question can be answered no: Do you lose any faction standing for repping any gcc or perma-flashy(who is <-5 but not currently gcc) regardless of whether that perma flashy is in your corp, militia etc? My answer is: No With this change, you will only lose faction standing for (in order of increasing penalty) aggressing, killing and podding members of your own faction. You WILL receive a sec status penalty for assisting an outlaw or someone with GCC regardless of corp/alliance/faction (this is unchanged) You WILL inherit GCC for assisting an outlaw or someone with GCC regardless of corp/alliance/faction (this is unchanged)
chatgris wrote: If not, then read on:
My question is about the scope (e.g. corporation members, militia, anyone? gcc or perma flashy?)
Is there any difference between repping a gcc or perma-flashy person?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy at all?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your militia?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your corporation?
Answers in no particular order: No No No No
Hopefully that covers it all :) |
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:20:00 -
[39] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Adding more pilots to an already broken system will not "fix" Faction Warfare.
The goal is NOT simply to add more pilots to militia rosters. It is to make the gameplay fun enough and meaningful enough that people will be attracted to it. .
The question is how can they make plexing meaningful?
There are 3 general views:
1) give me isk/rewards for plexing (lp payout/require vp to cash in lp etc.)
2) give me consequences for plexing (don't let the enemy dock there/have stations change ownership etc.)
3) Make plexing an activity that the community respects. (make it pvp instead of pve - and not just blob wins etc.)
I think CCP needs to look at all three of these things. But IMO the most important one, by far, is the 3rd.
Yes that is the most difficult but I think EVE is worth it.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Bad Messenger
draketrain
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:43:00 -
[40] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:Arkady Sadik wrote:Quote:* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare. Inevitable I guess. Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind? (Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-)) All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained. A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance. Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW. Feel free to ask more.
This standing mechanic sure makes it almost impossible to join fw with alliance who has properly protected themself from takeover etc...
Maybe it just for those who really want to roleplay militia alliance or for current militia corporations.
WTS: standing alts for caldari militia |
|
X Gallentius
CTRL-Q
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:51:00 -
[41] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:"Fix FW first, open door after" .. this seems to be the mantra du jour . Not really. Open door now. Let the role play alliances (the ones with high faction standings for every corp as stated in the thread) in. More targets, more fights, more fun.
If you want small fights, then FW theater will always be big enough to find small scale fights away from central hubs.
CCP has done a great job on the plexing front with a stop-gap solution nobody else envisioned. Let's hope they continue making improvements.
|
X Gallentius
CTRL-Q
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:59:00 -
[42] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The question is how can they make plexing meaningful? YOU make plexing meaningful, not CCP.
w.r.t Bad Messenger's comment about alts bumping up standings of corps: The standings issue should filter all the way down to individual pilots. No individual pilot in any FW corporation should have a negative standing to its faction.
Individual > 0, Corporation > 0.5, Alliance > 1.0, or something like that.
Corps with high standings could help a pilot who is nominally loyal to his faction enter/stay in FW. An alliance could help a corporation that is nominally loyal to a faction enter or stay in FW. But no alliance could be able to keep a corporation with poor faction standings in FW, just as no corporation should be able to keep a pilot with poor faction standings in FW.
Go run those Cosmos missions and get your faction standings up! |
Kyoko Sakoda
Veto. Veto Corp
53
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:00:00 -
[43] - Quote
The new UI is basically the same as the first attempt, except now it's on the left...
The "E" menu serves no real function at all, except for the folders contained within. What lies within the folders is dandy, except that you can create groups on the Neocom anyway, so it's redundant to have an "E" menu at all.
Movable icons are good.
The icons themselves aren't highlighted very well on hover and activated states.
If an icon expands into a series of folders, it should show an arrow icon (or something) indicating it expands rather than opens a window.
The skill progress bar is a decent idea but I feel the Neocom needs to be wider for it to be clearer. The hover state for the character icon and the progress bar should be one and the same.
Station Services might start to get redundant as a window with the new Neocom, particularly with folders like Business and Social. Might want to consider this as well. |
Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
602
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:00:00 -
[44] - Quote
New Neo - will there be an option to align top or bottom? |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:07:00 -
[45] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:The question is how can they make plexing meaningful? YOU make plexing meaningful, not CCP.
You cut off the rest of my post :
Cearain wrote: "There are 3 general views [to make plexing more meaningful]:
1) give me isk/rewards for plexing (lp payout/require vp to cash in lp etc.)
2) give me consequences for plexing (don't let the enemy dock there/have stations change ownership etc.)
3) Make plexing an activity that the community respects. (make it pvp instead of pve - and not just blob wins etc.)
I think CCP needs to look at all three of these things. But IMO the most important one, by far, is the 3rd.
Yes that is the most difficult but I think EVE is worth it."
Now I was thinking that CCP had to make these changes. But you think I can do this? Which change can we make without ccp?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
X Gallentius
CTRL-Q
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:24:00 -
[46] - Quote
Cearain wrote:You cut off the rest of my post : Cearain wrote: 3) Make plexing an activity that the community respects. (make it pvp instead of pve - and not just blob wins etc.) I think CCP needs to look at all three of these things. But IMO the most important one, by far, is the 3rd.
Now I was thinking that CCP had to make these changes. But you think I can do this? Which change can we make without ccp?
You can CHOOSE to respect the plexing war. The playsers plexing nowadays are much better at pvp than almost anywhere in New Eden. You're behind the times on this one. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:39:00 -
[47] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:You cut off the rest of my post : Cearain wrote: 3) Make plexing an activity that the community respects. (make it pvp instead of pve - and not just blob wins etc.) I think CCP needs to look at all three of these things. But IMO the most important one, by far, is the 3rd.
Now I was thinking that CCP had to make these changes. But you think I can do this? Which change can we make without ccp? You can CHOOSE to respect the plexing war. The playsers plexing nowadays are much better at pvp than almost anywhere in New Eden. You're behind the times on this one.
No I can't. The plexing mechanic is a lame pve mechanic. I tried, trust me I did. But the plexing mechanics are too stupid.
And it's not just me.
FW is a only a small fraction of those who play eve. And those who play eve is only a tiny fraction of the potential eve playerbase. And *even in FW* there is only a tiny fraction of people who plex.
If people could just "choose" to respect people who are good at engaging this bad mechanic none of the statements in the above paragraph would be true. Alas it's not so easy.
Conclusion: *CCP* needs to fix plexing. They know this. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
X Gallentius
CTRL-Q
94
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:48:00 -
[48] - Quote
1. You always have a choice. 2. Most of the active players in FW nowadays engage in plexing fights as one of many options available to them in FW.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
721
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:54:00 -
[49] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: You can CHOOSE to respect the plexing war. The playsers plexing nowadays are much better at pvp than almost anywhere in New Eden. You're behind the times on this one.
I think Cearain's point is simply that plexing has never been a primary motivating factor in the majority of PvP fights in Faction Warfare over the last few years. For every good fight that happens inside a plex, there's about 10 more that took place at a belt, on a POS, on a gate, or on a station. (OK, the last one was a joke. Station games are lame and should be discouraged - TURN THOSE STATION GUNS ON THE ENEMY!!)
There's a whole lot of us who have PvP'd in FW for years now barely ever entering a plex - its completely optional, of little consequence, and has zero draw as a feature to outside players who may want to come to FW.
Sure, just about anything in the game can be meaningful if players decide it to be arbitrarily - but there are far more effective ways to encourage fighting that use the mechanics themselves to drive conflict.
The POCO's are perhaps the best thing to happen to Faction Warfare in my opinion, far more so than the "stop gap solution no one envisioned" (which actually, everyone envisioned because we've all been asking for that change specifically for years now.)
With POCO's, there is a real incentive for participation - control over POCO's means control over planetary income. Players compete over ownership of a planet, and planet owners compete with other planet owners to draw more PI producers to their system.
If CCP could use POCO's as a standard for further Faction Warfare iterations, in terms of shaping the feature so that victories and losses have actual consequence, we'll be in great shape.
The arbitrary wardec, arbitrary reasons for "occupying" systems in Faction Warfare, and the pointlessness of victory points other than pure role play simply haven't been enough to maintain a healthy player base in all four factions in all four regions.
Yes, people still plex. Yes, there are even really talented PvP'ers in the plexes. But plexing activity still is heavily centered around one timezone and the rest of the zones only dabble when they're bored of just about any other way to bait a fight.
Plexes should be exciting, carry value when won, and be something that attracts new players and outsiders to join Faction Warfare - not simply remain a filler activity people engage in for lulz when they have nothing else better to do. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:1. You always have a choice. 2. Most of the active players in FW nowadays engage in plexing fights as one of many options available to them in FW.
Not always. I can't "choose" to respect faction war any more than I can "choose" to like having piranhas attack my *******. Ok plexing isn't quite that bad but the comparison did spring to mind.
Most people in FW will not spend much time in plexes or if they do its just to try to get a fight not to actually do the plex. The plexing mechanic needs work. I agree the foundation of how they set up plexing is good.
But they need to iterate on it. They need to iterate so it brings about more frequent quality small scale pvp. They need to drop the whole pve/npc crap.
Here is an actual poll: http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/faction-war-mentions/
If anything the people who read that website are more likely to be involved in plexing than the militia in general. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
207
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
CCP, you really hate Gallente do you?
Half of the people playing EVE start Caldari and the number of flying for Caldari is actually higher then other faction. Finding alliances with corps where the majority of players has positive standing to the Gallente side will be much more difficult.
Your allance to FW idea will only make bad things worse. |
X Gallentius
CTRL-Q
94
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
We'll respectfully disagree. However, we should not give into "the tyranny of the "or" ". The devs can fix FW AND let alliances in at the same time. It's not an either/or situation. |
X Gallentius
CTRL-Q
94
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:19:00 -
[53] - Quote
Deviana Sevidon wrote:CCP, you really hate Gallente do you?
Half of the people playing EVE start Caldari and the number of flying for Caldari is actually higher then other faction. Finding alliances with corps where the majority of players has positive standing to the Gallente side will be much more difficult.
Your allance to FW idea will only make bad things worse. FYI, Gallente FW is stronger than Caldari FW right now. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:23:00 -
[54] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:X Gallentius wrote: You can CHOOSE to respect the plexing war. The playsers plexing nowadays are much better at pvp than almost anywhere in New Eden. You're behind the times on this one.
I think Cearain's point is simply that plexing has never been a primary motivating factor in the majority of PvP fights in Faction Warfare over the last few years. For every good fight that happens inside a plex, there's about 10 more that took place at a belt, on a POS, on a gate, or on a station. (OK, the last one was a joke. Station games are lame and should be discouraged - TURN THOSE STATION GUNS ON THE ENEMY!!) There's a whole lot of us who have PvP'd in FW for years now barely ever entering a plex - its completely optional, of little consequence, and has zero draw as a feature to outside players who may want to come to FW. Sure, just about anything in the game can be meaningful if players decide it to be arbitrarily - but there are far more effective ways to encourage fighting that use the mechanics themselves to drive conflict. The POCO's are perhaps the best thing to happen to Faction Warfare in my opinion, far more so than the "stop gap solution no one envisioned" (which actually, everyone envisioned because we've all been asking for that change specifically for years now.) With POCO's, there is a real incentive for participation - control over POCO's means control over planetary income. Players compete over ownership of a planet, and planet owners compete with other planet owners to draw more PI producers to their system. If CCP could use POCO's as a standard for further Faction Warfare iterations, in terms of shaping the feature so that victories and losses have actua l consequence, we'll be in great shape. The arbitrary wardec, arbitrary reasons for "occupying" systems in Faction Warfare, and the pointlessness of victory points other than pure role play simply haven't been enough to maintain a healthy player base in all four factions in all four regions. Yes, people still plex. Yes, there are even really talented PvP'ers in the plexes. But plexing activity still is heavily centered around one timezone and the rest of the zones only dabble when they're bored of just about any other way to bait a fight. Plexes should be exciting, carry value when won, and be something that attracts new players and outsiders to join Faction Warfare - not simply remain a filler activity people engage in for lulz when they have nothing else better to do.
IMO Occupancy plexing is the core of FW. Just having a big free war dec is not enough. For FW to be really good there needs to be some overarching goal, which give the fights context. Otherwise just go on sisi or join rvb. (BTW I did the latter and its lots of fun)
POCOs were good for all of low sec and the game in general not just fw. I would not want to incorporate player owned structures specifically into fw.
Hans we both agree that fw plexing needs to be meaningful. But I think you are emphasizing the first and second way (from my post above) to make it meaningful. I am emphasizing the third way.
I agree that the first and second way need to be dealt with. (more isk and more game mechanic consequences) But when the warring factions are built in the game people will just join the winning side. Those first 2 ways to make fw meaningful are severely limitted.
In sum they need to make a system where people want to sign and play because it's great fun. Everyone has their own idea of fun. But Eve already offers allot for everyone except those who like frequent quality small scale pvp. It offers plenty of ways to shoot red xs. You can shoot them in high sec low sec and null sec missions. You can shoot them in incursions and in wormholes. You can shoot them in belts etc. etc etc. You can blob in low sec and in null sec if you like that.
Yet Eve really offers *nothing* for people who want frequent quality small scale pvp. For me if I could sign in and get 3-7 quality pvp fights in 2 hours that would be great fun. Therefore I would like ccp to strive for that in the fw plexing mechanic. If they focus on that then they will add something truly unique to the things you can do in eve.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
147
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:23:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained.
Is it just me or does 0.5 sounds like a low number? Maybe make it a little harder to start with and see how it goes? http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
208
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:25:00 -
[56] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Deviana Sevidon wrote:CCP, you really hate Gallente do you?
Half of the people playing EVE start Caldari and the number of flying for Caldari is actually higher then other faction. Finding alliances with corps where the majority of players has positive standing to the Gallente side will be much more difficult.
Your allance to FW idea will only make bad things worse. FYI, Gallente FW is stronger than Caldari FW right now.
I am not talking about systems, I am talking about players and Caldari always had more and with the changes likely will always have the highest amount of players and I am talking about the situation when the caldari militia just stomped all gallente lowsec systems with sheer weight of numbers. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
721
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:28:00 -
[57] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:We'll respectfully disagree. However, we should not give into "the tyranny of the "or" ". The devs can fix FW AND let alliances in at the same time. It's not an either/or situation.
Agree with the tyranny of the "or". I am one of many who think that this idea has merit, but the timing is misplaced. We could double the amount of people enlisted in Faction Warfare overnight, it won't solve any of the list of problems that has prevented Faction Warfare from being a lasting gameplay draw, other than the hardcore crowd who will stick around no matter what. Those people get good fights, and have fun, but if someone is looking to come in, get in fights, and have an impact on anything they'll be just as disappointed as those who have already came, spent a little time, got bored, and left.
We need to stop the revolving door from revolving - not simply funnel more people in and out of a broken system at a faster pace.
In the long run, increasing the number of reasons to fight will be a much bigger numbers draw than simply adding more people to the militia roster for a short stint. If Alliances are going to join us - I want them to stick around. Not just join, pew for a bit, say "whats the point?" than go back to ganking ice miners in highsec or fighting over nullsec moons, or whatever else there is to do that has a greater impact on the sandbox.
I'm just saying letting alliances in now, and iterating on the core mechanics in the summer, is putting the cart before the horse, and loading the cart with extra dead weight. Its not going to actually mean progress, until the summer stuff hits. |
Gempei
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
22
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:43:00 -
[58] - Quote
overheating indicator \o/ |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:59:00 -
[59] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: If Alliances are going to join us - I want them to stick around. Not just join, pew for a bit, say "whats the point?" than go back to ganking ice miners in highsec or fighting over nullsec moons, or whatever else there is to do that has a greater impact on the sandbox.
Whats the point of any game?
Ultimately the only thing you can do in a game that will make someone want to stick around is make it fun, and even more fun than that person's other options.
But you can't make fw plexing more fun by just throwing isk/game advantages at the winning side. Because (unlike in null sec and player organized controlled alliances) people can always just switch to the winning team.
CCP needs to make fw such that many people find it more fun than other things in eve, without just throwing in game consequences at it. FW plexing needs to offer a method of play that is *different* than what other parts of the game offers.
For me I hope they make fw plexing offer frequent quality small scale pvp. That is something that is not offered by any other game mechanics.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
724
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 00:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
Cearain wrote: Whats the point of any game?
Ultimately the only thing you can do in a game that will make someone want to stick around is make it fun, and even more fun than that person's other options.
But you can't make fw plexing more fun by just throwing isk/game advantages at the winning side. Because (unlike in null sec and player organized controlled alliances) people can always just switch to the winning team.
CCP needs to make fw such that many people find it more fun than other things in eve, without just throwing in game consequences at it. FW plexing needs to offer a method of play that is *different* than what other parts of the game offers.
For me I hope they make fw plexing offer frequent quality small scale pvp. That is something that is not offered by any other game mechanics.
Hahaha yes yes, I get it, we need to make plexing about PvP I've been hearing you all along (the majority of your posts are elaborate versions of your signature), and I agree.
Dont misunderstand my comments to think that I don't care about that issue as well, I do. Plexing should be revamped not just by adding impacts to winning them, but the mechanics of seizing a plex itself could be much more fun than blowing up NPC's and orbiting a button.
The only reason I don't emphasize "plexes should be about PvP" more often is that CCP hasn't outright said "we're revamping plexes, here's what we're proposing..." We can't control what they decide to work on, we can only comment on the proposals they make, including pointing out they might be better off working on something else instead.
As long as they're throwing out stuff like "lets remove all highsec NPC's" and "lets just allow alliances into FW" as iterations for Faction Warfare, I'm going to make sure those suggestions are addressed first, before we get on to the plexing debate.
I'm right there with you on lets make FW all about smaller scale, intense PvP. That's been the scene's biggest draw all along - not the consequences of ownership. But the two go hand in hand - no carrots = no fights. More pilots in the militia without fixing the "carrot" issue simply means more militia pilots going "where's the action at?".
The carrot can just as easily be that the mechanics of seizing a plex is fun enough to be the reward in and of itself. But given that this thread is about Alliances in FW, I'm just trying to focus on that issue first rather than have another nuanced plex discussion, and emphasize that CCP should listen to the FW community who has been demanding just about everything else BUT alliance participation, including but not limited to "make plexes about PvP not PvE". |
|
Garr Earthbender
Quantum Cats Syndicate
31
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 03:33:00 -
[61] - Quote
Show me a shiny carrot and I'll show you MANY new alliances/corps in FW. Make plexing a carrot that's worth a lot and you'll get alliance wide operations to get those iskies and deny the enemy those iskies.
Major plex = worth lots of LP but has to have a minimum of (X number) Faction Warfare pilots in the plex to take it? Alliances would be good for that. See what I did thar? Put alliances and plexing in the same subject! |
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
82
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 04:23:00 -
[62] - Quote
New Neocom is excellent, but I noticed a few things. Most are minor, I didn't spot anything game-breaking.
With the old Neocom panel, brackets and labels would not get hidden under it - they would treat the edge of the Neocom bar as the "hard edge" of the screen. This behavior has been lost and unless Autohide is activated it can be hard to see some brackets. (This is probably the biggest issue).
The default width of the new Neocom bar should be identical, pixel-wise, to the old one when it is in button-only mode. Currently it is a few pixels wider.
Ships and Items icons should either disappear or (preferably) dim/turn grey while in space, since they can't be used outside a station.
One "missing" button. The Militia button does not exist anywhere in the new menus (this one should also disappear or dim when in space if placed on the Neocom bar).
Group (folder) icons are a bit touchy to drop things into and I've found they can disappear altogether when dragged on the bar. Groups should also be able to be given a name and/or a custom icon (or select from a pre-defined icon list, or something) so all groups don't look identical.
Individual buttons should be able to be locked to the Neocom bar (to prevent accidental removal).
The time and date display shows the date in mm.dd format without an option for customization, players in the UK and Europe will likely want it in dd.mm format.
The best thing about the new Neocom is that it is customizable enough that I was able to quickly make a reasonable approximation of the old one. The hardest part was getting it to exactly match the pixel-width of the old one.
With all the extra customization available, the settings-export-to-XML-file (please see my sig) becomes even more important as there's more to set up for each new character. Please support: export of settings in editable format
Your stuff goes here. |
David Magnus
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 05:00:00 -
[63] - Quote
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:If an alliance holds sovereignty, can they still join FW?
Because if they can, that means you'll have massive, supercap-hotdropping alliances who play nullsec sov wars being able to come in and play FW at the same time. How is this balanced? Current corps to FW don't have access to supercaps and all this 300-man blob fighting. You're basically allowing monolithic entities like PL being able to have their foots in both camps, and you're also adding to the mission running endemic.
"Hm, nothing going on? Let's clonejump to empire and carebear up the missions with 0% risk to our ships"
Or "No new sov to take? let's go **** up some FW subcap fleet". They can sit on the periphery and do their nullsec thing, then intervene on a rainy day when they feel like it.
I doubt this will be a problem. Sov holding alliances are made up of LOTS of corporations, that include a very very diverse set of pilots. I would put ISK down that there isn't a single large sov holding alliances with the standings to join any of the militias.
Really, this would only benefit alliances made specifically of militia corps in the first place.
The only exceptions to this are likely CVA and Ushra'Khan, but even then I bet it would take them a lot of standing grinding to join the militias. http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 05:14:00 -
[64] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote: Whats the point of any game?
Ultimately the only thing you can do in a game that will make someone want to stick around is make it fun, and even more fun than that person's other options.
But you can't make fw plexing more fun by just throwing isk/game advantages at the winning side. Because (unlike in null sec and player organized controlled alliances) people can always just switch to the winning team.
CCP needs to make fw such that many people find it more fun than other things in eve, without just throwing in game consequences at it. FW plexing needs to offer a method of play that is *different* than what other parts of the game offers.
For me I hope they make fw plexing offer frequent quality small scale pvp. That is something that is not offered by any other game mechanics.
Hahaha yes yes, I get it, we need to make plexing about PvP I've been hearing you all along (the majority of your posts are elaborate versions of your signature), and I agree. Dont misunderstand my comments to think that I don't care about that issue as well, I do. Plexing should be revamped not just by adding impacts to winning them, but the mechanics of seizing a plex itself could be much more fun than blowing up NPC's and orbiting a button. The only reason I don't emphasize "plexes should be about PvP" more often is that CCP hasn't outright said "we're revamping plexes, here's what we're proposing..." We can't control what they decide to work on, we can only comment on the proposals they make, including pointing out they might be better off working on something else instead. As long as they're throwing out stuff like "lets remove all highsec NPC's" and "lets just allow alliances into FW" as iterations for Faction Warfare, I'm going to make sure those suggestions are addressed first, before we get on to the plexing debate. I'm right there with you on lets make FW all about smaller scale, intense PvP. That's been the scene's biggest draw all along - not the consequences of ownership. But the two go hand in hand - no carrots = no fights. More pilots in the militia without fixing the "carrot" issue simply means more militia pilots going "where's the action at?". The carrot can just as easily be that the mechanics of seizing a plex is fun enough to be the reward in and of itself. But given that this thread is about Alliances in FW, I'm just trying to focus on that issue first rather than have another nuanced plex discussion, and emphasize that CCP should listen to the FW community who has been demanding just about everything else BUT alliance participation, including but not limited to "make plexes about PvP not PvE".
Hans the plexing mechanic is the core of fw. Everything else is window dressing.
Alliances in or out isn't a big deal if they get the plexing mechanic fixed. You can't bring a super cap in 90% of plexes. They could make fw so it could accomadate all the accounts in eve if they wanted to. They could add regions and pirate factions etc. But you are right that they really should first get the plex mechanics sorted. Once they get that worked out they could take the show on the road and get lots more subs.
We can't control what they work on but we can tell them what we want them to work on. Assuming we agree. When it comes to specific proposals on fw very few agree. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cerberine Saken
Aphelion Venture
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 05:26:00 -
[65] - Quote
I agree with many of the other posters here, who think that it's a little premature to let alliances into FW, and that there need to be some restrictions: the fear that large sovholding alliances will join the militia and proceed to hotdrop the opposing militia to hell out of sheer boredom seems very probable.
Something that I would like to see, although this doesn't seem to be proposed much, is allowing individuals to join the militia without having to either bring their whole corporation along, or join an existing FW corporation (NPC or otherwise). I would love to join the Caldari militia on my main, but I don't want to leave my existing (non-sov-holding) corporation. But that's just me; perhaps there are balance issues with this that I've overlooked? |
Bad Messenger
draketrain
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 06:01:00 -
[66] - Quote
I doubt that any big alliance want to take free wardec upon them. If they want to blob militia they can do it as well without joining militia.
Also standing requirement for all corporations make it so hard to join, that it is not worth to see all that trouble.
There is no benefits to join militia, you can take missions with alts if that is reason why you want to join.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
239
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 07:51:00 -
[67] - Quote
Ladies, please stay on topic. Just because FW is mentioned doesn't mean we should immediately hijack and turn it into a clone of the umpteen other threads.
Could we have reps from a bunch of alliances check their sheets and report what the 4 standings are for them? Should give an indication of high/low the standings part of the equation should/could be set.
Cearain wrote:Not always. I can't "choose" to respect faction war any more than I can "choose" to like having piranhas attack my *******. Ok plexing isn't quite that bad but the comparison did spring to mind.... Sometimes you scare me .. who the hell has "piranhas attacking my jewels" as a stray though .. hahahaha
Garr Earthbender wrote:...Major plex = worth lots of LP but has to have a minimum of (X number) Faction Warfare pilots in the plex to take it? Alliances would be good for that. See what I did thar? Put alliances and plexing in the same subject! You are of course intending to sort plexes first so that it is not merely done a speedy frig and a bunch of lay-abouts, right?
Bad Messenger wrote:..There is no benefits to join militia, you can take missions with alts if that is reason why you want to join.
Which is, if you think about it, a pretty damn good incentive as they have been moaning about their precious sanctum spawn time and what not. Fill up available blue-sea systems with ratters and send remainder to make approx. same ISK (for a week until markets crash) doing FW missions.
|
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 10:25:00 -
[68] - Quote
This is such a bad order of priority.
How will you balance a game play that has been advertized as an introduction for new players into the world of PvP by allowing the wealthiest and experienced entities in EVE to exploit the same mechanics at their leisure?
"Luckily" FW mechanics are still so pointless that one can expect that alliances only will farm the heck out of the LP stores while shooting any idiot believing that their blue color actually mean something. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
658
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 10:40:00 -
[69] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:Arkady Sadik wrote:Quote:* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare. Inevitable I guess. Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind? (Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-)) All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained. A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance. Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW. Feel free to ask more.
I approve of this change although maybe the minimum standing could be higher.
This won't fix FW by itself however. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 10:56:00 -
[70] - Quote
A little feedback on the new neocom.
The flashing objects are a little dim. It's hard to see, especially if you are anywhere near a bright nebula.
The eve menu button at the top needs something to distinguish it from a shortcut to the esc menu. Perhaps a triangle pointing to the right to indicate that it can be expanded? |
|
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
212
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 11:12:00 -
[71] - Quote
Adding alliances to FW is like kicking a car crash victim bleeding on the pavement.
Not cool FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! |
Kaver Linkovir
Autocannons Anonymous
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 11:35:00 -
[72] - Quote
Alliances NOT being able to join Faction Warfare has made faction warfare the fun place for people looking for small engagements it is today. It also disallows those alliances that are made up of 20 odd people corps times five unable to partake unless they dump their waning alliance.
In short: it has been a statement of comitment to Faction Warfare above all other ties.
Allowing small, medium and huge alliances will crush any and all balancing that faction warfare has. It will tip the balance decicively into the Jita corner. There is no real incentive to let Jita go as your marketplace other then that you feel more attraction to either Gallente or Minmatar.
Hinging it on Sov holding is broken from the get go, since Sov holding isn't all that popular anyway and large entities that get kicked out of their Sov will just use it as a layover where they can kick smaller entities to get their morale back up.
EVE would be better served with a reworking of inter corp relationships seperate of the alliance mechanism allowing for pseudo alliances. Anyone remember treaties being talked about?
Also, dying in EVE is ending up in an alliance that is waning and has no stuff to do, a corporation that has little to no active members in your timezone or at all. Rewarding active memberbase to suit the number of members that hold the best player retention numbers for EVE would be infinately more usefull then tossing something at something and hoping it will stick.
Also, the idear of allowing alliances into Faction Warfare shows clearly that the people having these brainfarts DO NOT PLAY IN THE FACTION WARFARE SANDBOX...SHAME ON YOU!!! |
Lee Whelan
Spiritus Draconis
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 11:40:00 -
[73] - Quote
Just another isk faucet for 0.0 alliances and those that are participating in FW now get.. well nothing really. \o/ Sounds like allot of fun. Oh, we can rep GCC now without losing FACTION standing. I guess its something. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
214
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 11:41:00 -
[74] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Ladies, please stay on topic. Just because FW is mentioned doesn't mean we should immediately hijack and turn it into a clone of the umpteen other threads. Could we have reps from a bunch of alliances check their sheets and report what the 4 standings are for them? Should give an indication of high/low the standings part of the equation should/could be set. Cearain wrote:Not always. I can't "choose" to respect faction war any more than I can "choose" to like having piranhas attack my *******. Ok plexing isn't quite that bad but the comparison did spring to mind.... Sometimes you scare me .. who the hell has "piranhas attacking my jewels" as a stray though .. hahahaha
Just think about the current fw plexxing mechanic.
As for switching topics to something that was addressed in umpteen other threads: Until ccp gives us some indication they understand what the issue is I think we need to keep redirecting them.
Adding alliances is not good but it really won't really change much. Ok now we might have 400 people in kourm instead of 40. So what? It wasn't like when RKK joined it was the end of the world. Taking away npcs from high sec? That has nothing to do with the prized egg either.
Should we just sit back and say "nope thats not it" without at least telling them if they are getting warm?
CCP did change the timing of when plexes spawn. And they seemed to get it. But now I'm not so sure. A dev blog giving some sort of road map would be good. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
170
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 11:41:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:Team Pink Zombie Kittens has been hard at work making new features for your entertainment pleasure.
These include: * The New Neocom
I dislike the fact that you removed the ability to have a "wide" neocon with text next to each icon and a large character portrait up top.
Sure, you can widen the bar but it just scales up the icons. The >> option is missing. Could we get it back?
(it makes neocon look like this:
Character Sheet [icon] People & Places [Icon] EVE Mail [Icon]
...etc.)
I also find it inconsistent that you can partially customize the bar - remove some icons - but not all. Logically a setup like this should include EVERYTHING possible under the E-menu and then allow freely add/remove what other icons show in the bar (and which icons start from the top, which from the bottom - ships/items etc. that are there now). Right now "Chat" cannot be removed from the neocom (or dropped into a group).
Also groups cannot be renamed?
I also agree that the animation for opening E-menu or group, while shiny, is slow.
I would also prefer to optionally be able to open E-menu by just mouseovering it. Click to open it is... clumsy.
[Apologies for the interruption, we now return to our regularly scheduled Faction Warfare yes-no-you-too bashing, already in progress...] |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
415
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:07:00 -
[76] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this:
Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.
|
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
337
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:13:00 -
[77] - Quote
Hmm, do people really expect large null alliances to grind the standings for every corp, join FW, and move into lowsec?
First, grinding standings. Do you think alliance leadership will say "everyone get 0.5 amarr standings", and then it just happens? Very few alliances really have that discipline. Most likely, leadership will be ignored or laughed at.
Second, why would they do it? What's their motivation? Dropping supers on every WT gang? They can do that already, it's not like super pilots need to keep their sec status up. What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
465
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:13:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug. That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.
Nice to hear although I am a bit sceptical about the whole alliance can do their thing also, outside cva I see alot of griefing power given to alliances but thats part of every opening of the sandbox I guess.
I would also (eventually) like to see more a concerted effort in creating a "frontline"(war) and "rear area" (strategic strikes) mixed in together with the meaningfully taken space where conflict is initiated by players and empires alike and can feed of each other.
but carry on... - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
415
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:18:00 -
[79] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug. That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch. Nice to hear although I am a bit sceptical about the whole alliance can do their thing also, outside cva I see alot of griefing power given to alliances but thats part of every opening of the sandbox I guess. I would also (eventually) like to see more a concerted effort in creating a "frontline"(war) and "rear area" (strategic strikes) mixed in together with the meaningfully taken space where conflict is initiated by players and empires alike and can feed of each other. but carry on...
Agreed. The capture mechanics are the second priority though, compared to the consequences of taking/losing space, which we're looking into :)
|
|
X Gallentius
CTRL-Q
94
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:19:00 -
[80] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug. That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch. Even though they probably didn't announce it, CCP has also dealt with severe NPC balance in plexes by nerfing the hell out of the Caldari NPC Ewar (it doesn't even exist any more in many Caldari plexes). Well done guys, keep it up.
|
|
Kaver Linkovir
Autocannons Anonymous
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:25:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug. That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.
Oh, wow, so it all just "We hereby inform you we are going to be kicking over your sandcastles and all you will get is a bugfix that you should have been given when it was first reported in the way way back." Because once you have implemented the Alliance allowed to join Faction Warfare thing we are going to be stuck with it for ever.
I have loved alliances and all their shananigans not being able to join Faction Warfare. It was the ONLY corner of EVE where alliances had no place. Where the Faction that was fought for determined everything. Bah. |
Silence iKillYouu
The Innocent Criminals
126
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:30:00 -
[82] - Quote
Not all alliance's will give a crap about FW Only RP alliances who will be fun to kill lots.
Looking forward to any changes :)
Now we can make our own alliances and compete in alliance comps. no Autoz aloud tho http://fw-frontline.blogspot.com/ |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
240
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:07:00 -
[83] - Quote
Ugh. Should have know the "Removing high-sec navy is a good idea for FW" guy was behind the "Lets make navy LP worthless and show FW the true meaning of blobs" idea
Once more: Could someone (or a Dev) post some alliance empire standings (4) so we can get an idea of just how monstrous a barrier 0.5 is? My theory is that they will be largely positive due to day-to-day ratting/mission activities of all pilots. There are only two ways that I know of that allows one to tank ones factions and that is the faction specific storyline missions and being in FW, whereas doing just about anything involving shooting generic pirate NPCs increases faction standings.
PS: Have you separated FW areas from high-sec nodes yet .. the hub pipes in FW lowsec is going to need permanent reinforcement .. just sayin' |
Hikaru Kuroda
Shimai of New Eden N E X O
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:46:00 -
[84] - Quote
If the new NeoCon is the first step to a completely new and improved interface, I applaud you. For the new players the current interface it's like the cockpit of a Boeing 747.
The interface need more graphical information and less text. The screen is always horribly clogged with windows. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain
766
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:53:00 -
[85] - Quote
Could you add new Neocom accessory button for the new compare tool. It is damn hard to access atm because there isn't even shortcut command available.
Thank you.
|
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:03:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug. That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch. How about fixing the bugged plex issue where plexes fail to register it has completed and then despawn correctly due to the bugged timer (happens when timer is stopped by oposition getting on the button when you are on it)...
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!! |
|
CCP Optimal
C C P C C P Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:26:00 -
[87] - Quote
The weird undock / ships / items buttons behavior(showing up while in space, not working etc.) some of you have mentioned is a defect as you shouldn't be able to move those buttons at all. It has been fixed, but you may have to clear your cache for the fix to kick in. |
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
549
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:28:00 -
[88] - Quote
I have my "ships" and "items" buttons at the bottom of the menu bar when I log in. But I don't seem to be able to reproduce that when I move them around - and I can't put any other icons at the bottom of the menu bar, either. What's the intended behavior here? :-) |
Asthariye
Angry Mustellid
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:30:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug. That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.
With respect, if you can't do it properly, don't do it at all and wait until you have time to make a proper job of it. Fixing the silly standings bug (and thank you for acknowledging it is in fact a silly standings bug, it's only been around for a year and a half...*sigh* ) is great, but alliances in FW is not a fix nor is it a helpful addition at this point. Right now it is a way to make things worse, not a start to making things better. Adding alliances to FW, if you want to do it at all, is the last thing you need to do on the path to fixing FW. Not the first. It is akin to finding an injured person with a broken leg who also wants a boob job, and figuring that as you haven't got time to fix the broken leg, you'll do the boob job. It's silly. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
338
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:42:00 -
[90] - Quote
Questions for all the doomsayers.
AFAIK, there are already unofficial alliances in FW. That is, groups of corps who work together inside the same militia, sharing channels, standings and so on. Why is it bad to let them form a proper alliance inside FW?
Why is it bad to let established RP alliances, who have been taking sides in FW all along, to join FW properly?
What makes you think large sov-holding alliances would be remotely interested in joining FW? What does joining give them that's worth the hassle of fixing their standings? What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
|
|
CCP Optimal
C C P C C P Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:44:00 -
[91] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:I have my "ships" and "items" buttons at the bottom of the menu bar when I log in. But I don't seem to be able to reproduce that when I move them around - and I can't put any other icons at the bottom of the menu bar, either. What's the intended behavior here? :-)
You aren't supposed to be able to move them at all; they are fixed at the bottom as they are scope specific (only available in a station) |
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
37
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:09:00 -
[92] - Quote
My idea is to make people fight by linking the occupation system to the isk making system. The incentives should be: "If you want to make more isk, go pvp more."
When accepting a mission from an agent whose system is owned by the enemy militia, you get 10% less LP.
If the mission is completed in a system owned by your militia, you get 10% more LP
|
Koratte
Wolfsbrigade
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:32:00 -
[93] - Quote
Mystical Might wrote: 1.0+ maybe, but not too high. Most of the militia corps don't actually have that high a standing.
Only the dirty, dirty piwates.
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
Can the stations recognise militia pilots as friendlies and not engage them if they shoot at stuff? :D One of the supposed advantages of belonging to a militia is the support of the Faction, so any corporation (NPC ones) that belongs to a given Faction shouldn't start shooting their militia if they engage a target. Unless that target has a high standing towards the corporation/faction. Think of th station camps! |
Kaver Linkovir
Autocannons Anonymous
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 17:27:00 -
[95] - Quote
Silence iKillYouu wrote:Not all alliance's will give a crap about FW Only RP alliances who will be fun to kill lots.
Looking forward to any changes :)
Now we can make our own alliances and compete in alliance comps. no Autoz aloud tho
Killing RP alliances is nice indeed. But I do think that it's not just going to be RP alliances that will take an interest in FW.
Partaking in alliance competitions would be a plus.
Jack Dant wrote:Questions for all the doomsayers.
AFAIK, there are already unofficial alliances in FW. That is, groups of corps who work together inside the same militia, sharing channels, standings and so on. Why is it bad to let them form a proper alliance inside FW?
Why is it bad to let established RP alliances, who have been taking sides in FW all along, to join FW properly?
What makes you think large sov-holding alliances would be remotely interested in joining FW? What does joining give them that's worth the hassle of fixing their standings?
Yes, there are indeed already groups of players who work as you describe. This started to escape metagaming players using alts in the other milita to spy on the militia channel CCP gives upon joining a militia and has since evolved.
If established RP alliances wanted to get into Faction Warfare directly, they would have done so. As is these entities either influence the playingfield or individual pilots join Faction Warfare corporations for a brief vacation. So, not bad, just redundant and uneccesary.
What makes you think large alliances (wether or not they hold sov is a mute point since that line is arbitrary) wouldn't shift back and forth between the different fronts just because they can? It's the way to manage standings while in FW if you are just in it for a short time.
As is Faction Warfare is pretty much low drama for fast fights in small gangs with periodic large scale battles. Something I know most pilots actually partaking in the War part of Faction Warfare enjoy. Allowing alliances will bring with it entities that love to camp because the mechanics allow killing the enemy without any security standing hit and without gateguns or stationguns intervening. It would allow a host of entities that don't have the balls to go full on pirate to lurk around taking cheap shots at people actually trying to get good fights because they can still get into half of empire space and can simply change sides to mitigate any faction standing penalties. Particularly because the pvp activities carry the lowest faction standing penalties of all the activities in FW. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
733
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 17:38:00 -
[96] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:I doubt that any big alliance want to take free wardec upon them. If they want to blob militia they can do it as well without joining militia.
Also standing requirement for all corporations make it so hard to join, that it is not worth to see all that trouble.
There is no benefits to join militia, you can take missions with alts if that is reason why you want to join.
Here, finally, we agree on something ;) I personally don't think that we will see FW implode overnight, given the fact that many Alliances won't see benefits outweighing the drawbacks, or may not be able to join even they wanted to. And in the long run, I think Alliances SHOULD be allowed to join FW, with some provisions of course. The more targets the better in the greater scheme of things....arbitrary barriers to entry serve no one.
Jowen Datloran wrote:This is such a bad order of priority.
How will you balance a game play that has been advertized as an introduction for new players into the world of PvP by allowing the wealthiest and experienced entities in EVE to exploit the same mechanics at their leisure?
"Luckily" FW mechanics are still so pointless that one can expect that alliances only will farm the heck out of the LP stores while shooting any idiot believing that their blue color actually mean something.
....yet here is the crux of the problem. It's not what's being changed, its the priority order. The reason I've spoken up so loudly about this isn't because I personally sense a doomsday coming - its that the community has been fairly clear if not on specific proposals, than certainly clear on what the core problems are facing FW. By pumping out the "quick stuff" without listening and responding to the community's greatest concerns, CCP risks alienating customers who care very deeply about the FW system, the FW community, and possibly affecting the spirit of what FW is all about.
If nothing else, CCP at least owes the dedicated pilots who have spent years trying to speak up about FW improvements a confirmation that they've heard the ones who object to this change, understand the risks inherent in allowing more people into a clearly broken system without fixing it first, and are taking steps to minimize harmful effects. Simply ushering this through without at least communicating that they have a master plan here will only exacerbate an already sore sub-community in EvE who has shown far more dedication to the feature than the developers have since its release. |
Bad Messenger
draketrain
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:01:00 -
[97] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Bad Messenger wrote:..There is no benefits to join militia, you can take missions with alts if that is reason why you want to join.
Which is, if you think about it, a pretty damn good incentive as they have been moaning about their precious sanctum spawn time and what not. Fill up available blue-sea systems with ratters and send remainder to make approx. same ISK (for a week until markets crash) doing FW missions.
By joining militia it makes incursion running much harder, and incursions are much better isk than fw missions and market crash does not affect incursion income much, also alliances do not get much tax income from fw missions but they get a lot from incursions. |
Bad Messenger
draketrain
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:10:00 -
[98] - Quote
Morgan North wrote:Can the stations recognise militia pilots as friendlies and not engage them if they shoot at stuff? :D One of the supposed advantages of belonging to a militia is the support of the Faction, so any corporation (NPC ones) that belongs to a given Faction shouldn't start shooting their militia if they engage a target. Unless that target has a high standing towards the corporation/faction. Think of th station camps!
In militia your targets are opposing militia forces , when you shoot those no one cares so sentries on station does not shoot you.
But if you start to shoot innocent civilians who has nothing to do with militia or faction warfare sentries will start to shoot you.
So i do not know what you are proposing there, maybe it was that if you belong to militia you can harass civilians too?
So you want that being in militia is license to pirate on your own faction systems, i doubt that is good idea |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
734
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:21:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Ciar Meara wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:
Quick update to this:
Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.
Nice to hear although I am a bit sceptical about the whole alliance can do their thing also, outside cva I see alot of griefing power given to alliances but thats part of every opening of the sandbox I guess. I would also (eventually) like to see more a concerted effort in creating a "frontline"(war) and "rear area" (strategic strikes) mixed in together with the meaningfully taken space where conflict is initiated by players and empires alike and can feed of each other. but carry on... Agreed. The capture mechanics are the second priority though, compared to the consequences of taking/losing space, which we're looking into :)
Thanks, Soundwave!! I wrote the post above before I noticed you had chimed in on this thread, I've been answering items in the order I come across them here. I appreciate your personal attention to this feature, and I think you'll be pleased with how having a healthy, dynamic Faction Warfare system compliments the greater fabric of the game when all is said and done, and hopefully it will continue to provide the smaller-scale, gang and sub-cap fleet based PvP gameplay that so many players crave whether they currently participate in FW or not. I promise you the work you're putting in here will pay off.
I still stand by my thoughts that this is a bit premature, that there are genuine risks, and I'm hoping that you've considered them. Maybe your team can clearly see given their set of tools that the standings requirement will ensure there won't be large-scale abuse of the FW system and community. If so, we'd love to know that. I totally understand priority order for things (My RL job involves managing a queue of service requests so I empathize with backlogs and triaging tasks) but a large portion of the FW community remains very apprehensive of Alliance involvement, its a highly controversial issue that is perhaps more divisive than any other. Any reassurance your team can give regarding this specific change will go a long way towards re-establishing a positive relationship with the FW community after years of being "on the rocks".
As to the consequence issue being prioritized over the capture mechanics (Cearain - I know you'll hate me for saying this) I think this is a wise choice. Even if plexes were empty rooms that simply limited ship entry and provided little "arenas" for battles of varying sizes, that serves the EvE community's needs for PvP on that scale. The problem is, of course, that most now don't see the point in bothering when there's a dozen other ways to hurt your enemy far more than changing the name-only occupancy of a system. Currently, even the roleplayers don't care enough about who owns what system to rally big defensives or offensives.
I can't wait to see Faction Warfare return to the function originally intended - new players and veterans alike should be able to hop into their rifters, stabbers, and phoons, find fights every night of the week in multiple warfronts, have choice as to what kind of PvP they want to engage in (What sounds fun tonight? Frigate roam through Bleak lands? or RR BS fleet to defend Auga...) and know that whatever they do actually affects the sandbox. EvE is sold around as being full of that "butterfly effect" but it shouldn't take years for a pilot to feel like they've achieved it.
Convince new players that the rifter piloting they do in their first few weeks matters despite knowing they'll never catch up to vets in skill points and you have a recipe for long-term subscription gold.
Looking forward to summer! Keep up the hard work! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
734
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:38:00 -
[100] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:In militia your targets are opposing militia forces , when you shoot those no one cares so sentries on station does not shoot you. But if you start to shoot innocent civilians who has nothing to do with militia or faction warfare sentries will start to shoot you. So i do not know what you are proposing there, maybe it was that if you belong to militia you can harass civilians too? So you want that being in militia is license to pirate on your own faction systems, i doubt that is good idea
Messenger is spot on here, FW is about fighting militias, not random neutrals.
We have BECOME a group that is often associated with piracy, because the dwindling number of FW pilots has caused a lot of bored militia corps to resort to *ahem* "keeping systems secure from suspected enemy combatants posing as innocents"
That doesnt mean we should be aided by Concord during these "extracurricular" pew pew encounters.
What SHOULD be implemented (and is a great low-hanging fruit thing to add to a larger package of upgrades) is that the stations should fire upon opposing enemy factions. If the 24th crusade occupies Huola, that station should be firing on minnies loitering outside. This is common sense. It also doesnt punish new players too harshly, z-marks are very easily taught and can be used by any pilots of any skill point level.
It will, however, kill station games and push fighting back out into space where it should be. Just as with the Alliance fix though, the order here is everything: fixing station guns doesnt solve the problem as to why people should fight in the plexes to begin with. If it is implemented before plexing regains its meaningful impact, all it does is arbitrarily reduce where the militias can fight while we wait for real improvements. |
|
Deen Wispa
56
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:50:00 -
[101] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Deviana Sevidon wrote:CCP, you really hate Gallente do you?
Half of the people playing EVE start Caldari and the number of flying for Caldari is actually higher then other faction. Finding alliances with corps where the majority of players has positive standing to the Gallente side will be much more difficult.
Your allance to FW idea will only make bad things worse. FYI, Gallente FW is stronger than Caldari FW for now.
FTFY :) |
Pierced Brosmen
Priory Of The Lemon
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 19:08:00 -
[102] - Quote
The new NeoCom looks very nice, but I find the lack of ability to pin elements to NeoCom a bit annoying. If I open the contracts or fleet window, I get the relevant items present in the NeoCom, I can move them around among the other items wich is nice, but kinda loses it's value when the item dissappears the moment you close the window. And no, I don't want to put those in a stack, as I want them to be accessible with one click.
Also, I see pros and cons regarding the the windows minimizing to the windows to the NeoCom. I definately like that it makes it look a lot cleaner, but as a person who have a large ammount of chat channels open, I don't really like that you have to open the chat list to see wich channels that are "blinking"... As a big fan of the concept of giving the players options, I would like to see an option to minimize certain windows to a tab at the bottom of the screen by using a modifier key. Like hitting the minimize icon would minimize to the NeoCom, but if you hold shift while clicking, it would minimize to a tab at the bottom of the screen...
Overall, I look forward to seeing the NeoCom updated. the skill training progression bar is great and it all looks a lot better then the previous SISI test about a year ago. Keep up the good work
Just my 2 bytes |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
214
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 20:31:00 -
[103] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I'm right there with you on lets make FW all about smaller scale, intense PvP. That's been the scene's biggest draw all along - not the consequences of ownership. But the two go hand in hand - no carrots = no fights. ..
The ultimate goal for faction warriors is to win the war. If the mechanic is functioning properly that should be the ultimate carrot. Being able to say we won fw.
Getting isk/lp would be secondary goals used for the purpose of achieving that ultimate goal.
The problem is the community sees how that ultimate goal is achieved and decided it is not worthy of respect. CCP needs to change how the ultimate goal is achieved so that people will value achieving it.
Examples: Winning the alliance tournament = worthy goal. Alliances will spend isk to try to win it (even if it didn't pay to win)
Winning at ship spinning? not a worthy goal. No one is proud that they did this. Nor should they be.
Winning at faction war? Its closer to winning at ship spinning, than it is to winning an alliance tournament.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
258
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 21:20:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
Can we confirm which "Standings bug" you are referring to here?
I have a petition about Concord Security Standings not raising properly for killing NPCs together with other players, and I'm not sure if this refers to that or a standings issue in Faction Warfare.
Thanks. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
170
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 21:23:00 -
[105] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
Can we confirm which "Standings bug" you are referring to here? I have a petition about Concord Security Standings not raising properly for killing NPCs together with other players, and I'm not sure if this refers to that or a standings issue in Faction Warfare. Thanks.
The standings bug that is know to be in testing is the RR standing loss bug in FW any other standings bug has not been addressed. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
344
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 23:09:00 -
[106] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote:What makes you think large alliances (wether or not they hold sov is a mute point since that line is arbitrary) wouldn't shift back and forth between the different fronts just because they can? It's the way to manage standings while in FW if you are just in it for a short time. That one is easy. Most large alliances have trouble getting members to fly the right fits, or even the right ships. Asking them to get the standings is never going to work. What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Disdaine
181
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 00:18:00 -
[107] - Quote
Palovana wrote:With the old Neocom panel, brackets and labels would not get hidden under it - they would treat the edge of the Neocom bar as the "hard edge" of the screen. This behavior has been lost and unless Autohide is activated it can be hard to see some brackets. (This is probably the biggest issue).
Gotta be kidding me.
There's a reason I indent all my windows.
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
773
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 03:48:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:* The New Neocom
<3
|
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 10:52:00 -
[109] - Quote
Some thoughts on this
They should make the stations fire on the enemy now regardless to fix the station games. Weather a FW station always fires on enemy, or only if you hold sec status, or only if it is your station and you hold sec status should be discussed. Example would be Arzad. Minnies living there, Amarr own the system, so 24th station should engage them.
FW finally able to enter the Alliance Torny??? +1 for this. It was great to see both RvB alliances in the last torny... Especially if Amarr fights Minnies and Caldari fights the Gallente (yes - this is draw based, but still..).
I also wonder if there should be something done with the warp in to plexes mechanic - hard for someone to get into a plex to fight when defenders are already in there and setup on the warp in location. The fleet that is entering is often slaughtered as the dps is at the front and ECM (and possibly RR) has had a chance to setup sufficently far back from the warp in point to be effective, but not immediately shot.
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!! |
COMM4NDER
Umbrella Holding Inc Umbrella Chemical Inc
52
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 11:09:00 -
[110] - Quote
Love the new Neocom however some issues persist atm . Neocom 1, it does not hide enough, it has few pixels on screen when hidden and well its annoying if you ask me and should be hidden until you ask for it. (shown here = http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2137335/EVE-Beta/neocom.png) 2, better indicator of whats a launcher and whats is minimized. right now its hard to spot what is minimized apart from the other icons. 3, undock button missing. General Overload feedback is buggy, sometimes it will blink sometimes it wont and is heretic sometimes. Overload pulse is to fast if you ask me and to small, a slower yet more visible pulse (glow) would make it look better if you ask me. Tag shortcuts - Make an FC enjoy his position more! |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
344
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 11:44:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: ...and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
Can you elaborate on this?
Are you referring to the bug when you jump into a system and half your fleet shows neutral?
This gets old quick.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 12:19:00 -
[112] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: ...and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
Can you elaborate on this? Are you referring to the bug when you jump into a system and half your fleet shows neutral? This gets old quick. Soundwave is referring to this - assisting an outlaw/criminal in your own faction gives you a faction standings hit. |
|
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
98
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 13:09:00 -
[113] - Quote
The neocom needs to be considered the edge of screen as far as brackets are concerned. |
Destructor1792
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 13:48:00 -
[114] - Quote
The Neocom whilst looking alot more fluid & overall better than the current one, I have a few issues:
- Undock Icon Missing
- Fleet Icon Missing
- Mail Icon Missing
- Sometimes all the icons fail to load so I'm sat staring at a blank Neocom! Other times, Icons seem to appear at random then vanish again. Hovering the mouse over where they should be & it shows they have failed to load.
- Minimising items throws them straight back to the Neocom so after a while you have no idea what's open/closed. Allow us to keep open items minimised to the bottom of the screen if we so choose to.
apart from that, looking good |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
344
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:46:00 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Zagdul wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: ...and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
Can you elaborate on this? Are you referring to the bug when you jump into a system and half your fleet shows neutral? This gets old quick. Soundwave is referring to this - assisting an outlaw/criminal in your own faction gives you a faction standings hit.
Are you guys aware of the bug I'm referring to?
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Camios
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
45
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 18:51:00 -
[116] - Quote
The word the describes the present implementation of the Neocom is "mystery" As it is configured on my system, it hides a lot of things in his menu, things that should be accessible with a single click... I figured now how to set it so that I like it (it's very powerful) but I don't like these things:
Minimized chat windows should work as usual and not disappear into the neocom.
Some really important chat channels like the fleet channel must be accessible with a click; if I am forced to minimise it I should be able to recover it with a single click. Now if you minimise a chat windoww it goes to hide in the chat icon in the neocom, and you have to do at least 2 clicks to recover it; moreover you don't see chat channels blinking and that's bad.
For some reason, icons disappear from the neocom when some actions are performed (as adding something to a group), and I was able to restore it if I did some other random stuff (like creating another group. Perhaps because the neocom status was refreshed?). In a word, a bit buggy, hope it's fixed, if I can I will submit a bugreport but it seems rather tricky to reproduce even if it happens often. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 20:53:00 -
[117] - Quote
the new neocom is a buggy mess and if you lose all my window settings again I'm not gonna forgive you katrin
|
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
322
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 21:15:00 -
[118] - Quote
regarding FW, listen to Hans, you guys have no idea what you're doing. you don't. i'll say nothing more. |
Harleigh
Genbuku. Nulli Secunda
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 00:49:00 -
[119] - Quote
Can you please include an option for all configurable panels like the new Neocom (awsesome btw) and the quickbar in the market window where we can export / import settings ? This will make life for those of us with multiple toons / computers to migrate settings or sync them between toons. As it is I have to go and copy files / change char id's on the files ever time I make a change.
All we need is exactly what is being done on the overview today for import / export!
Oh and on sissy, my undock icon is missing but the area still works if you hover over it and you get a description popup. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
465
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 04:07:00 -
[120] - Quote
Awesome. you guys brought back the neo neocom, with the same set of features, but vertical! And suddenly everyone likes it! just like i said! Suck it tippia!
anyways I actually would love to be able to put it on the top or bottom of my screen. I'm just used it to it in lots of other mmos. If it's not hard please consider it : )
Anyways I just wanted to say, I basically quit over a combination of the neo neocom being scraped, the old nebula, and FW being basically ignored like it wasn't something cp wanted to say was real.
This post, plus the last expansion, has basically really pushed me to start buying year long subs and getting back into the game again!
keep up the great work.
|
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
465
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 04:09:00 -
[121] - Quote
Camios wrote:The word the describes the present implementation of the Neocom is "mystery" As it is configured on my system, it hides a lot of things in his menu, things that should be accessible with a single click... I figured now how to set it so that I like it (it's very powerful) but I don't like these things:
Minimized chat windows should work as usual and not disappear into the neocom.
Some really important chat channels like the fleet channel must be accessible with a click; if I am forced to minimise it I should be able to recover it with a single click. Now if you minimise a chat windoww it goes to hide in the chat icon in the neocom, and you have to do at least 2 clicks to recover it; moreover you don't see chat channels blinking and that's bad.
For some reason, icons disappear from the neocom when some actions are performed (as adding something to a group), and I was able to restore it if I did some other random stuff (like creating another group. Perhaps because the neocom status was refreshed?). In a word, a bit buggy, hope it's fixed, if I can I will submit a bugreport but it seems rather tricky to reproduce even if it happens often.
didn't the old neo neocom let you put different chat boxes into a button? I'm sure it's just a bug or something. |
Commander Lenix
1st MC
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 04:52:00 -
[122] - Quote
+1 for making the Standing requirement to join higher than 0.5. A standing of 5.0 might be too high but something like 3.0 might work.
Also +1 for making it open only for non sov holding Alliances. Alliances that hold sov shouldn't be allowed to fight for the state. They have their own territory to worry about. If sov holding alliances are able to join then the militia will only get their left overs. Their sov will probably always be more important to them and will always take precedence than anything else FW related. It will turn into a place for them to farm isk and ***** KMs and blob, blob, blob. End the end these larger Sov holding alliances will not benefit FW at all but only hurt it more than it already is.
TL:DR Higher standing requirement to join FW. Yes to Alliances, no to Sov-holding Alliances. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 08:21:00 -
[123] - Quote
new neocom is very confusing :(
Put an option in that user can choose between new and old design. |
PinkKnife
Garden Of The Gods Divinity.
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 23:19:00 -
[124] - Quote
Spc One wrote:new neocom is very confusing :( Put an option in that user can choose between new and old design. Or at least put text next to items so we know what they mean.
It is very pretty, but lacks consistency. Often I found buttons missing when they shouldn't be. It makes sense to have certain station only icons gone when in space, but I found a lot of them stayed missing when I redocked. Other times things had no icons, try minimizing the overview...then getting it back....that was fun.
If it is made consistent and fleshed out I think it should be pretty awesome.
Also, keep in mind that people will have facebook syndrome.
"Oooo what is this, it's new and different! I hate it! change is bad! I want the old look back! I'm scared!"
Two weeks later...
" What new newcom?" |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
744
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:48:00 -
[125] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Anyways I just wanted to say, I basically quit over a combination of the neo neocom being scraped, the old nebula, and FW being basically ignored like it wasn't something cp wanted to say was real.
This post, plus the last expansion, has basically really pushed me to start buying year long subs and getting back into the game again!
keep up the great work.
Just so you all know, hearing statements like THIS are why I take the time to write all my walls of text, play equal parts good cop / bad cop when sharing my thoughts with CCP devs, and in general spend far too much time in forums than is good for one's health (and admittedly, sometimes more than I spend on Tranquility itself - though often this is due to being away from home where I can play.)
Every person we can add to the active community again makes it that worth the work. That's one more wingmate, one more enemy to shoot, one more consumer of goods to keep the economy strong, and one more friend to spend time with.
Thanks for sharing Moon, and great to have you back! o7 |
darius mclever
22
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 05:54:00 -
[126] - Quote
Harleigh wrote:Can you please include an option for all configurable panels like the new Neocom (awsesome btw) and the quickbar in the market window where we can export / import settings ? This will make life for those of us with multiple toons / computers to migrate settings or sync them between toons. As it is I have to go and copy files / change char id's on the files ever time I make a change.
All we need is exactly what is being done on the overview today for import / export!
Oh and on sissy, my undock icon is missing but the area still works if you hover over it and you get a description popup.
how about just storing it on the server? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
897
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 11:17:00 -
[127] - Quote
Any news on the EVE Launcher? |
Dr Sodius
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 11:32:00 -
[128] - Quote
so far pretty nice the new neocom and the others fixes :)
i like!
but i've noticed some missing "features" like:
a) iam not able to drag&drop bookmarks (browser & space bookmarks!)
b) me thinks, the transparency of the new neocom should be adjustable
c) option to minimze chats or conversations into the neocom bar (as long as space is enough)
d) how about a shortcut for the graphic settings ? you know, current, low, max settings ? would be freaky!!
also, can i make a request?
if i set a route through new eden from a starting point to a station , the station is marked yellow.. but only in space
make it so, that if i right-click and navigate to the stations in the dropmenue, the designated target (here the station) is marked in yellow as well (if possible)
thx and keep up the damn good work! |
Phoehnix
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 12:58:00 -
[129] - Quote
New neocom is YES YES YESS!!!!
Love the fact that you can customize it with whatever buttons you want and the autohide function is sweeet |
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:23:00 -
[130] - Quote
Hanz Jagerblitzen wrote: Simply ushering this through without at least communicating that they have a master plan here will only exacerbate an already sore sub-community in EvE who has shown far more dedication to the feature than the developers have since its release.
Preach it preacha man! |
|
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 19:44:00 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Agreed. The capture mechanics are the second priority though, compared to the consequences of taking/losing space, which we're looking into :)
Care to share what is being considered for the capture mechanic? For instance I think most members of FW would agree that the standard POS/Outpost bash isn't really a desired "feature." Think more rebel alliance vs deathstar, and less beating your head against a wall.
Perhaps something to consider would be a multi-room deadspace complex like Worlds Collide using something similar to the current plexing mechanic. The bunker would be a deathstar that sits inside a deadspace complex that has entry gates that are opened by major plexes. Minor and medium plexes lead to different upgrade satellites (eg. shield resistance/recharger, or guns) - which can be contested by either side at any time. This way a small resistance group has the potential to frustrate an assault before backup arrives. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
748
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 20:06:00 -
[132] - Quote
Fidelium Mortis wrote: Care to share what is being considered for the capture mechanic? For instance I think most members of FW would agree that the standard POS/Outpost bash isn't really a desired "feature." Think more rebel alliance vs deathstar, and less beating your head against a wall.
InB4 Cearain decries your suggestions for even more complicated PvE setups in the FW plexes :)
That whole debate aside, I'm personally really really really hoping any silence about this particular aspect of the feature is because they've got a strong Faction Warfare tie-in related to Dust 514. To me, thatGÇÖs the perfect way to kill two birds with one stone, as both nullsec and lowsec have almost identical core mechanics problems related to sovereignty, that has lead to stagnation and reduced fighting over the years.
Assuming all is going according to schedule, this means there are ALREADY plans well in place and programmed that will overhaul at very least the nullsec sov system that was last borked in the Dominion patch, tieing sovereignty not just to space bunkers but to planetside installations as well, for the Dust mercs to fight over.
If CCP was wise they would use Faction Warfare as the tie-in for a lowsec gameplay in Dust 514, allowing mercs to take contracts from the militias to secure contested control bunkers on the planets as well as the in-space plexes weGÇÖre used to.
ULTIMATELY, IGÇÖd love to see Dust 514 activity be taken off-planet, and into the plexes themselves. A Dust 514 deathmatch match could just as easily be fought and won or lost in the amount of time it takes for a ship to orbit a current plex button. Instead of the current mechanics, pilots could warp into a plex, drop the mercs off at the bunker, let them shoot their way to victory, while PvP pilots orbit the installation ready to provide evacuation for the mercs. This would be dramatically much more interesting, while still remaining completely PvP-based. It would also allow for those wicked and oh-so-satisfying "This time, there WON'T be an evacuation!!" moments where EvE players could be as ruthless as the dude in the Dust trailer was to his ground team.
This could all be wishful thinking, or if weGÇÖre still on track for a Dust 514 Spring release, something similar could already be in place and CCPGÇÖs just kept quiet about it to follow a marketing and press release schedule. I'm certainly hoping for the latter. In the meantime, I'm still a bit nervous about just how little we know about sov changes given that they are supposed to be where the Dust mercs come into play.
|
Aenrea
Terpene Conglomerate
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 20:15:00 -
[133] - Quote
I like the new neocom, but I have one question (tried to find an answer, but failed), anyway, according to this devblog, there is the new neocom in a horizontal bottom position, is this somehow customizable now on sisi too? I really like the new customizability of buttons in the neocom (just have it what I really need there), and I like how it is giving you an overview about opened windows (much better than it is currently on TQ), but somehow, I miss this new awesome neocom on horizontal bottom position as it is showed in mentioned devblog :)
Thanks and keep up great work CCP! |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
214
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 21:25:00 -
[134] - Quote
Hans
Yeah I'm not in favor of gaining occupancy via pve.
But I think your idea of dust players fighting for bunkers and effecting faction war sounds pretty good.
It could explain why we need to orbit a button so long - to drop off the troops. Instead of saying we captured the complex it might say you droped the troops off you can now warp out.
On the dust side after we orbited the button long enough our team might see they can go and take over a system.
But anyway I'm sure they have this sorted out already.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ibeau Renoir
Colonial Fleet Services Independent Faction
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 21:38:00 -
[135] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Any chance that the in-game calculator can get some love?
I would like to be able to use the number pad for operators (+ - / *) and = (num pad enter)
The fact that I cannot do this makes me want to keep a real calc at my desk or tab out of the game. Also allow numpad comma to enter a decimal point. I guess you can already do this in the German client, but I'm weird and have a German keymap with an English client. (Windows calc is smart enough to know what you mean, why not Eve's?) |
Damassys Kadesh
Eternal Damnation of the Woken Mind
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 01:17:00 -
[136] - Quote
NOTE: I keep trying to link the "Factional Warfare: Moving Forward" thread here... and repeatedly get the error "There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode"
I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.
He puts a lot of effort into expressing FW concerns in well-written posts. Please devs, take the time to read them carefully and consider them comprehensively. There is no shortage of additional meaningful discussion from the FW community in the linked threads, so there should be no problem in allocating your development to the best fixes.
CCP is good enough to create an awesome game that draws people in, so I have no doubt that they can put their minds to making FW better. It seems blatantly obvious that, once it's improved upon, current loyal players and new players alike will be stoked to participate. Don't go and skip step 1 (improving) and go straight to step 2 (boosting participation)... foresight is required here, and you have the most faithful playerbase from which to draw feedback.
FW has been a few tweaks away from a massive subscription increase for years. The time is nigh! |
Damassys Kadesh
Eternal Damnation of the Woken Mind
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 01:18:00 -
[137] - Quote
Damassys Kadesh wrote:NOTE: I keep trying to link the "Factional Warfare: Moving Forward" thread here... and repeatedly get the error "There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode"
I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.
He puts a lot of effort into expressing FW concerns in well-written posts. Please devs, take the time to read them carefully and consider them comprehensively. There is no shortage of additional meaningful discussion from the FW community in the linked threads, so there should be no problem in allocating your development to the best fixes.
CCP is good enough to create an awesome game that draws people in, so I have no doubt that they can put their minds to making FW better. It seams blatantly obvious that, once it's improved upon, current loyal players and new players alike will be stoked to participate. Don't go and skip step 1 (improving) and go straight to step 2 (boosting participation)... foresight is required here, and you have the most faithful playerbase from which to draw feedback.
FW has been a few tweaks away from a massive subscription increase for years. The time is nigh!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=18015
Seems to work here? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
753
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 01:23:00 -
[138] - Quote
Damassys Kadesh wrote: I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.
Ahhhhh yes, this is excellent. Those implants provided to me by the Sanshas seem to be operating as promised.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
753
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 02:00:00 -
[139] - Quote
Cearain wrote: It could explain why we need to orbit a button so long - to drop off the troops. Instead of saying we captured the complex it might say you droped the troops off you can now warp out.
On the dust side after we orbited the button long enough our team might see they can go and take over a system.
But anyway I'm sure they have this sorted out already.
I'm not even talking explaining the "why" of an orbit button, I'm talking the dust fight happening inside the plex, in real time. I'm talking about when our FW pilots warp into a plex, it means we already have our ground troops online waiting for the match to begin, which would happen once the EvE ship gets within proximity of the bunker, or perhaps even "launches" a probe like a missle, dropping the mercs off and opening the match for the console owners to spring into action. Literally, while we are orbiting that button, waiting for the timer to tick down, we can listen to the gunfire and the screams and hear the progress as Dust mercs race against a clock to secure the facility, convert the bunker over to friendly control, and escape back to a getaway pod to be retrieved by EvE players for a safe warp-out.
Since really there needs to be alert system for Faction Warfare plexes anyways, the Dust mercs would be racing against not only the consoles players who might be dispatched to defending a faciity, but racing against the possibility that their "ride" (the EvE ship who brought them there) could be eliminated in space if they take their time or fail at their attempt to seize the plex bunker Dust could spawn NPC foes as cheap default defense to chew through if the Amarr didn't make it in time to launch a merc probe themselves. Eve pilots can warn the Dust players the mission may be going south, or vice versa, and both teams can adjust priorities and tactics on the fly.
I know this sounds like a stretch, but I don't really see it as one given that cross-platform comms and cross-platform warfare are already functioning in Beta as intended. All this would mean is creating some maps for matches that would take place inside a space facility, instead of being limited to planetside as we have seen exclusively so far in the screens and trailers, and allowing Dust clones to be transported and deployed using a specialized EvE ship (I suspect this is already part of the link already, if not something slated for the future).
Ultimately the plexes could offer a more dynamic PvP scenario than a simple game of "king of the hill", there could be dedicated troop transport ships that one would need to get into the plex, protect long enough to get the dust mercs out, and failure could mean pissing off the mercs enough by letting them die or leaving them behind, risking the chance they'll defect or screw you over next time around.
I hope you're right and all this is sorted out already, regarding troop transports, deployment, and the Dust -Eve-Sov link. If not, we're slated for another Incarna in terms of being way behind schedule and possibly enraging customers who expect this level of interaction between the games and get handed something far more limited. I don't get the sense that this is the case though. I just think we have a lot of exciting news yet coming to us in the next few months, if we can be patient enough! |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
246
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 09:58:00 -
[140] - Quote
I'd prefer they did away with the infernal button entirely .. replace it with a less obvious waste of time like multiple hack targets or mini-games. As long as the time spent can be controlled almost anything is better than "The ButtonGäó" (my 400k lifetime VP demands "The ButtonGäó" be put to death! .. I intentionally let Sasa overtake me \o/). |
|
Diana Kim
Wolfsbrigade
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 14:05:00 -
[141] - Quote
I can't find stuff in new NeoCom. Nuff said |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
216
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 15:10:00 -
[142] - Quote
Damassys Kadesh wrote:.... I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.
Me too. I try to focus on that 1%. To make him perfect.
Hans I think that would be good. So your saying we are orbitting the button waiting until they finish the job and then can fly them out when they are done? So there would be no timer. As soon as the dust players shoot whatever they need to shoot then we can get them out of there. It may take them 10 minutes it might take them 10 hours - if they are clueless. Hire good dust players and you get an advantage. I'm happy with that.
Isn't the dust beta out? If so can anyone tell how the interaction with eve will work? I have no ps3.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Garr Earthbender
Quantum Cats Syndicate
31
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 15:27:00 -
[143] - Quote
Nope. Dust beta isn't out yet.... |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
755
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 15:35:00 -
[144] - Quote
There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
755
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 15:37:00 -
[145] - Quote
There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
755
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 15:37:00 -
[146] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Damassys Kadesh wrote: I generally agree with 99% of what Hans says 99% of the time.
Me too. I try to focus on that 1%. To make him perfect.
I was already a little weirded out by Damassys's statement, now I REALLY feel like I should be concerned Like a patient on Nip/Tuck or something!
Quote:Hans I think that would be good. So your saying we are orbitting the button waiting until they finish the job and then can fly them out when they are done? So there would be no timer. As soon as the dust players shoot whatever they need to shoot then we can get them out of there. It may take them 10 minutes it might take them 10 hours - if they are clueless. Hire good dust players and you get an advantage. I'm happy with that.
Isn't the dust beta out? If so can anyone tell how the interaction with eve will work? I have no ps3.
Precisely - no timers, objective-based. You hire winners, or you're waiting a while :) I'd love to see a synergy between success on the ground and success in space, so that both parties can influence the outcome. Maybe there's multiple ways it can play out -perhaps you can hack a bunker and convert it to friendly control, winning that system, or self-destruct / nuke the bunker as a last ditch resort, putting the system in a suspended contested state for a period of time while the bunker undergoes "repairs". A space battle that is losing could trigger you to order the ground troops to execute "Plan B" instead !! Something along those lines....just tossing out ideas.
Dust beta is in sign-up mode...they are gathering their pool of EvE applicants, once their pool is full they'll draw names or review eligibility or whatever, and move on from there. In the meantime, there's quite a crowd stirring while people wait, like a school cafeteria jam-packed with kids that are told they have to wait there while Santa brings presents to their houses.....the anticipation is pretty tangible, everyone's getting antsy.
Here's where you can follow along, if you're interested...
...and I officially give up trying to link. These forums are crazy broken. I've copied, pasted, used link tool a thousand ways on diff links and its all "error in BBcode, parsed blah blah"
But yeah, there's a thread about the dev blog announcing the Beta where people are asking questions and waiting it out... |
samivael
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 17:04:00 -
[147] - Quote
The new neocom is a slick addition when you get used to it, nice work ccp.
Could you make the notification blink on things like wallet brighter and a once only thing like it is on tranq. The constant almost stealthy movement of it in my peripheral vision was distracting, i kept thinking something was coming at me from the left
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Unprovoked Aggression
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 20:06:00 -
[148] - Quote
all is good just please please please no moving / blinking stuff just make them buttons brighter instead |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
173
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 20:10:00 -
[149] - Quote
samivael wrote:The new neocom is a slick addition when you get used to it, nice work ccp. Could you make the notification blink on things like wallet brighter and a once only thing like it is on tranq. The constant almost stealthy movement of it in my peripheral vision was distracting, i kept thinking something was coming at me from the left edit: A useability downgrade with chat channels: On tranq when chat channels are minimized its easy to see at a glance which channel is blinking and decide whether to maximize it or not (i.e if its intel). It's a minimal interference with whatever you're doing, like pvping. The way it is on sisi you have to click on chat to maximize to see if you need to answer, then re-minimize. it seems an unnecessary hinderance to quick, slick information gathering. Yep chat channels need to be splitable and have dif icons |
Taius Pax
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 23:51:00 -
[150] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:Team Pink Zombie Kittens has been hard at work making new features for your entertainment pleasure. These include: * Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare. * The New Neocom * Corporation Locations (Bookmarks) can now be saved directly into the Corporations folder. When Singularity next starts these will be available to you. Your feedback and bug reports would be invaluable to us.
I wrote up another post with feedback on the new Neocom. I just found this thread and this is probably the better place for my feedback:
I made a diagram that calls out the UI design issues I see with it which is linked at the end, but here's a summary:
1) The fan-out menus are mostly superfluous. There only 8 unique icons in the entire menu tree that aren't already on the main bar. Those could be collapsed into smaller sub menus that are currently used for accessories. There's plenty of space on the existing bar for all the icons - especially if they were collapsed into single tier menus and not duplicated.
2) The distance between left side menu and any non-duplicated function has grown from about 32 pixels to 268 pixels. They're also buried 2 submenus down instead of at most 1, which is the max of the current system. That's a lot of extra mouse movement.
3) The undock button has been placed next to commonly used functions. While accidentally clicking other buttons doesn't usually have a major impact on gameplay (they just pop up another window), this button puts you into space where you can be engaged by other players. A button with that significance shouldn't be placed in such a way as to make accidental clicks more likely.
Here's the image i marked up. It highlights these issues in a graphical way. |
|
COMM4NDER
Umbrella Holding Inc Umbrella Chemical Inc
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 01:03:00 -
[151] - Quote
So updated since the last test I did.
Neocom 1, it does not hide enough, it has few pixels on screen when hidden and well its annoying if you ask me and should be hidden until you ask for it. (shown here = http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2137335/EVE-Beta/neocom.png) Still present
2, better indicator of whats a launcher and what is minimized. right now its hard to spot what is minimized apart from the other icons. [Better]
But still should be better, for example: have Corp, local and alliacne in its own windows. Minimize one of them and then click on chat icon in neocom and you will be given all options you have but no indication on the minimized one thus making the user to read all of them and checking back and forth. Instead give a backdrop or a indicator that will show that with quick glance on what window is minimized.
3, undock button missing. [Fixed]
4, not all windows aligning to neocom will move when it enters the screen (from hidden mode) - Update, seems like when its hidden the windows have trouble sticking to the neocom and instead sticks to the viewport (left side of the screen and thus ignoring when the neocom gets pushed out) - Found out that sticking windows to it when it slides out or in is a good workaround but annoying one since you need to be fast. Still present
General Overload feedback is buggy, sometimes it will blink sometimes it wont and is heretic sometimes. [still present] Overload pulse is to fast if you ask me and to small, a slower yet more visible pulse (glow) would make it look better if you ask me. [still present] Tag shortcuts - Make an FC enjoy his position more! |
Scalar Angulargf
Rayn Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 04:48:00 -
[152] - Quote
x-post regarding the chat button
Scalar Angulargf wrote:-1. Now you can't tell if there's been an update to an intel channel or if it's just people talking in local. These should either minimize to the bottom or each window should be a separate window under the chat button.
EDIT: Preferably the former, but individual channel/window buttons on the neocom would be better than the latter. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
598
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 05:07:00 -
[153] - Quote
Yes, the devs need to realize that for a lot of us, we need a minimum of 12 chat tabs open to keep track of what is going on in the universe.
I always have a minimum of 18 chat channels open. Which goes up to about 21-23 once I fleet up for combat.
What would be nice (someday) is if I could decide to collapse a few channels into a single window and have to prefix with /1 /2 /3 /4 (up through /9) to speak into a particular channel in that window. Including giving different colors to each chat channel that I have configured to display in a particular chat window. Then I could collapse down some of the "quieter" channels into a single chat tab while leaving the busier channels in their own tabs. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
900
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 05:15:00 -
[154] - Quote
Open up in game chat as IRC channels! Problem solved by outsourcing.
We have out-of-game Vivox connectivity, why not do the same for text chat? |
Shalee Lianne
Imperial Outlaws
62
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 07:08:00 -
[155] - Quote
Several pages back one of the devs said something about only having so much time for this January patch and thats why FW is getting alliances, because there isn't much time to fix anything else.
Well okay..
I think we've seen in the past that rushing to do things kinda makes things worse, not better.
There's no reason to add more people to broken faction war.
Fix it first, then bring in other people.
Those of us who love FW will stick around til you make it better, no reason to try to destory it completely because you feel rushed (which is strange in itself since FW has been ignored for years).
I'm not a fan of adding alliances. If I wanted to be in an alliance I'd go to null. Those who play in FW actually like it. Can it be better? Sure. Do we need to turn it into a replica of null to make it better? Nah. We like our little part of New Eden.
I don't understand why CCP refuses to listen to those who actually play in FW. You will find countless threads with thousands of ideas that will make FW so much better, but it seems like those things are completely ignored and these random a$$ed 'fixes' get thrown at us.
Ah well.
http://amarrian.blogspot.com/ -á~ Roleplay blog.http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
247
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 09:59:00 -
[156] - Quote
Shalee Lianne wrote:...I don't understand why CCP refuses to listen to those who actually play in FW. You will find countless threads with thousands of ideas that will make FW so much better, but it seems like those things are completely ignored and these random a$$ed 'fixes' get thrown at us. Null wants cheap navy gear and an alternative revenue source. What null wants, null gets .. you should know this by now
PS: Asses isn't filtered, no need to strain your hand reaching for the the $ sign.
|
EmmerTemp
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 11:20:00 -
[157] - Quote
Dr Sodius wrote:
d) how about a shortcut for the graphic settings ? you know, current, low, max settings ? would be freaky!!
It is a bit much to ask... but indeed, a shortcut on the neo to set your client from normal setting to low settings and back whould be the most perfect thing ever to happen :)
Anyways... love the new Neo, looks great! also the new overload features rock! Keep up the good work
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
761
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 15:40:00 -
[158] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Shalee Lianne wrote:...I don't understand why CCP refuses to listen to those who actually play in FW. You will find countless threads with thousands of ideas that will make FW so much better, but it seems like those things are completely ignored and these random a$$ed 'fixes' get thrown at us. Null wants cheap navy gear and an alternative revenue source. What null wants, null gets .. you should know this by now PS: Asses isn't filtered, no need to strain your hand reaching for the the $ sign.
First off, I completely understand the decision to involve Alliances sparks a lot of emotions, and rightfully so - it has a lot of potential to drastically change the nature of the Faction Warfare scene, for better or for worse. It also is just as likely that very few Alliances, if any, actually make the switch.
The primary factors influencing the decision to make this change are twofold - the first being what Soundwave already said - its an easier-to-implement "low-hanging-fruit" that is more accessible in terms of programming time than other, larger forms of iteration.
However, we need to be accurate and fair in our discussion so I am obligated to point out that the decision to include Alliances is NOT a new idea, its one of the oldest, and was actually voted upon, ratified, and added to CCP's backlog three years ago. This is the second main reason the decision is in the pipeline.
Simply put, this is not the result of whiny Alliances pressuring CCP to give them access to our resources, nor it is a "random" fix in any way.
That being said, I feel the most important concern is this - Alliance participation in Faction Warfare, despite any historical approval or endorsement by the player base, is currently one of the most divisive and emotional arguments that is on the table for discussion. "Low hanging fruit" should not only include that which takes the least time to program, with respect to the community I feel "low hanging fruit" should be the items that are least likely to split and divide the Faction Warfare community, leading to less participation ultimately rather than more.
I personally think that ultimately Alliance involvement with the Faction Warfare scene are inevitable, and ultimately beneficial.
However the timing of this change is far too likely to be destabilizing - NOT because of how Alliances will destroy us, but because how the subsequent reaction has the potential to cause the Faction Warfare corporations to destroy themselves in the process.
I urge CCP to listen to the community's concerns and critically assess the atmosphere inside the Faction Warfare community at this point in time, and not make a decision based on 3-year old debates. I urge CCP to respect the fact that the collective pilots in the militias have invested far more in this feature than the developers have over the last three years, and deserve a chance to test and utilize any new Faction Warfare improvements before a potentially destabilizing element such as Alliances enters the scene and strains the social relationships amongst the Faction Warfare corporations.
I agree with Susan BlackGÇÖs assessment of the situation that arguments about GÇ£breakingGÇ¥ an already broken feature are rather thin. But the reality is that there isnGÇÖt an active GÇ£warGÇ¥ raging at the moment to keep the factions focused and cohesive. There is an atmosphere of boredom, with various corps dabbling in a dozen different areas to muster kills and keep players having fun however possible. This is the most dangerous atmosphere to bring Alliance populations into GÇô boredom and lack of an objective to focus on is exactly the type of situation where Alliances with ulterior motives and/or chaotic and destructive tendencies will flourish, to the detriment of all who have hung in there and dedicated years to keeping the feature alive long enough to see the day when improvements will finally come.
TL:DR GÇôWill Alliances GÇ£destroyGÇ¥ Faction Warfare? Not if the community is happy, focused, and actively engaged in an interesting war once again. The feature could certainly use fresh blood and more targets. However, allowing Alliances to enter the scene when faction unity is at record lows and there really isnGÇÖt an ongoing war to participate in only provides the greatest opportunity for abuse and destruction. The community has worked so hard to bring Faction Warfare improvement to the table, It would be a real shame to see the community implode right before the changes that can GÇ£saveGÇ¥ the feature have a chance to work their magic. The committed warriors of the four races deserve their chance to enjoy GÇ£the new warGÇ¥ first, theyGÇÖve earned it.
This is just my opinion, based on what I see. I donGÇÖt want CCP to take my word for it GÇô I want them to listen carefully to the collective feedback from the community, weigh the pros and cons, and make an informed and un-hasty decision. |
Asthariye
Angry Mustellid
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 15:50:00 -
[159] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:A lot of really sensible stuff
This. Please, CCP, for the love of all that's good and sensible in this universe, take this man's words to heart. This is not the right time to bring alliances into FW. It has been a broken feature for years, held together only by a small, dedicated community working its asses off to keep it alive. To stomp roughshod over the feelings of that community regarding this change would be wrong and potentially very unwise, not to mention just plain rude. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
216
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 16:11:00 -
[160] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:However, we need to be accurate and fair in our discussion so I am obligated to point out that the decision to include Alliances is NOT a new idea, its one of the oldest, and was actually voted upon, ratified, and added to CCP's backlog three years ago. This is the second main reason the decision is in the pipeline.
I don't care too much either way. But in the interests of accuracy and fairness it seems the proposal that the csm voted on was much more nuanced than just letting alliances join. I'm assuming you are referring to this backlogged proposal:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces_(CSM)
Under the pros of that proposal we see:
"more pvp for empire/lowsec based alliances that don't want to become sov holders"
We see other limits on how alliances would join in that proposal including no defensive plexing. Although this is not specifically addressed, based on the underlying threads, it appears the alliances would not be able to run fw missions either .
Is this the proposal you are refering to? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
250
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 16:52:00 -
[161] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:..It also is just as likely that very few Alliances, if any, actually make the switch.. That's my problem, there is no 'switch'. There is absolutely nothing to lose and tons to gain by joining an alliance up, the only sacrifice they might have to make is move high-sec alts into neutral corps and that is it.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:..and was actually voted upon, ratified, and added to CCP's backlog three years ago.. It is indeed probably the oldest, came up during the discussion prior to Empyrean Age going live and all the RP entities saw great potential in FW as an RP vehicle .. been voted on 3-4 times in slightly different shades over the years I think.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I personally think that ultimately Alliance involvement with the Faction Warfare scene are inevitable, and ultimately beneficial. Most definitely, alliances will be awesome to have involved .. but not with FW in its current state. If a ferry is taking on water you try to mend it before loading more passengers! Note: Above analogy is not entirely accurate as a sinking ferry might be saved by a dead'ish person plugging the hole so more people onboard can be a good thing, whereas FW does not enjoy such luxury.
|
Damassys Kadesh
Eternal Damnation of the Woken Mind
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 17:36:00 -
[162] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Note: Above analogy is not entirely accurate as a sinking ferry might be saved by a dead'ish person plugging the hole so more people onboard can be a good thing, whereas FW does not enjoy such luxury.
lol! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
761
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 18:00:00 -
[163] - Quote
Damassys Kadesh wrote:Hirana Yoshida wrote:Note: Above analogy is not entirely accurate as a sinking ferry might be saved by a dead'ish person plugging the hole so more people onboard can be a good thing, whereas FW does not enjoy such luxury.
lol!
Yeah what?? I mean, don't get me wrong - we Minmatar definitely resort to creative measures to keep our ships intact (Duct tape, mainly) - but CORPSES?? Lets not give the Amarr any reason to look down their noses at us than they already have.
My people are still recovering from the negative stereotypes reinforced when everyone ended up spending too much time in our version of Captain Quarters.
We enjoy a "rustic lifestyle" but we're not that foul.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
761
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 18:16:00 -
[164] - Quote
Cearain wrote: I'm assuming you are referring to this backlogged proposal: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces_(CSM) Under the pros of that proposal we see: "more pvp for empire/lowsec based alliances that don't want to become sov holders" We see other limits on how alliances would join in that proposal including no defensive plexing. Although this is not specifically addressed, based on the underlying threads, it appears the alliances would not be able to run fw missions either . Is this the proposal you are refering to?
Yes, it is, along with this proposal as well.
Both proposals are far more nuanced and cautious in nature than simply allowing Alliances to join with ONLY a simple standings requirement. I urge CCP to remember these provisions suggested by the players, even if they are going to base a current change on a three-year-old set of opinions.
The provisions of BOTH proposals, which were both overwhelming "yes" votes, also are completely based around the idea of FW existing as a bridge to nullsec gameplay, and a training ground for Alliances. This is totally out of touch with the reality of the current situation.
Current Alliances, I feel, would much rather recruit and train their own pilots directly, and historically have scoffed at the PvP prowess of the militias and wouldn't trust us these days to train their PvP pilots anyways. (The Mittani is famous for not being afraid to recruit, train, and make effective use of players of ANY skill point level). Furthermore, pilots enlisting in Faction Warfare are often pursuing a PvP style that is fundamentally different than nullsec warfare, so training within militias for Alliances to take elsewhere would be of limited use, at best.
The current community has been shaped by dedicated players who see Faction Warfare not as a stepping stone, but as a fundamentally fun and worthwhile feature in its own right, many of us have no intention of moving beyond Faction Warfare if it is revitalized again. The reality of the current demographic, in contrast to that of the time of these proposals, should most certainly be considered in this decision.
None of us can stop CCP here if they truly mean to see this implemented sooner than summer expansion to the feature, I'm simply asking them to respond to these concerns with an explanation that they are taking steps to protect current Faction Warfare enthusiasts from potential abuse and disruption of the gameplay they have shaped for themselves given the tools handed to them by CCP, broken or otherwise. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
250
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 18:39:00 -
[165] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Yeah what?? .. Never mentioned anything about the Matari peoples, you read that into it all on your own. Perhaps deep down, in your subconscious, you really believe that your people are "that foul".
Lay down your arms, come home and be cleansed by the divine light!
PS: Sorry couldn't resist
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
216
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 18:42:00 -
[166] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote: I'm assuming you are referring to this backlogged proposal: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces_(CSM) Under the pros of that proposal we see: "more pvp for empire/lowsec based alliances that don't want to become sov holders" We see other limits on how alliances would join in that proposal including no defensive plexing. Although this is not specifically addressed, based on the underlying threads, it appears the alliances would not be able to run fw missions either . Is this the proposal you are refering to? Yes, it is, along with this proposal as well. Both proposals are far more nuanced and cautious in nature than simply allowing Alliances to join with ONLY a simple standings requirement. I urge CCP to remember these provisions suggested by the players, even if they are going to base a current change on a three-year-old set of opinions. The provisions of BOTH proposals, which were both overwhelming "yes" votes, also are completely based around the idea of FW existing as a bridge to nullsec gameplay, and a training ground for Alliances. This is totally out of touch with the reality of the current situation.....
I didn't see that one. Which is incompatible with the second proposal. Although its true both proposals seemed to have substantial support from the csm, none of the relevant assembly hall threads received very much support from players.
To be fair to ccp I don't think there is very much consensus on specific changes to fw. They just need to make the call on what they are going to do and get on with it.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
761
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 19:03:00 -
[167] - Quote
Cearain wrote: To be fair to ccp I don't think there is very much consensus on specific changes to fw. They just need to make the call on what they are going to do and get on with it.
This is a dangerous suggestion. Players may not agree, but they have put forth plenty of suggestions and concerns that should be taken into consideration.
Lest we forget what got us into Crucible to begin with - "making the call" to just keep releasing content package after content package, straying further away from the wishes of the players and not paying heed to the warnings that everyone gave them leading up to Incarna's arguably disasterous release.
Saying "Faction warfare pilots aren't going to agree anyways, just do SOMETHING, anything, than stick to it regardless of what they say...." will not bring about a better feature in the end.
CCP should not just throw blinders on and trudge forward. It is absolutely CCP's decision, but part of their new corp direction is to listen to developers and players alike rather than sticking to agendas arbitrarily.
The fact that we disagree is all the more reason to be cautious, and listen twice as hard, rather than simply running with something because they need to deliver on promised "FW changes".
Bottom line is we've been working hard the last year to reverse the trend of a FW community that was hopeless and feeling abandoned and ignored by CCP, left for dead and betrayed by the no-show at the Fanfest roundtable.
"making a decision and running with it" without being able communicate that they've addressed the very real problems with some proposals (previous suggestions like removing NPC's from highsec were even more disastrous potentially) is only going to rip open the old wounds and cause the FW community to feel like CCP doesn't care about their opinions or feedback once again.
We need to be working to improve the player / developer relationship, not strain it further by making arbitrary decisions because its more difficult to try to find a middle ground.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
216
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 00:52:00 -
[168] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: CCP should not just throw blinders on and trudge forward. It is absolutely CCP's decision, but part of their new corp direction is to listen to developers and players alike rather than sticking to agendas arbitrarily.
The fact that we disagree is all the more reason to be cautious, and listen twice as hard, rather than simply running with something because they need to deliver on promised "FW changes".
Bottom line is we've been working hard the last year to reverse the trend of a FW community that was hopeless and feeling abandoned and ignored by CCP, left for dead and betrayed by the no-show at .....
I'm not suggesting they throw on blinders.
Fw players have been trying longer than a year. That is sorta the point. After this long we couldn't even agree on whether they should take action on fw for crucible. No more round tables or threadnaughts are likely to provide that idea we can all agree on. Basta!
They need to take what they have read and do their best. We need to accept that it won't please everyone. Until they actually put something on tranquility they can't begin to iterate/balance/tweak it.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Esna Pitoojee
The Peerage
51
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 23:42:00 -
[169] - Quote
Unless a significant change is applied to basic FW mechanics (and even basic lowsec mechanics), I will continue to oppose alliance introduction into FW.
First, let's consider the goals. Keep in mind these are my percieved goals on what FW is meant to be; if I am differing from CCP, CCP feel free to correct me:
FW is intended to foment a sort of "educational PvP" environment:: With the addition of the free-join ticket from the advanced military tutorial, CCP seemed to be pushing the idea of FW as a ground for rookies to test their feet in the waters in an environtment where their contributions would make a difference and they could act without expecting to be shamelessly ganked by a several-hundred-man fleet.
FW is intended to reward living in lowsec, rather than the obvious immense wealth of nullsec: The LP store changes provided cheap rewards entirely unlike anywhere else in lowsec; for a long time, it was one of the few time-efficient ways of competing with the Sactum Grind or moon-mat gold mine.
FW is intended to be a small(er) gang environment: I honestly can't say why I feel this way, as I don't have CCP quotes or game changes specifially pointing to this; however, it has been my feeling for the longest time that Faction Warfare was intended to be a means in which players could engage in PvP without diving into the hundreds-of-men, lag-ridden, capital-spamming realm of nullsec. (Not to say that such a state in nullsec is inherently bad - that's another discussion. I'm just saying here that not all people are interested in that, and it seems to me FW was meant to provide an environment in which PvP could occur apeart from the great nullsec showdowns.)
FW was intended to be a mechanic linked to the storyline of the EVE universe: Simple enough. I mean, we had a whole expansion, many news articles, and a (IMO terribad) book involving the storyline ramifications of FW.
Now let's look at the issues:
Cynos. Cynos everywhere: We only just recently got out from "under the thumb" of the large nullsec alliances potentially dropping X dozen supercarriers into every FW engagement (or, in PL's case, camping our gates and stations with supercarriers for a couple of weeks). This, in turn, has encouraged smaller corps to bring in their assets, as suddenly throwing down a bunch of battleships or even a single capital is once more capable of turning the fight, rather than simply being supercarrier bait. Now you're proposing to bring the "big boys" back in again and once more marginalize the contributions of anyone who can't provide a batphone to their capital/supercapital fleet of choice.
Plexes and capturing: Sub-set of two different issues here - one, NPCs are still horribly imbalanced (Amarr plexes of any size can be solo'ed in a speedy frigate; Caldari plexes cause a missilespam only somewhat less painful than trying to kite a Drake gang). Two, there's no reward for taking part in the plexes. At all. Not for killing the NPCs, spending hours orbiting those little buttons, or for showing up for the often painfully-boring bunker bashes.
Greed drives activity: Only 1/3 of the activites in FW (missioning, plexing, roaming looking for a fight) have a significant monetary reward in them. The mechanic that FW was built around - system occupancy - has no reward whatsoever. Plexing comes down to being the job of a handful of roleplaying players, and the surpremely bored PvPers. That's right - the main mechanic of FW is viewed by most players involved as being on the same level as things like comedy fit roams, conga lines, and jetcan ASCII art - something to do when there literally is nothing else to do.
NPC imbalances: You're proposing that large numbers of persons should be able to join any one of four factions, and presumably acting on the belief that all four factions will have a roughly equal join rate. I say this won't happen. As discussed above, the ship requirements for completing different factions' plexes are VASTLY different, and unfortunately this extends to missions as well.
Missions again: While we're on this little rant, I'll touch on this as well. Missions were designed for fleet participation. But, nobody does them with significant fleets (and as far as I know, haven't from the beginning). The most you get is 4-5 guys going out to speed-run a bunch of missions together in long-range, high-speed ships (which are incidentally the preferred ship for running missions solo as well). To throw out a massive red herring (but one I think is accurate), FW missions were designed in the era of RR BS fleets and now exist in the nano-alpha era - an era they've proved totally unsuitable for.
Taking the faction out of faction warfare: Finally, a point that is of significantly less interest to most general PvPers, but an issue for me: System occupancy currently has serious roleplay ramifications for the factional parties involved. Unfortunately, in my opinion, CCP has made it clear that systems that are occupied by hostile powers may suffer ground invasions by said hostile forces. Now you are proposing to draw massive numbers of players into a heavily imbalanced system (see above) and asking the few remaining roleplayers to simply roll with the results when the ability to protect the systems they're interested in is essentially taken out of their hands by sheer force of numbers.
Deal with these issues. Figure out what you want FW to be.
Then we can talk about alliances again. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
252
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 08:16:00 -
[170] - Quote
Esna Pitoojee wrote:... if I am differing from CCP, CCP feel free to correct me... I see what you did there! Devious, Esna is devious!
Pretty much spot on with just a few minor quibbles not worth mentioning. The whole "CCP present a plan!" has bee flogged by some of us for years, and more recently by everyone in the aftermath of the FF (Fanfest Fiasco) .. their inability to do such a seemingly simple thing is why I have close to zero faith in them knowing what the hell they are doing.
|
|
Darkest Shadow
M I R A G E
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 08:26:00 -
[171] - Quote
New Customizable Neocom
For me, the blink notifications for all icons on the customizable neocom on SISI is much harder to see than the "current" or "older" neocom. Perhaps make the color brighter or more white-ish with a frosty white background behind the icon that stays lite until the end-user clicks on it -- which will mimic what it does now on TQ. That way when the wallet "flashes" the background will stand out and be very easy to notice; something we're all used to now but slightly different too.
Another suggestion, let us rename user-created groups and put an icon to them from pre-loaded icons that the devs or someone with CCP will put together, something to the extent of an "icon gallery". That way we don't have to put up with the generic blue layer icon. Instead, have icons that are the redesigned to look like the icons or the same icons as on the neocom now, and maybe even new ones that help in organization and creativity that can be added in the future. I believe it'll give the end-user much more control and robustness to the user experience.
** Devs could even have contests or some kind of volunteer event to let the playerbase help design some useful and cool icons that the winners would have their icons uploaded to the icon gallery for all of us to use in our neocoms.
Also, I am unable to drag and drop items from the neocom Eve Menu to the neocom bar on SISI -- I hope this is being worked on and will be fixed before it goes live cause I think all of us would appreciate "creating shortcuts" or placing items from the neocom Eve Menu straight onto the neocom bar and in the neocom groups.I think the customizable neocom is a great idea as it will help organizing what we need without cluttering the screen but I must say it will take some time getting used to. I think with the ideas I've posted here, and above, will help make the neocom better than it is now.
In summary, please make all the customizable neocom background to a bright frosty white color in the background for all blink notifications and enable renaming of user-created groups on the neocom with the ability (in the future) to add the ability for the end-user to assign icons to each user-created group so we can really make our neocoms unique and creative. Also fix the current issues with the neocom and be able to drag and drop "shortcuts" from the Eve Menu to the neocom bar and user-created groups.
Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54611&find=unread |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
216
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 15:42:00 -
[172] - Quote
Esna Pitoojee wrote:Unless a significant change is applied to basic FW mechanics (and even basic lowsec mechanics), I will continue to oppose alliance introduction into FW.
First, let's consider the goals. Keep in mind these are my percieved goals on what FW is meant to be; if I am differing from CCP, CCP feel free to correct me:
FW is intended to foment a sort of "educational PvP" environment:: With the addition of the free-join ticket from the advanced military tutorial, CCP seemed to be pushing the idea of FW as a ground for rookies to test their feet ......
Please give your source for this.
FW and small gang pvp is not a good way to learn pvp. Its much easier to join a large null sec alliance that will tell you exactly how to fit your ship, teach you the basic mechanics of fleets, in an enviornement where your inexperience at pvp will not hurt - blob warfare.
The smaller the gang the more important each individual pilot's skill becomes.
Esna Pitoojee wrote: FW is intended to be a small(er) gang environment: I honestly can't say why I feel this way, as I don't have CCP quotes or game changes specifially pointing to this; .
Look no further than the fact that fw pelxes are ship size restricted. So yes I agree they seemed to intend this to be geared twoard smaller scale battles.
Esna Pitoojee wrote:
Cynos. Cynos everywhere: We only just recently got out from "under the thumb" of the large nullsec alliances potentially dropping X dozen supercarriers into every FW engagement (or, in PL's case, camping our gates and stations with supercarriers for a couple of weeks). This, in turn, has encouraged smaller corps to bring in their assets, as suddenly throwing down a bunch of battleships or even a single capital is once more capable of turning the fight, rather than simply being supercarrier bait. Now you're proposing to bring the "big boys" back in again and once more marginalize the contributions of anyone who can't provide a batphone to their capital/supercapital fleet of choice..
This really has nothing to do with what I consider the core of fw - fighting for occupancy. These sorts of fights are just low sec battles. And yes bringing in a carrier can alter the result of a low sec battle. If you don't like capitals fight in the fw plexes.
Esna Pitoojee wrote: Plexes and capturing: Sub-set of two different issues here - one, NPCs are still horribly imbalanced (Amarr plexes of any size can be solo'ed in a speedy frigate; Caldari plexes cause a missilespam only somewhat less painful than trying to kite a Drake gang). Two, there's no reward for taking part in the plexes. At all. Not for killing the NPCs, spending hours orbiting those little buttons, or for showing up for the often painfully-boring bunker bashes.
Occupancy plexing is broken. But it should be the ultimate goal of fw. That means as a faction warrior you should not think I am fighting for occupancy to make isk. You should be thinking I make isk so I can fight for occupnancy.
This is a hard sell because fw occupancy is pve. If it were pvp then gaining occupancy would be more respected and this would make sense.
Esna Pitoojee wrote: Greed drives activity: Only 1/3 of the activites in FW (missioning, plexing, roaming looking for a fight) have a significant monetary reward in them. The mechanic that FW was built around - system occupancy - has no reward whatsoever. Plexing comes down to being the job of a handful of roleplaying players, and the surpremely bored PvPers. That's right - the main mechanic of FW is viewed by most players involved as being on the same level as things like comedy fit roams, conga lines, and jetcan ASCII art - something to do when there literally is nothing else to do.
This is the carebear in you talking. People want to play games that are fun and challenging. Grinding isk is not so fun or challenging but it allows you to pvp which is fun and challenging. CCP needs to make occupancy plexing fun/challenging, not another way to grind isk. Although I agree some sort of reward would be nice. It is definitely secondary.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
216
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 15:51:00 -
[173] - Quote
Esna Pitoojee wrote:
NPC imbalances: You're proposing that large numbers of persons should be able to join any one of four factions, and presumably acting on the belief that all four factions will have a roughly equal join rate. I say this won't happen. As discussed above, the ship requirements for completing different factions' plexes are VASTLY different, and unfortunately this extends to missions as well.
I agree balance missions so they are all about as hard as the amarr missions - where there is missile spam and target painters.
Esna Pitoojee wrote: Missions again: While we're on this little rant, I'll touch on this as well. Missions were designed for fleet participation. But, nobody does them with significant fleets (and as far as I know, haven't from the beginning). The most you get is 4-5 guys going out to speed-run a bunch of missions together in long-range, high-speed ships (which are incidentally the preferred ship for running missions solo as well). To throw out a massive red herring (but one I think is accurate), FW missions were designed in the era of RR BS fleets and now exist in the nano-alpha era - an era they've proved totally unsuitable for..
Why do you think they were designed for fleets? If someone has time and ability to join a fleet they should be pvping. Missions should be for times when there are no fleets up or you don't have much time to commit to fleets. Missions should be doable solo. Just not soloable in a stealth bomber.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
DJB16
Phantom Squad Nulli Secunda
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 16:07:00 -
[174] - Quote
Darkest Shadow wrote:New Customizable NeocomAlso, I am unable to drag and drop items from the neocom Eve Menu to the neocom bar on SISI -- I hope this is being worked on and will be fixed before it goes live cause I think all of us would appreciate "creating shortcuts" or placing items from the neocom Eve Menu straight onto the neocom bar and in the neocom groups.I think the customizable neocom is a great idea as it will help organizing what we need without cluttering the screen but I must say it will take some time getting used to. I think with the ideas I've posted here, and above, will help make the neocom better than it is now. In summary, please make all the customizable neocom background to a bright frosty white color in the background for all blink notifications and enable renaming of user-created groups on the neocom with the ability (in the future) to add the ability for the end-user to assign icons to each user-created group so we can really make our neocoms unique and creative. Also fix the current issues with the neocom and be able to drag and drop "shortcuts" from the Eve Menu to the neocom bar and user-created groups. Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54611&find=unread
i like ur idea bout the blinking and so u know ive only been able to drag and drop from the main E menu on the neocom
i wanna put LOGS back on the main bar i also want a new button to get to the saved fittings window
currently its fitting then expand then click saved fittings then click collapse then exit when i just wanna open the saved fittings so i can link my fittings or import/export them tbh i thought the above neocom button (or atleast a shortcut) would have been made when the saved fittings feature came out...... REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CLICKS TO GET SOMEWHERE IS ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA!!! (esp if its sommit u use several times every few hours (incursion runners for sure use it alot)) |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
763
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 16:28:00 -
[175] - Quote
Cearain wrote: Please give your source for this.
FW and small gang pvp is not a good way to learn pvp. Its much easier to join a large null sec alliance that will tell you exactly how to fit your ship, teach you the basic mechanics of fleets, in an enviornement where your inexperience at pvp will not hurt - blob warfare.
The source is those Alliance documents we talked about previously. CCP's clear intention for FW is as a "hybrid PvP / PvE gameplay environment" that serves to help pilots ease the transition from high sec missions to nullsec warfare.
Granted, this has little to do with what FW is today, and although you and I have somewhat differing views on exactly how to get FW to where it should be, CCP's original intention is pretty well documented. Only CCP can step forward and explain whether this is still their vision for FW or if that vision has changed. I certainly hope they do, and soon, since this is the primary reason that the FW community has so many different opinions on how to "fix FW". If CCP clued us in on how they viewed FW today, we could do a much better job of focusing our dialogue and feedback to help them achieve that goal.
Quote:This is the carebear in you talking. People want to play games that are fun and challenging. Grinding isk is not so fun or challenging but it allows you to pvp which is fun and challenging. CCP needs to make occupancy plexing fun/challenging, not another way to grind isk. Although I agree some sort of reward would be nice. It is definitely secondary.
I don't think someone is a carebear because they want to be paid to do what they do, as long as what they want to do is PvP. One of the most common suggestions over the years that has faded a bit from recent discussion is LP-for-kills. FW pilots DO want to be compensated in a greater way for kills, but that greed doesn't make them carebears.
I personally am dubious about paying for kills only because I have serious doubts that it can be done in a way that is fair and doesnt promote fraud or abuse. Paying for kills can also penalizes pilots like myself who fly Logistics and often aren't on killmails despite playing an integral part of an engagement.
Ultimately, I agree with you, there needs to be motivation to fight that supercedes raw isk-generation. But I think that Esna has a fair point in that isk incentives such as LP rewards for seizing plexes (as long as they are PvP-centric environments) still work just as good at motivating people to fight as any other reason.
You and I will seek out fights for fights sake - but this is not everyone, and the new players (who still are part of CCP's vision for FW unless they say otherwise, and regardless of what we think) will need some more base motivations for submitting themselves to such losses early in their careers, that go beyond pure PvP for the sake of PvP - they need to either see FW occupancy as something worth engaging in (which means more consequences, more significance to sov holding) or something that at least pays them on par with mission running so that they don't default to that in their early days.
Quote:Why do you think they were designed for fleets? If someone has time and ability to join a fleet they should be pvping. Missions should be for times when there are no fleets up or you don't have much time to commit to fleets. Missions should be doable solo. Just not soloable in a stealth bomber.
Again, this is just a subjective opinion, that some of us disagree on. As cited in the Alliances in FW documents, CCP's intention and design philosophy for the FW missions was precisely to combine PvP, and PvE, and while you personally feel that they must be completely seperate, others here don't. And thats fine. Both are valid ways to shape the feature, if done with care. I've seen mission fleets used to bait for fights, and plenty of player-on-player action has certainly taken place inside missions before. They are certainly not IDEAL for this purpose, but the concept works. Missions that are on public overviews do attract PvP in a substantial way that private ones do not.
I completely respect that you feel that they SHOULD be designed as solo endeavors when there is not any PvP around, but many pilots do see them and try to use them as a PvP-driver, and there's nothing wrong with that mindset, despite the problems the missions currently have in practice.
And yes, even if seen as a PvP driver, missions SHOULD be soloable in *heavy* ships, just not in tiny bombers. We certainly agree on that! |
Garr Earthbender
Quantum Cats Syndicate
31
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 16:45:00 -
[176] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I completely respect that you feel that they SHOULD be designed as solo endeavors when there is not any PvP around, but many pilots do see them and try to use them as a PvP-driver, and there's nothing wrong with that mindset, despite the problems the missions currently have in practice.
And yes, even if seen as a PvP driver, missions SHOULD be soloable in *heavy* ships, just not in tiny bombers. We certainly agree on that!
Well, I think I agree with Hans here. FW missions SHOULD be soloable, but in heavy ships. I realize that making them exactly like hi sec lvl 4 missions is a bad idea, but still..... if you're fleeted up with a 'medium size' (not sure the size exactly) fleet, then you should almost be able to blitz them.
Solo bombers suck. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
216
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 17:52:00 -
[177] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote: Please give your source for this.
FW and small gang pvp is not a good way to learn pvp. Its much easier to join a large null sec alliance that will tell you exactly how to fit your ship, teach you the basic mechanics of fleets, in an enviornement where your inexperience at pvp will not hurt - blob warfare.
The source is those Alliance documents we talked about previously. CCP's clear intention for FW is as a "hybrid PvP / PvE gameplay environment" that serves to help pilots ease the transition from high sec missions to nullsec warfare. . Granted, this has little to do with what FW is today, and although you and I have somewhat differing views on exactly how to get FW to where it should be, CCP's original intention is pretty well documented.
Unless I am misunderstanding which "alliance documents" you are referring to, none of those documents were even written by ccp employees. Those were just comments by players.
I agree players often *claim* "fw was intended by ccp to help noobs get into pvp" But I just never actually saw anything from ccp saying that. Yet it gets repeated often.
Regardless of GÇ£CCPGÇÖs intentGÇ¥. ItGÇÖs may be better for new players who donGÇÖt want to learn on their own to join the null sec blobs and be told how to fit their ships and what to do before they try to do the smaller scale pvp of fw.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I don't think someone is a carebear because they want to be paid to do what they do, as long as what they want to do is PvP. One of the most common suggestions over the years that has faded a bit from recent discussion is LP-for-kills. FW pilots DO want to be compensated in a greater way for kills, but that greed doesn't make them carebears.
I personally am dubious about paying for kills only because I have serious doubts that it can be done in a way that is fair and doesnt promote fraud or abuse. Paying for kills can also penalizes pilots like myself who fly Logistics and often aren't on killmails despite playing an integral part of an engagement.
Ultimately, I agree with you, there needs to be motivation to fight that supercedes raw isk-generation. But I think that Esna has a fair point in that isk incentives such as LP rewards for seizing plexes (as long as they are PvP-centric environments) still work just as good at motivating people to fight as any other reason.
I agree some rewards for plexing are in order but I disagree with the idea that GÇ£Greed drives activityGÇ¥ should be the motto of fw plexes. To me people who sit and gate camp with scouts 2 systems out in every direction are just like carebears. They are so busy counting isk and isk efficiency that they fail to realize this is a game. Like carebears they do nothing that is fun or challenging they just think they are GÇ£winningGÇ¥ because their wallets are getting fat.
It is impossible to make FW such that there will be a big enough gain to an individual to justify risking your ship. People shouldnGÇÖt look to joining a war so they can make money.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: You and I will seek out fights for fights sake - but this is not everyone, and the new players (who still are part of CCP's vision for FW unless they say otherwise, and regardless of what we think) will need some more base motivations for submitting themselves to such losses early in their careers, that go beyond pure PvP for the sake of PvP - they need to either see FW occupancy as something worth engaging in (which means more consequences, more significance to sov holding)GǪ.
The only reason I fight for the fights sake is because ccp offers nothing better. I want the fight to matter in a wider context. But my understanding of how it would mater and yours are different. You keep saying fw occupancy meaning something = it must have more consequences and more significance to sov holding. And I keep disagreeing. Those two can be part of it. But the game itself will only be worthwhile if it is challenging and fun. I canGÇÖt stress how important this is enough.
Imagine you play a game that is like roulette where you can bet on black or red. But instead of playing with money you have to buy special credits called isk in order to play. Also when you win you donGÇÖt win money just more isk. You can never trade your isk for money. Now lets say people started complaining saying we donGÇÖt get enough isk. So the game makers painted half the red slots black. This way people could make allot of isk betting black. Who would play that?
That is essentially what people who are isk driven in this game are doing.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
216
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 17:53:00 -
[178] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote: Why do you think they were designed for fleets? If someone has time and ability to join a fleet they should be pvping. Missions should be for times when there are no fleets up or you don't have much time to commit to fleets. Missions should be doable solo. Just not soloable in a stealth bomber.
Again, this is just a subjective opinion, that some of us disagree on. As cited in the Alliances in FW documents, CCP's intention and design philosophy for the FW missions was precisely to combine PvP, and PvE, and while you personally feel that they must be completely seperate, others here don't. And thats fine. Both are valid ways to shape the feature, if done with care. I've seen mission fleets used to bait for fights, and plenty of player-on-player action has certainly taken place inside missions before. They are certainly not IDEAL for this purpose, but the concept works. Missions that are on public overviews do attract PvP in a substantial way that private ones do not. .
Again you seem to refer to documents not even written by ccp employees to somehow prove ccpGÇÖs intent. We have the mixture of pvp and npcs with plexes. It fails. You seem to think the solution is to make plexing pay more isk and create consequences. But paying more isk for a bad boring mechanic does not improve the game at all. It makes it worse.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I completely respect that you feel that they SHOULD be designed as solo endeavors when there is not any PvP around, but many pilots do see them and try to use them as a PvP-driver, and there's nothing wrong with that mindset, despite the problems the missions currently have in practice.
And yes, even if seen as a PvP driver, missions SHOULD be soloable in *heavy* ships, just not in tiny bombers. We certainly agree on that!
I donGÇÖt just GÇ£feelGÇ¥ they should be able to be done solo I gave reasons for it. Not everyone in fw has the time to join fleets all the time.
You claimed that missions and plexes should try to mix pvp and pve but the only reason you give for this is some anecdotal stories how you got a few fights that way. However, as I explained it is unlikely that you got those fights because of the npcs. You got those fights because of the beacons in local. You have never offered any sort of analysis of how npcs promote pvp.
We have overwhelming evidence that npcs hurt pvp opportunities. I have given anecdotal evidence. More importantly anyone involved in fw can see that the vast majority of pvp takes place outside of plexes where the npcs are. You might say well lets pay more isk for that then people will do that more. But that will just make it so winning occupancy *less* of a valued accomplishment.
I have posted numerous reasons explaining why npcs decrease pvp opportunities.(forced pve fits, forces your fleet to have many more ships so the other side wonGÇÖt engage etc. etc.) There has never been any decent arguments how they will increase pvp in the long run. Just your stories about how a few times you got some fights by baiting others while you were doing missions.
Seriously, Hans think it through. Get a concrete idea of how fw could be great or let it be. DonGÇÖt just keep repeating half-baked ideas and saying well GÇ£some think this some think that.GÇ¥ Shooting rats sucks. Admit it. Paying people more isk to shoot more rats in fw plexes is a **** idea. If you donGÇÖt realize it yet, figure it out. Get a clear understanding of what needs to be done, before you push for change.
If Amarr ever wins fw I want others to think GÇ£they probably had to do some clever things and they probably have a lot of skilled pvpers.GÇ¥ Not GÇ£they must have spent endless hours shooting rats.GÇ¥
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
252
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 18:42:00 -
[179] - Quote
Cearain wrote:You have never offered any sort of analysis of how npcs promote pvp... I'll use an example: Lost (Griffin) and I (Punisher) came across an open minor in Sifilar I think it was, we start timer just as three (3) Thrashers show on short range .. instinct says run, yes? Due to an aborted speed tanking attempt by a minnie, there was an NPC group within 30k of entrance so we decide to stay with me on warp-in and Lost keeping timer running .. 2nd-3rd Thrasher are intermittently jammed by Lost while I work on the first who can't overcome my active tank thanks to NPC eWar .. End result: 3 Trash cans and the biggest damn adrenaline high I have ever experienced. In short: They allow one to fight against superior numbers/ships .. sometimes.
Cearain wrote:We have overwhelming evidence that npcs hurt pvp opportunities... Anecdotal evidence cannot, by its very nature, be overwhelming. Fact is that NPC both hurts and benefits PvP opportunities in roughly equal measure .. the current slant towards 'hurts' is due to differences in eWar (ie. NPC balance).
Cearain wrote:If Amarr ever wins.. You mean WHEN Amarr wins. It is preordained! We will win because it is Right, Just and a Glory to God! ... Just sayin'
Being restricted to using Amarr hulls (RP for the win!), the minimum viable (ie. PvP ready) ship I have been able to find to solo FW Lvl4's is the Sacrilege. Missions were not easy and required a lot of manual piloting, but definitely doable. Although I think that aiming for a PvP HAC/PvE BC is a near perfect difficulty level, I fear that the bombers will merely be replaced by swarms of Drakes as even a crap-fit Drake is better at PvE than an officer fit 'any other BC'.
In my perfect world the missions/plexes are mixed up with some requiring hacking/archaeology, killing a specific spawn group (ie. not single commander), fetching an item or all of the above. The problem is that there has be some PvE element if they are not become entirely trivial .. imagine how stupid plexing would be if all sides could use crap-fit solo frigates .. PvP in plexes would cease to exist even if everyone knew where everyone else was at all times, plexes would essentially become WoW styled battlegrounds with most action being in hub-pipe systems. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
763
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 19:17:00 -
[180] - Quote
I've responded to your most recent post over in this thread, Cearain, only because once again we're back on the topic of NPC's and PvE vs PvP, and straying quite a bit off the topic of Alliances-in-FW, which is the only FW talk that should be in this thread. I'm as much to blame for that, but I wanted to move it elsewhere for the sake of those that have important things to say about the Neocom and other changes that are part of the SiSi package atm. |
|
Dzajic
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:36:00 -
[181] - Quote
Any indication that they will fix plex ship restrictions? Pirate frigates in minors (but no T2) as one example; and strategic cruisers but no T2 in outposts. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
219
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 15:56:00 -
[182] - Quote
Dzajic wrote:Any indication that they will fix plex ship restrictions? Pirate frigates in minors (but no T2) as one example; and strategic cruisers but no T2 in outposts.
I didn't realize t3 could go in medium posts. If so you are right that is bad. They shouldn't be allowed them in.
For minor plexes I doubt the pirate ships are a problem anymore. Now plexes will be dominated by destroyers.
IMO, It would be good if they let t2 frigates in the current minors, and created a "rookie plex" that only allowed t1 frigates in. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
775
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 18:02:00 -
[183] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Dzajic wrote:Any indication that they will fix plex ship restrictions? Pirate frigates in minors (but no T2) as one example; and strategic cruisers but no T2 in outposts. I didn't realize t3 could go in medium posts. If so you are right that is bad. They shouldn't be allowed them in. For minor plexes I doubt the pirate ships are a problem anymore. Now plexes will be dominated by destroyers. IMO, It would be good if they let t2 frigates in the current minors, and created a "rookie plex" that only allowed t1 frigates in.
This highlights a very important issue- most people involved in Faction Warfare don't even know the specific mechanics involved in plexing as a core activity - many just join for the wardec and rarely plex, and when they do its with an FC who knows the rules. Even veterans like Cearain still have some knowledge gaps. I certainly do.
But a lot of FW don't know all the rules, mainly because they're not posted anywhere clearly. There's no comprehensive guide clearly accessible, save for an old evelopedia article. Actually, now I can't even find that old article.
New players and Alliances alike enlisting in Faction Warfare should be able to clearly see what plexes they can enter in what ship, how many plexes it takes to take over a system, and clearly see when plexes are in the process of being attacked. There should be NO mystery to the occupancy switchover process if one of the goals of FW is to encourage small gang warfare that retains its "sandbox" feel.
I'm not saying this isn't all information doesn't exists somewhere already, just that its not very accessible is all if it is.
|
Rixiu
North Star Networks The Kadeshi
78
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 22:03:00 -
[184] - Quote
Why are the ships and item icons still LOCKED next to the ******* undock button? Wasn't the entire idea with the new neocom that it would be CUSTOMIZABLE? Do it right please.
And hierarchical menus are a thing of the past, get over yourself and remove them. There isn't enough icons in the eve-menu to justify having them and seem to be there because of :awesome:. Put all the icons straight into the eve-menu and group them instead if you feel that's needed... |
HyperZerg
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 20:49:00 -
[185] - Quote
Rixiu wrote:Why are the ships and item icons still LOCKED next to the ******* undock button? Wasn't the entire idea with the new neocom that it would be CUSTOMIZABLE? Do it right please.
Hope they fix this soon ..
|
Vorll Minaaran
Centre Of Attention Middle of Nowhere
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 21:38:00 -
[186] - Quote
Hi,
Is there any way to set the new Neocom to show menu item's names?
thx |
Lord Okinaba
22
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 18:26:00 -
[187] - Quote
The agent portraits when docked in station are too big and the images look stretched. |
Si Raven
Raven's Toy Production
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 20:56:00 -
[188] - Quote
I have just tried SISI for the first time and I have 1 question... Did you spend much time on the decision to swap the Ships and Items buttons? I would love to hear your thought processes on that! Not only that but while every other button is movable, these are not.
Anyway, the majority of the new Neocom is great. I love the skill progress bar and the ability to add and remove buttons. I don't understand why you've added the chat button and made it non-removable but that is a minor quibble.
Next thing is to be able to save the button layouts so we can quickly jump between profiles as needed. |
OlRotGut
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 21:20:00 -
[189] - Quote
It's funny you guys are bringing up issues that are valid and after the patch are still issues, but now in production. lol
|
Aoa Lux
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 16:12:00 -
[190] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:The playsers plexing nowadays are much better at pvp than almost anywhere in New Eden. You're behind the times on this one.
This is objectively false. |
|
Reloadin
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 00:06:00 -
[191] - Quote
Agent portraits are too big.
Neocom portrait is too small to be of any use. Bring back option to have name displayed instead.
Worlds smallest rollover now displays skill training information instead of nice big character sheet button.
Give us an option to hide selective windows icons from opening on neocom bar, like cargo, scanner, character sheet etc. I just clicked on my glitched and artifacted badly rendered small portrait to bring up my character sheet, I don't need another icon on neocom telling me that.
Allow user assignable icons for windows instead of stupid blue i's.
Either bring back window minimising, or allow chat channel icons to display channel name and count on neocom, but there's not enough room for that... poor planning, loss of functionality for more :awesome:.
Allow option to not have minimised windows to neocom group themselves. Chat channels, agent conversations etc. UI improvements don't generally make things harder to access.
Put in some divider between neocom buttons and minimised buttons/windows.
You can shove all this up your ass.
Change your teams name from Team Pink Zombie Kittens. It's not cute or clever. You're trying too hard.
Why can't you do something useful like selectable overview profiles for d-scan.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
81
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 14:40:00 -
[192] - Quote
Unfortunately it is very difficult for me to see when I have new evemail, stuff happening to my wallet and other things. The new Neocom looks great and works great for being flexible.
Suggestions:
1/ Allow for space between icons to seperate some of them 2/ Make a clearly visible change to the buttons if they get activated * 3/ Allow me to move my item/ship buttons too (and maybe even the undock button)
* A clearly visible change could be a star in the corner, animating the icon into something clearly different (empty mailbox -> full mailbox etc) or a different color background (like mint green or pink) |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |