EVE Search - [Issue] Station Containers should be browsable in Assets

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Station Containers should be browsable in Assets

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kame Malice Mitsukashi Holdings Limited	Posted - 2008.05.26 18:04:00 - [31] 120% for it and thats a fact /signed
Tessen Stellar Tide	Posted - 2008.05.26 18:34:00 - [32] +1
Exodus Alpha	Posted - 2008.05.27 00:28:00 - [33] Originally by: Nariana Verex How about giving us multiple tabs to work with, too? We already have 'Ships' and 'Items'. Why not create other tabs as well? Then we wouldn't need so much Station Warehouses [Or perhaps require a Station Warehouse to make the new tabs in the first place]. Searchable containers is very much win. I hate having to go 40 jumps to peek inside a small container I forgot. Obviously improvements like this would be ideal, but I was trying to keep it relatively simple since being able to remotely search is (in my opinion, at least) more important than additional tabs and such. There are a ton of UI improvements I think they should make, really, but there's no use posting them all separately here. The UI in general needs an overhaul (and there's an issue thread about that floating around).
Bela Okmyx	Posted - 2008.05.28 10:42:00 - [34] agreed, never understood why you couldnt..
Abydos Lanti	Posted - 2008.05.28 11:19:00 - [35] /signed
JERIC0 NailorTech Industries Ka-Tet	Posted - 2008.05.28 14:50:00 - [36] Agree
Kuroshiro	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:47:00 - [37] Either this or personal hangars should have tabbed 'divisions' like corp hangars.
Pirc Balar	Posted - 2008.05.28 18:23:00 - [38] All for exploring this idea. Perhaps starting with specific container types and expanding as able or possible.
Finedele Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.28 18:46:00 - [39]
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.28 20:20:00 - [40] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 28/05/2008 20:25:12 Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 28/05/2008 20:21:06 Originally by: LaVista Vista I believe a dev stated that it wouldn't be possible, due to the extra load it would cause on the server. I shall try and find the thread. I have nothing against the issue. It would be quite handy. But if the devs thinks it will cause increased lag, I would rather live wihtout. Here is the thread and the quote: Originally by: CCP Explorer Sorry, not going to happen in the game client for performance reasons. Instead try some of the community created tools that have been developed using the EVE API. SOURCE: Asset search pretty useless as it doesn't look in cans So, while I agree it would be nice I am not sure whether it is worth wasting CSM time on. If they feel it is a no go they must have good reasons since I suspect most of them (who are also players) would like the functionality if they could have it. CSM pressing them on it will likely not be answered by much more than the current system will not permit it. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"

Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.05.28 20:36:00 - [41] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 28/05/2008 20:36:29 To add to Imperator Jora'h post, seeing as GM can browse your containers and ships CCP know very well what the added load for the server would be. So Even if I would like it very much, not supported.
Exodus Alpha	Posted - 2008.05.28 20:59:00 - [42] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Here is the thread and the quote: Originally by: CCP Explorer Sorry, not going to happen in the game client for performance reasons. Instead try some of the community created tools that have been developed using the EVE API. SOURCE: Asset search pretty useless as it doesn't look in cans So, while I agree it would be nice I am not sure whether it is worth wasting CSM time on. If they feel it is a no go they must have good reasons since I suspect most of them (who are also players) would like the functionality if they could have it. CSM pressing them on it will likely not be answered by much more than the current system will not permit it. I see the CCP reply, but if anything it seems like a cop-out response to me and I continue to support it as an issue for the CSM. Like I said in another one of my threads, these issues are not insignificant just because they don't change some major gameplay aspect. UI changes have been neglected for a long time now, thrown to the side by CCP like Explorer just did there. I'm sure if they tried, they would figure out how to do it - as a coder, you don't just give up because the solution to a problem is possibly inconvenient or the problem is easily ignored. While obviously I don't know how EVE's database system works, I can't imagine that a properly structured system would put considerable strain on the query times since its either have the containers be accessible in Assets or just leave everything jumbled in the hangar for me. And even if it does, there are solutions like caching that could get around that. Explorer's reply sounds like more of a cop-out the more I think about it. We've gotten nothing but cop-outs from CCP with regards to the interface thus far. Do you want to live with that? I don't. Originally by: Venkul Mul Edited by: Venkul Mul on 28/05/2008 20:36:29 To add to Imperator Jora'h post, seeing as GM can browse your containers and ships CCP know very well what the added load for the server would be. So Even if I would like it very much, not supported. I don't see how those two things have any connection. GMs can browse containers, therefore CCP knows what the server load is? There's no logical connection there.
Xaryus	Posted - 2008.05.28 21:08:00 - [43] If you can access it via api then the client should be able to access it using same mechanics without adding extra load. Caching etc should diminish it, but something NEEDS to be addeds. (Also agree on in genral UI stuff needs upgrading) -- Everyone is someone elses wierdo.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.28 21:30:00 - [44] Originally by: Exodus Alpha While obviously I don't know how EVE's database system works, I can't imagine that a properly structured system would put considerable strain on the query times since its either have the containers be accessible in Assets or just leave everything jumbled in the hangar for me. And even if it does, there are solutions like caching that could get around that. Explorer's reply sounds like more of a cop-out the more I think about it. That's just it...we do not know their system. Intuition can mislead us into thinking something should be simple when in fact it is not. Databases can be monsters and no doubt CCPs database is a particularly complicated one. At the base of it all we are asking for a database query. Hardly gets more fundamental than that and clearly the servers can do it (they do it any time you open a can). What we do not know is the added stress on the servers if it has to query all of our cans in the universe on an asset search. I can see no reason why CCP Explorer would mislead us on this. It would be a nice addition to EVE so if it were a simple matter they'd have every reason to do it and no reason not to. It only follows that the effort to do this and/or added load on the servers is just too much to be worthwhile. Yes, I would love to hear a more propeller-headed explanation of how this all works from CCP but I doubt they will be forthcoming with that. In the end I am not sure what you can demand of CCP here. Another answer from them that says their database/servers are not up to this without seriously impacting the rest of the game? I'd rather have lag free battles myself. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Elseix	Posted - 2008.05.28 22:42:00 - [45] +1
Athre The HIgher Standard	Posted - 2008.05.28 23:23:00 - [46] I would like this. Pending the Dev's limitations blog I would like to support this measure. Perhaps CCP needs to write different scripts or make it a separate search (by hangar, by container, by delivery)
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.05.29 20:31:00 - [47] Originally by: Exodus Alpha Originally by: Venkul Mul To add to Imperator Jora'h post, seeing as GM can browse your containers and ships CCP know very well what the added load for the server would be. So Even if I would like it very much, not supported. I don't see how those two things have any connection. GMs can browse containers, therefore CCP knows what the server load is? There's no logical connection there. Strange, in my world if you can do something you can measure it. Just to explain it step by step: 1) GM can browse the containers so CCP know what database resources are required to do it. 2) CCP know how much queries are done to search for items. 3) If CCP add the capacity to browse container each query will check each container you own (even if the item you search is not in one of the containers). 4) So checking 1 and 2 CCP know how much the database burden will increase, 3 guarantee the database burden increase. So they will know exactly what will be the database load increase. Sufficiently clear now?
Rebal 88 Infernal Syndicate Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.29 21:43:00 - [48] Edited by: Rebal 88 on 29/05/2008 21:43:26 highly agree, the containers let us be organized but it kind of defeats the purpose if u cant see them in assets.
Czanthria Ad Astra Vexillum	Posted - 2008.05.30 04:23:00 - [49] -- Knowledge is Power!
Thoram Twin Sun Syndicate	Posted - 2008.05.30 04:37:00 - [50] excellent idea. kind of a hassle to be out in space or even in another system and have a corpie ask for something you think you have in a container or such, and not be able to give them a proper answer ----------------------------------------------- Recruiting manager. Contact me if you wish to join TSS or learn more about us. -----------------------------------------------

Exodus Alpha	Posted - 2008.05.30 07:29:00 - [51] Edited by: Exodus Alpha on 30/05/2008 07:29:40 Originally by: Venkul Mul Strange, in my world if you can do something you can measure it. Just to explain it step by step: 1) GM can browse the containers so CCP know what database resources are required to do it. 2) CCP know how much queries are done to search for items. 3) If CCP add the capacity to browse container each query will check each container you own (even if the item you search is not in one of the containers). 4) So checking 1 and 2 CCP know how much the database burden will increase, 3 guarantee the database burden increase. So they will know exactly what will be the database load increase. Sufficiently clear now? I should have been more clear with my reply. First - you assume that just because it should theoretically be possible to measure it, it actually has been measured. That's a pretty big assumption to make given you have no way to show that's the case. Second - databases are not linear beings. The load of 1 queryA + load of 1 queryB does not always equal the load of 2 general queries, it would depend greatly on the queries themselves, the structure of the database, and the load on the database server. As such, trying to measure quantitatively the performance needs of "1 GM container query" and scale that number linearly to some projected number of real queries in practice on the live servers would be silly. Third - Perfomance hits aren't nearly as easy to measure as you seem to think they are. You don't measure the database usage over a certain search and say "Oh, well such and such query takes 0.01% of a processor's load to process!" It just doesn't work that way. A valid performance measurement with the actual load of queries on Tranq. (or SiSi, even) would be a better test (though I'm sure they have ways to perform scalable tests on their own without the test server). Fourth - Obviously, the engineers behind the database know a lot more than any of us and could make a value judgment based on their experience with other db queries and how much extra load it would put on the servers. My response to this was (I believe, might be wrong) in the same post you quoted - there's never one way to solve a problem with regards to code. Possibly following such-and-such easy route to make station containers searchable may yield performance hits, but that only means that there's an issue with the way its being done and the engineers aren't really trying. Obviously Assets searching at the moment, even if you kept all those items normally in containers just littered in the hangar, does not result in some gross server lag...so the problem isn't just sheer volume of items. I.E. I think Explorer's answer was a cop-out, using the threat of a performance hit to quiet people about it. Incompetence is not an excuse, and CCP should be held to higher standards if we ever expect to get anything fixed on the UI.
Mia Den Rubra Libertas Militia R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.05.30 07:32:00 - [52] definately signed
Lai Lowside A Touch of Death	Posted - 2008.05.30 09:41:00 - [53] /Signed
Zorda	Posted - 2008.05.30 10:09:00 - [54]
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.05.30 18:25:00 - [55] Originally by: Exodus Alpha I.E. I think Explorer's answer was a cop-out, using the threat of a performance hit to quiet people about it. Incompetence is not an excuse, and CCP should be held to higher standards if we ever expect to get anything fixed on the UI. To translate all your post above this: CCP are lazy and incompetent, haven't done a study on the probable load, haven't looked if there are simpler system for a query, don't analyze the quantity of queries on Sisi not on Tranquility and so on. Seeing your starting assumptions, yes you are totally right in the following conclusion. My starting assumption are that they are at least reasonably competent and some of them is even brilliant, that the directors check that they are at least reasonably productive and so on. So I get a different result.
Orontes Ovasi COGNET SpaceSystems Ltd Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.31 02:56:00 - [56] Agree.
Dontwantnone	Posted - 2008.05.31 05:07:00 - [57] /signed
Karanth Eve's Brothers of Destiny FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.05.31 08:30:00 - [58] Without containers, how would I be able to sort my hanger to my anal-retentive needs?
Garthal Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.05.31 08:50:00 - [59] I don't care if it causes lag. I wholeheartedly support this. -- We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. - Aristotle
Exodus Alpha	Posted - 2008.05.31 08:54:00 - [60] Originally by: Karanth Without containers, how would I be able to sort my hanger to my anal-retentive needs? EXACTLY!



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.