open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked EVE Online: Incursion 1.1.0 Feedback
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 : last (31)

Author Topic

GiovAnton
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.23 17:04:00 - [841]
 

Edited by: GiovAnton on 23/01/2011 17:08:47
Mac user here, after a couple of patching(s), character creator is running smooth, game is running smooth. I think a lot of players don't realize the colossal effort that goes into something like updating and maintaining an online game.

Thumbs up CCP, you shall get no hate from me!

Artienne
Posted - 2011.01.23 17:57:00 - [842]
 

not sure if this was already mentioned, but I am not able to get second client running on secondary monitory maximized (it goes black, flickers, and increases in size o.0 by pixel or few with every new flick).

Gergely Bornemissza
Posted - 2011.01.23 18:57:00 - [843]
 

Originally by: Kirana

My only complaint about the CC is the thumbnails are a bit small. It's kind of hard to see in detail what your toon will look like. But every toon I have built through CC so far looks bad ass I think. :)



Yeah, and I really like the idea of being able to pick one of the four portraits at login, too. Would be a small, simple, but effective way to mix things up.

Quote:
I think that complaining is part of Eve. lol


lol, touche! Criticism is good, too. I just thought some of the doom and gloom posts were a bit over the top. :D

Fanie Lipshitz
Posted - 2011.01.23 20:35:00 - [844]
 

Make downloads smaller please.Neutral

Kirana
Posted - 2011.01.23 20:39:00 - [845]
 

Originally by: Gergely Bornemissza

Yeah, and I really like the idea of being able to pick one of the four portraits at login, too. Would be a small, simple, but effective way to mix things up.



I don't know that would work well. People would constantly be changing them faster than the changes could replicate. Hell some people would do it with the intent of causing problems. Griefers gonna grief.

Then again it seems like they changed the way portraits work entirely. I noticed after my redesign of two toons the portraits updated even on the forum within a couple hours.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.23 21:58:00 - [846]
 

Originally by: Kirana
Originally by: Gergely Bornemissza

Yeah, and I really like the idea of being able to pick one of the four portraits at login, too. Would be a small, simple, but effective way to mix things up.


I don't know that would work well. People would constantly be changing them faster than the changes could replicate. Hell some people would do it with the intent of causing problems. Griefers gonna grief.

Indeed. My proposal, however (shameless plug), is more realistic and fair, I think.

bp920091
Killer Koalas
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.01.23 22:21:00 - [847]
 

Im not sure whether or not CCP intended to entirely remove the usefulness of jumpfreighters in 0.0 with this patch (which they were DESIGNED for), but that is in reality what they have done with this small change. Having capital ships jump within 15KM of a cyno at a POS may sound good in theory, but it would take a jumpfreighter about 14 MINUTES just to get to a JB (12.5KM to go, 90m/s = 13.8M), and it is unable to defend itself in the process, unlike ANY other capital ship (yes, even rorquals have drone bays, JFs have NOTHING).
Considering that JFs have ZERO module slots, bandwidth, or rig slots, just getting one in requires a SUBSTANTIAL support fleet (20 or so) just to make sure that the JF itself gets there without being hot dropped by an attacking fleet. You cant even speed up the process like you can with aligning freighters and webbing them to get them to instantly warp.
Im not even sure what the intent of this section of patch is, if CCP wishes to remove the use of JumpBridges, then REMOVE them, dont screw the logistic ability of 0.0 alliances over in the process. For people living out in highsec, to move a lot of stuff into systems that may be cynojammed, you really need a freighter of a JF, and since freighters take FOREVER to go 1 jump, a ship that costs 4-4.5 BILLION isk should be able to do the job faster.
Even before this patch, JFs had to wait 3 minutes or so BEFORE jumping through a JB because they move so slow and frankly, that is enough time to get to one, web it, and pour on DPS. Quadrupling this time makes absolutely no sense from really anyone's perspective, with the possible exception of the people who build the JFs themselves, just to increase demand.
I would like to either see a reasonable response from CCP stating WHY they implemented this change or have it REMOVED, simply put.

Kirana
Posted - 2011.01.23 23:45:00 - [848]
 

Originally by: bp920091
Im not sure whether or not CCP intended to entirely remove the usefulness of jumpfreighters in 0.0 with this patch (which they were DESIGNED for), but that is in reality what they have done with this small change. Having capital ships jump within 15KM of a cyno at a POS may sound good in theory, but it would take a jumpfreighter about 14 MINUTES just to get to a JB (12.5KM to go, 90m/s = 13.8M), and it is unable to defend itself in the process, unlike ANY other capital ship (yes, even rorquals have drone bays, JFs have NOTHING).
Considering that JFs have ZERO module slots, bandwidth, or rig slots, just getting one in requires a SUBSTANTIAL support fleet (20 or so) just to make sure that the JF itself gets there without being hot dropped by an attacking fleet. You cant even speed up the process like you can with aligning freighters and webbing them to get them to instantly warp.
Im not even sure what the intent of this section of patch is, if CCP wishes to remove the use of JumpBridges, then REMOVE them, dont screw the logistic ability of 0.0 alliances over in the process. For people living out in highsec, to move a lot of stuff into systems that may be cynojammed, you really need a freighter of a JF, and since freighters take FOREVER to go 1 jump, a ship that costs 4-4.5 BILLION isk should be able to do the job faster.
Even before this patch, JFs had to wait 3 minutes or so BEFORE jumping through a JB because they move so slow and frankly, that is enough time to get to one, web it, and pour on DPS. Quadrupling this time makes absolutely no sense from really anyone's perspective, with the possible exception of the people who build the JFs themselves, just to increase demand.
I would like to either see a reasonable response from CCP stating WHY they implemented this change or have it REMOVED, simply put.


Wow... That buh-LOWS... I am glad I don't fly Anshar anymore. I can also put off buying that Ark I was thinking of. Icky...

darth mine
Posted - 2011.01.24 03:52:00 - [849]
 

Please CCP: let the overview filter work for neutral standing as before.
Or add a new standing "without standing".

Quartermaster General
Posted - 2011.01.24 05:34:00 - [850]
 

My two cents!

HATE the new PI! Evil or Very Mad

A simple solution to the click fest would have been to just make it were you can start all extractors (in the old PI) at an hourly rate to mine with one or two clicks. Seems simple! "Start all extractors" sub "5 hours" click...done!!

But no, now you send more time fishing for ore than mining it. Heck I didn't known ore could move around like that. Seems physically imposable!

CCP, even though I appreciate the try, go back to the old way and make it less of a click fest. Keep it simple.

Torhal Nuke
Mystic Lion Hearts
Posted - 2011.01.24 06:40:00 - [851]
 

maybe im missing something or expecting too much from a ship thats been a gift, but anyone ever took a look at the cargo bay sizes on the Primae?
Having a 1600m³ bay for Command Centers only, which are 1000m³ each seems pretty odd and unpractical to me

Dareth Astrar
Posted - 2011.01.24 08:28:00 - [852]
 

PI depletion is too severe, cutting to 1/3 in some cases over a 24hr period. How long do you think it takes to deplete a cubic mile of minerals and materials on earth? You really think things would deplete that fast in a day on such a large area/scale?

Inability to group extractor heads means having to relocate them every day, and deal with overlaps etc takes longer now then it used to to restart them every day, and I used to think that was still too long. This new feature has already worn off in terms of attractiveness for me, as it's more annoying now when just restarting all the damned old extractors every day.

Simple planetary chains of 2 basic and 1 advanced factory seem unsustainable now, which were previously self sufficient. These now will require even more attention to maintain a basic chain, or purchasing of additional resources regularly. This is with the Command Centres at 4 in all cases, and whilst this seems a little more sustainable with Command Centres at 5, those planets used to produce an excess of materials to help other planets with a lower yield. This is a huge drop in mined yield, again making it a lot harder to sustain on planets with anything less then a 1/4 strength of a particular substance.

If this is the case you will see demand for the base minerals going up very much so over the coming months, meaning your depletion is too severe over the given time period. This will of course lead to higher costs of items, which people were already unhappy at because it cost substantially more to run POS'es, which we all hate already because they are dull, costly and often don't bring in much worth while unless high end moons.

Perhaps if you wish you keep the depletion as it stands, at least allow grouping of extractor heads so we can move the whole group daily instead of one at a time and having to spend more time dealing with overlaps.

Another option is reduce the amount of base materials required to output at basic factories a bit from 3000 to say 2000 or 1500. This will in turn at least lower the cost of POS fuels, which will lower their prices over time due to competition, and thus return less income from PI, which is what you were aiming to do with this approach after reading one of the blogs and articles on another website.

Ohh and can someone please increase the size of the buttons to increase/reduce the length of the program! They are so small, one minor miss hit with the tablet pen and everything gets reset and you have to try to refine the program duration all over again. Quadrupling the size of the buttons would be beneficial. I've had to try to reselect the time, and refine it down so many times it's another nice feature worn off and now becoming irritating. Hell, provide a set of boxes where people can enter days / hours / minutes or something instead perhaps.

I hope someone reads some of this feedback and tries to restart 22 planets every day across four characters, relocating the extractor heads and trying to make the income meet the requirements for basic production chains, and can do it in less time then 45 minutes, which is what it used to be on a daily basis to restart the old extractors and maintain basic chains. You will soon see how un-fun, un-interesting and irritating it gets very quickly if you try to repeat this over a few days having to constantly move things.

Ohh yes, and once resources in your area are depleted at the rates they currently are going, we are going to have to destroy colony's and relocate the Command Centres, which will pretty much negate the income you have made over time having to incur these costs again. How do you intend to handle this problem over the longer term? Are Command Centre's going to be relocate-able on planets?

I eagerly look forward to any constructive response to the feedback. Very Happy

Ahaja Aegra
Minmatar
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
Black Core Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.24 10:13:00 - [853]
 

Still No reply from CCP - maybe there is some other topic replaying for this one? I still couldn't find one.

Alamoo
Posted - 2011.01.24 10:25:00 - [854]
 

Edited by: Alamoo on 24/01/2011 10:33:43
Please CCP have an How-to-Handle-Issues workshop at FANFEST.
Want to propose to have one not really on the issues themselves but on the priorities, choices and strategy by CCP and on communication/feedback.

E.g. the kind of discussion I have in mind, if the new patch makes EVE crash for multiple characters I would assume CCP priorities that before handling menu issues that (true) may be bothersome but dont prevent you from playing the game.
Questions could be:
What are the issues?
What are priorities? and Why?
How will the remedies look like?

Cheerz.
Alamoo

Jiitta
Posted - 2011.01.24 10:33:00 - [855]
 

Originally by: Fred Kyong
So far all works for me right now, I think.

We still have the Golden Retriever and the reddish tomato Mackinaw


That's strange my Mack is pretty much pink and looks awful!

Drahreg
Amarr
Slap and Tickle
Anti-Social Outcast
Posted - 2011.01.24 11:01:00 - [856]
 

Edited by: Drahreg on 24/01/2011 11:01:50
Entire Character Creation System looks rushed and generally unpolished
---> I agree with that....

Character Creation :

1. No Black Hair. --> and the over available colors are insufficent........

2. COLOSSAL lack of clothing. --> I agree with that
(Are we going to have to pay real money to look good? Nice little earner CCP.)
Do you want this shirt or.... this shirt? --> I would not even mind spending ISK for that but it's not even available


5. Skin alterations including age/freckles/scars ONLY EFFECTS THE FACE. If we can see the neck of an unblemished twelve year old on an eighty year old man something is dangerously wrong.--> I agree with thatWhat about tatoos and other decorations ?

Masamang Kaluluwa
Posted - 2011.01.24 11:19:00 - [857]
 

I'd just like to say one thing on behalf of dual boxers everywhere, fix the fracking cntrl lock, having to click then cntrl then click again is BS, it's friggin annoying an needs to go back to the way it was, dropping out of alignment when trying to lock targets, and the general added seconds to complete what was once a simple task is screwed. Give us back our cntrl click, and stop fixing what's not broken...

Bidvel Dunkan
Posted - 2011.01.24 11:44:00 - [858]
 

Edited by: Bidvel Dunkan on 24/01/2011 11:44:30
"Improvements" of contract systems with more trade taxes - bad idea,

bugs with Ctrl+click in overview, drone control windows and neutral standing icons in chat windows - I think you can and have to check this kind of bugs on test server, they are all not hiding in deep.

If you want more testers and tests/bugcheck on Singularity - try to motivate them

Darveses
Fantastulousification Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.24 14:06:00 - [859]
 

Not sure if its been said yet, but I'd appreciate the option to map the same key to "Dock/Jump/Activate Gate" and "Warp to", as well as "Align to" and "Approach", or have these options merged into one key function. These are respectively mutually exclusive depending on the selected target, so you'll never be able to use both on one target.

Maybe there are other combinations that are mutually exclusive too, but these two are the most prominent I could think of.

Floydd Heywood
Posted - 2011.01.24 14:47:00 - [860]
 

Edited by: Floydd Heywood on 24/01/2011 14:52:22
I agree that the shortcuts system needs some corrections.

-CTRL+click for targeting should always work
-no auto-approach by double-clicking, this leads to accidentally breaking orbit all the time
-the hotkey for docking/jumping should also activate wormholes
-no holding key + click but just always use the hotkey on the currently selected item

Using hotkeys after typing text into the chat is a problem too. What about auto-unfocus chat and switch to "hotkey mode" on pressing CTRL? You don't use the CTRL key while typing text into the chat and that way we could map the most important shortcuts to CTRL+Key combinations.

What would be nice as a bonus: Assign different key for different orbits/ranges. So one key would be "orbit at 2500" and another "orbit at 20000". But I guess that's too much to ask for Smile

Willie McBride
Posted - 2011.01.24 19:26:00 - [861]
 

Neutral colortags don't work as they should. This is a known issue and i'm posting to put more emphasize on it. Life in Nullsec and life for those with highsec wardec is living hell now...

I can't believe this was an intentional change as some quotes imply, was it CCP?

Vilad Tepish
Posted - 2011.01.25 02:39:00 - [862]
 

after redoing my portrat and saving the the new one I log on today to find my old portrat back up what happend to the new on it didnt stick Oh well so much for the fixRolling Eyes

Zhou Wuwang
Federal Laboratories
Posted - 2011.01.25 02:39:00 - [863]
 

Edited by: Zhou Wuwang on 25/01/2011 02:39:45
I do not believe these minimum systems requirements remain valid. The GPU requirements for the new character creation far exceed these minimums even in "low" resolution mode. The character creator is unplayable. Also, is a DVD-ROM actually required?

Quote:

Minimum System Requirements:

* OS: Windows® XP Service Pack 2 / Vista / 7
* CPU: Intel Pentium® or AMD @ 1,5 Ghz or greater which supports SSE2
* RAM: XP (SP2) – 1 GB / Vista – 1.5 GB
* HD space: 6gig Free Space
* Network: 56k modem or better Internet connection
* Video: 64 MB Shader Model 2.0 Graphics cards such as GeForce FX (5 series) class card or higher, ATi 9500, x300 series or higher and Similar chips from other manufacturers
* Drivers: DirectX® 9.0c (included) and latest video drivers
* DVD-ROM : 2 speed DVD reader or greater required.



AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.25 04:49:00 - [864]
 

CCP, you really need to start removing your heads from your sphincters.

If you break EVE, Dust will fail and so will WoD.

Stop breaking EVE.

You shouldn't be introducing your stupid and unnecessary non-consensual PvE content until you've fixed the bugs you just introduced in the last patch.

8 years is long enough to get a game out of beta.

Shape up, ffs.

Focus on excellence. (Get rid of bugs, macros and IF you have resources left over after that, develop EXISTING content.)

Instead we get bonuses broken, overview (already horrendous) broken, dark desktops, overtaxed cpu's (you're really overheating my computer for a meaningless avatar replacing the one I quite enjoyed and have had for years?) Thanks, asswipes!) and NO progress on faction warfare, a plethora of pre-existing bugs, or macro-removal.

Meanwhile, CSM members are quitting the CSM and/or the game itself based on your boneheaded ideas that are yet to be announced.

ClueTFU.

Geralden
Posted - 2011.01.25 10:22:00 - [865]
 

I really thought PI was going to get improved to a playable level, so i invested the remaining saved up SP from the learning skills in PI.

What a mistake!

To anyone concidering picking up PI, dont... really, dont

It's gone from bad to worse, the resourses move so fast in the underground that you will have to delete command centers, in order to follow the flow.

I disliked PI before, but now you have to set up extractors each hour, to avoid depletion. Its insane. I really wish i could get my skill points back, to put them in something usefull.

For the avatar update - who gives a flying fish? Its a space game....

Avowech
Minmatar
Murientor Tribe
Posted - 2011.01.25 11:36:00 - [866]
 

Very poor character generator especially when you can't get remotely close to your original look.
Huge download for a one hit generation, really need an option to tweak your look...

Midas Nogero
Gallente
Universal Solutions Inc
Posted - 2011.01.25 13:11:00 - [867]
 

Feedback: While I haven't had much time to actually play the game recently (so I may come
across other issues)... so far, I'm satisfied with this expansion

1. I like the character creator ... It's a good beginning and I'm looking forward to seeing
how it develops down the road. It does takes a bit of tweaking due to the 'finalized'
image not translating entirely accurately when it is 'photographed' ... at least on my
system.
2. I like the new PI system. It appears to be more interesting, challenging, involving and
more time consuming ( I don't mean that as a negative) than in the previous iteration.
3. I like the new "Group Weapons" function.(if that was there prior to this expansion, I
never noticed it.)
4. My system seems to run smoother with improved visual quality even with everything on high or
stretched across two monitors, or running multiple clients.
5. My only other minor issues currently are with the 'broken' animation on the Hulk and
Covetor, and the inconsistent coloring on the Mackinaw (copper colored ..in places), on my
system and, to a lesser degree, on the 'Golden' Retriever.

Thank you, CCP for making the game a more interesting and fun experience for me.

Woodman57
Posted - 2011.01.25 13:50:00 - [868]
 

Look at all these whines....seriously, I don't think there is anything that would make some of you happy, you'd ***** about everything.

gravefeeder
Posted - 2011.01.25 14:56:00 - [869]
 

and theres me wondering where all the test monkeys went from nasa, wouldnt a ship customization/paint shop been a better idea, i mean its still a 1cm x 1cm avatar after all

Mithrasith
Posted - 2011.01.25 15:11:00 - [870]
 

Originally by: bp920091
Im not sure whether or not CCP intended to entirely remove the usefulness of jumpfreighters in 0.0 with this patch (which they were DESIGNED for), but that is in reality what they have done with this small change. Having capital ships jump within 15KM of a cyno at a POS may sound good in theory, but it would take a jumpfreighter about 14 MINUTES just to get to a JB (12.5KM to go, 90m/s = 13.8M), and it is unable to defend itself in the process, unlike ANY other capital ship (yes, even rorquals have drone bays, JFs have NOTHING).
Considering that JFs have ZERO module slots, bandwidth, or rig slots, just getting one in requires a SUBSTANTIAL support fleet (20 or so) just to make sure that the JF itself gets there without being hot dropped by an attacking fleet. You cant even speed up the process like you can with aligning freighters and webbing them to get them to instantly warp.
Im not even sure what the intent of this section of patch is, if CCP wishes to remove the use of JumpBridges, then REMOVE them, dont screw the logistic ability of 0.0 alliances over in the process. For people living out in highsec, to move a lot of stuff into systems that may be cynojammed, you really need a freighter of a JF, and since freighters take FOREVER to go 1 jump, a ship that costs 4-4.5 BILLION isk should be able to do the job faster.
Even before this patch, JFs had to wait 3 minutes or so BEFORE jumping through a JB because they move so slow and frankly, that is enough time to get to one, web it, and pour on DPS. Quadrupling this time makes absolutely no sense from really anyone's perspective, with the possible exception of the people who build the JFs themselves, just to increase demand.
I would like to either see a reasonable response from CCP stating WHY they implemented this change or have it REMOVED, simply put.


The way that JF's were implemented before Incursion was enough to make me not use my JF (its been sitting in a hanger for 8-10 months now) - they are just too damn slow and too vulnerable, however with this change, Im very glad I am no longer reliant on my JF.

(the only thing I would use it for is high sec transport through gates as its align time is a bit faster than a freighter).

The Cyno/jump drive system wasnt designed for JF's, it was designed with combat vessels in mind. CCP just bolted it on to freighter sized vessels without thinking, and continues to modify it without consideration of the impact. Nothing new here.


Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 : last (31)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only