open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Incarna and Multiple Client Users
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2011.06.14 11:44:00 - [1]
 

If you are one who tends to run multiple EVE Online clients on one system, this blog, by CCP Zulu, tells you how you may do so with EVE Online: Incarna.

44000
Posted - 2011.06.14 11:54:00 - [2]
 

that is awesome, really good to hear. That meens I can have incarna for my main, and normal for my alts/working on my lappy.

sweet move ccp x

5cott
Posted - 2011.06.14 11:56:00 - [3]
 

how about not removing this 'temporary' option pls

would stop a lot of the whining

Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.06.14 11:56:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Shandir on 14/06/2011 11:57:03
A good move in the right direction.
I think we'd all prefer it if we had the old hangar view in some form (in addition), or the ability to put some kind of image in place in the blank space that I imagine now exists.

When will this be on Sisi to try out?

Edit: Yes, many players have asked for this option and would like it to be not 'temporary'

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2011.06.14 12:01:00 - [5]
 

Shandir, it has been on SiSi for a while :)

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:03:00 - [6]
 

We wouldn't have this problem if getting out of our pod was optional, and not enforced. Come on, guys, it's not like the proper release of Incarna needs mandatory enforcement to be compelling and desirable. Why can't we keep the classic, much loved ship spinning along side the captain's quarters and future Incarna locations coming down the pipeline?

Zarathustra Ahuramazda
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:03:00 - [7]
 

I agree with the temp part of it being left out. The people who don't want to mess with Incarna should be allowed to opt out of it till they warm up to it at least. i understand CCP wants to get everyone possible into it, hell I am so chomping at the bit for this to come out and do well and go to places we'd only imagined before - but yeah, as long as all the 5cott's have the option to test the waters for themselves so to speak I think it should be fine. Not to mention, we'd not be forcing everyone into something they do not want to be part of. (Bless their souls, I hope they say hello to the Dinosaurs for the rest of us when they go that way).

-Z

Mitchello
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:09:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Mitchello on 14/06/2011 12:17:31
Originally by: CCP Fallout
Shandir, it has been on SiSi for a while :)


Yes, but can you confirm whether that is just a temporary hack, or whether it is the effective feature as promised by Torfi and others over time, and later recalled and then reconsidered again?

I mean, it's confusing. The timeline is just horribly short, and there's still so much lack in performance testing and optimisation that it's frankly scary. And the cost of Incarna only starts after delivery of CQ. I still get the idea that Incarna is required to be enforced. Which makes a sense in several creative ways yes, it just doesn't make much commercial sense other than short term specific focus.

Clarification on whether the seemingly possible (and wise) opt out is to be provided, whether it will stay and whether it will be a properly developed feature would be really nice =/


Another point of interest is the comment "So the only place we really ran into trouble was with low-end machines and then only when running multiple clients in an Incarna environment. We still marched on and tried to squeeze all we could out of the graphics engine without making everything look like an 8-bit brick.". That is rather very different from user reports in the test server feedback section, and on a wide variety of community sites & forums. It is not just a multi client issue, but also one of GPU programming bottlenecks on mobility systems. This should be an equally large commercial consideration, after all (no pun intended) how many people play or utilise or fly by EVE at work or at machines provided by work. For example notebooks.

I'm not even mentioning the strong trends in IGP presence in the markets of OEM and Family type hardware. Or even the factor of EVE penetrating markets in developing countries where the penetration of what we consider mainstream hardware is only just beginning. Nor am I even mentioning that those (admittedly still fail) wannabee sci fi competitors for flying in space are quite publicly and clearly aiming for both IGP + GPU market focus.


Peter Powers
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:12:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Peter Powers on 14/06/2011 12:12:57
Originally by: "devblog"
"We are still determined to make Incarna a seamless part of the EVE experience so that one day there will be no Incarna, there will only be EVE."


Sad
even with having enough hardware, i don't see why you want to force people to use a feature that they dont want?

i looked at incarna at sisi, and seriously, i dont see how that benefits me? it seems to add an awfull amount of stuff that in the end is not about flying internet spaceships. i dont want to run arround in a station just to quickchange ships, so why load it at all?

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:13:00 - [10]
 

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOT


Very good decision!!

*applauds*

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:20:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Mitchello
Edited by: Mitchello on 14/06/2011 12:14:14
Originally by: CCP Fallout
Shandir, it has been on SiSi for a while :)


Yes, but can you confirm whether that is just a temporary hack, or whether it is the effective feature as promised by Torfi and others over time, and later recalled and then reconsidered again?

I mean, it's confusing. The timeline is just horribly short, and there's still so much lack in performance testing and optimisation that it's frankly scary.

Clarification on whether the seemingly possible (and wise) opt out is to be provided, whether it will stay and whether it will be a properly developed feature would be really nice =/


Another point of interest is the comment "So the only place we really ran into trouble was with low-end machines and then only when running multiple clients in an Incarna environment. We still marched on and tried to squeeze all we could out of the graphics engine without making everything look like an 8-bit brick.". That is rather very different from user reports in the test server feedback section, and on a wide variety of community sites & forums. It is not just a multi client issue, but also one of GPU programming bottlenecks on mobility systems. This should be an equally large commercial consideration, after all (no pun intended) how many people play or utilise or fly by EVE at work or at machines provided by work. For example notebooks.

I'm not even mentioning the strong trends in IGP presence in the markets of OEM and Family type hardware. Or even the factor of EVE penetrating markets in developing countries where the penetration of what we consider mainstream hardware is only just beginning. Nor am I even mentioning that those (admittedly still fail) wannabee sci fi competitors for flying in space are quite publicly and clearly aiming for both IGP + GPU market focus.




As things stand, even high end machines can experience chugging frame-rates in Incarna, and the integrated GPU market, with initiatives like AMD's Fusion architecture and Intel's chips in the Sandy Bridge architecture on up, is only going to get larger. It honestly does not make sense to keep people between the two extremes of Incarna, with its extraordinarily high resource requirements, and not having a station environment at all - especially when there's a very satisfactory docking system already present in EVE Online.

Like I said before, why can't we choose between not loading station environments, the traditional ship spinning view, and getting out of our pod? Incarna doesn't need mandatory enforcement.

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:23:00 - [12]
 

Me and my alts are pleased to read this.

/c

Sarmatiko
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:30:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Sarmatiko on 14/06/2011 12:30:29
Seriously CCP is feeble lately. You already have 300k addicts on the needle, just force them to update their garbage or they will keep whining even after next 5 years. Uh oh, I cant run EVE on my P4 uh oh.

Mitchello
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:35:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Like I said before, why can't we choose between not loading station environments, the traditional ship spinning view, and getting out of our pod? Incarna doesn't need mandatory enforcement.


There has never been a tangible answer to that question over time. All we have seen, but I do hope CCP does come up with a proper answer, are arguments ranging from "trust me, I know what I'm doing" (conflicting with historic precedents of delivery via "it is gonna be awesome, you will see" (conflicting with both presentation and delivery, and an extreme risk of moving away again from staggered release format to sacrosanct dates - which traditionally has always been followed by "release and never look back") to strange arguments of word twisting on immersion concepts without ending at more than "because customers do not do game design".

Which is true, and false. People do make games. But ultimately, and yes that is less fun and awesome, they cater to a market. Sometimes you have to lead the market, obviously, but never without compromising operational principles. And that is exactly what the focus here is. There is a lot of visibility of CCP taking things slow, and that is commendable. But it remains solely focused on the perception of the experience, and not on the behavioral impact. In EVE, there is no economics other than that derivative of social dynamics. Sales and retention are directly keyed into that. And so are requirements to lead / guide a market to change, and if necessary replace core usergroup types.


Katrina Bekers
Gallente
Fighters Squadron
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:35:00 - [15]
 

I'd rather have the option to leave out Incarna content.

Not temporarily, but forever.

Yes, even if you stop updating and developing the old GUI, and keep working only on the 3D one.

It doesn't matter to me - and I guess to many, many, MANY others - what kind of HMI is used to obtain the fitting of my ship, or read the market orders, or interact with corp resources. But in general, I'm in the camp of "the lighter, the better", even on high-end powerhouses.

Because''of''Falcon
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:37:00 - [16]
 

the only real possible fail I can see about Incarna 'forcing' people to use it, is the rather large amount of harddrive space it takes up, and so far, I see very little people complaining about that.

no one is forcing you to walk around or anything in your quarters, nor the rest of the world that (if... lol) they create.

if you have poor frame rates or no interest, dont walk, just use the normal user interface. There are issues that the game needs resolving and yes, maybe they should focus more on them, but hey, internet spaceships are fun. maybe the other stuf they make will be fun too?

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:43:00 - [17]
 

I am sorry but while there are people with performance issues with this
(and while my system will run it fine, and I am by no means a low end user, Nothing else but CQ makes my graphics card overheat, and I don't mean nothing else in eve, I mean nothing I have ever run on this computer)
I do not consider myself to be one of them, And yet I am still calling for this to be optional (and no having a don't load station environment is not making it optional, I will however be using that option on TQ).

You have MASSIVELY missed the point. And until you address the issue of those concerned about RP, Immersion, Design limitations, UI failure, Separated graphics settings, and Pod placement, we are no more informed than we were before this dev blog...

We already knew that there was an option not to load the station environment.

(although the fact that you thought it was temporary is new, and really bad, please remove all temporary from the option).

So after our huge list of questions and concerns on the subject, you're 'just wait for the devblog' turns out to be simply telling us stuff that we already knew without answering any of our questions....
this is not helpful.
Try again.

Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:44:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Because''of''Falcon
dont walk, just use the normal user interface.

yes, that's why we're asking ccp to let that option remain in the game.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:46:00 - [19]
 

Seems silly to force it upon us. I run 4 accounts atm. Probably will end up having to run them all of them on low settings. Why not let me run one on high settings with Incarna enabled and rest can just have station services ui same as we have now??

Radix Salvilines
legion industries ltd
AAA Citizens
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:49:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Radix Salvilines on 14/06/2011 12:59:56
a tiny off-topic...

the page that states what are the minimum requirements says this:
"DVD-ROM : 2 speed DVD reader or greater required"

Why?

I understand that there are box versions of EVE but honestly... how many people install EVE from DVD?
I am not complaining about anything it's just for some people it may be confusing :P

I play eve on my computer even though it never had a DVD-Drive :) (All is USB installed).

EDIT: why not change it to:

>>>
DVD-ROM : 2 speed DVD reader or greater required*

*Downloadable client installer does not require a DVD-ROM.
The client itself after installation does not require a disc to be present in a drive.
<<<

reqs

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:49:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
Seems silly to force it upon us. I run 4 accounts atm. Probably will end up having to run them all of them on low settings. Why not let me run one on high settings with Incarna enabled and rest can just have station services ui same as we have now??


I would like an answer to this as well; after all, the majority of players appear to prefer that the existing station docks remain available as an option.

Zulu, as the senior producer of EVE Online, why not put your foot down and say "we're going to keep the old docking option available, and that's that"?

Efraya
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:49:00 - [22]
 

Really pleased you've taken into account users with low end machines. Keep up the good work.

Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:57:00 - [23]
 

Another 'yes please' for an option not to have to deal with a cumbersome UI in which you have to navigate a sleepwalking avatar around to do stuff. It reminds me of Johnny Mnemonic and other crap hackermovies that imagined us all literally flying through "cyberspace" in order to get the phone number for a hotel or whatever.

I can't drag a ship to the hangar view to board it anymore, and that makes me cranky.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:00:00 - [24]
 

There is only CQ for Gallente?? Or everyone but only at Gallente station on launch? Or same Gallente design at all stations?

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:03:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: CCP Fallout
If you are one who tends to run multiple EVE Online clients on one system, this blog, by CCP Zulu, tells you how you may do so with EVE Online: Incarna.



ok TL:DR of last post...

We Knew this already. It's on the test server, we have posted threads about it...

Answer the questions we actually have rather than making up questions you want us to ask and answering those.

Just like your video dev blog, this gives us no new information, If you are so pressed for time that you can't spare any more than the minimum actually talking to us then wasting it on telling us stuff we already knew is a catastrophic waste of yours and our time.

Read my questions (you know where they are), read the collected questions on test server feedback and general, and then write a dev blog that actually discusses/answers THOSE questions.

In other words, Try again.

knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:09:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: 5cott
how about not removing this 'temporary' option pls

would stop a lot of the whining


Yes, permanent feature please.

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:11:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
There is only CQ for Gallente?? Or everyone but only at Gallente station on launch? Or same Gallente design at all stations?


There is only Minmatarr CQ on launch. Gallente is apparently the hardest so will probably be last.

Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:17:00 - [28]
 

Keep the option to ship spin as a PERMANENT Option! DAM, how many times do you guys have to be asked?

Serene Python
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:22:00 - [29]
 

So like the several past expansions I've been present for... Why can't we have the option to completely opt-out of this? I haven't done/fallen victim to a single incursion on TQ, I am not forced to do PI and what ever dominion brought I didn't touch.

So now all of a sudden you (CCP) are forcing us to use this expansion? Much like the ship spinning option we should have the choice of disabling CQ and get on an do what we need and leave. While I don't walk around to do things, the UI still has delay because my computer is rendering/loading CQ which in the end is affecting a person doing something quickly.

Hopefully CCP realizes how many people already want this 'temporary' option to be permanent and just leave it.

DeBingJos
Minmatar
Goat Holdings
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:29:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: DeBingJos on 14/06/2011 13:29:03
Originally by: Asuri Kinnes
Keep the option to ship spin as a PERMANENT Option! DAM, how many times do you guys have to be asked?


On sisi the ships are already spinning. Nice change imo. Very Happy (no you can't spin them manually)

Edit :SN1P3


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

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