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

northwesten
Amarr
Trinity Corporate Services
Terran United Federation
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:34:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: northwesten on 14/06/2011 13:43:47
Edited by: northwesten on 14/06/2011 13:43:11
Moving in the Right Direction but....

I run 5 accounts on one PC but Reading the blog I think I be fine but here where I have a problem on how you dealing with incama. I been on the test server and I love it don't get me wrong but with 5 accounts going to take it's toll all going into station environment.

Now what should happen is we keep the classic view and you right click or click on the button on the right on station panel to leave ship to station. Then you load up the new stuff but with out this going to be annoying if I forced to load up every time.

I will point this out that forcing people to load new stuff on people is going to **** people off a lot. So Please CCP make this as an option to go to the station because just be silly other wise.

Hell I remember seen a video of fanfest that a Dev right clicked on the ship to go to the station? Other than that keep it up Cool

I am all for the station and I will use the station with one toon from time.

here look at the first monets of the video this how we should have it.
Fanfest video of incama

Ghurthe
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:38:00 - [32]
 

Remember when getting into incarna had the normal station view? And you clicked a button to get out of your ship and into station?

Yeah I seem to remember that at fanfest not too long ago.

This MUST be a permanent feature, or you MUST put in the 'Get out of my ship' button, otherwise CCP, you've been lying to us.

And that's not cool.

SirHarryPierce
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:40:00 - [33]
 

Not temporary option but an forever option.

/signed

Rixiu
The Inuits
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:45:00 - [34]
 

Just add the possibility to first "dock" and then "exit pod" and be done with it. From a pure gameplay perspective it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be forced to exit the pod just to change ship and being forced to load a second client all for nothing just adds on top of that.

The current implementation of incarna is fairly blunt and I really would like a more seamless experience between "old eve" and incarna. For example, I dock my ship much like I can at the moment, I choose to exit my pod and I see it leave the ship and fly to a "pod-docking" and then transported to a pod-room and from there I can do the incarna. Completely skipable sequence of course.

Also, the current hangar itself really need a revamp though, the lack of scale make our huge ships look really tiny, even after you moved them closer to the balcony.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:49:00 - [35]
 

When I read the title I had a totally different idea on what the blog was about.

With the current Mac client the preference file name can be set by manually editing the info file, and the client will make a prefs file with that name. This allows each client to have its own prefs file.

But with the version on sisi the prefs file always has the name "Eve Online" irrelevant of what you edit, so if you got multiple clients they will all try to use the same prefs file. This actually works OK provided they are all TQ clinets, but fails if one is a TQ and one is a Sisi client and one is a Duci client.

So CCP, how do we run multiple clients on the Mac when we cannot give them each a unique prefs file?

S'qarpium D'igil
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:51:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Rixiu
Just add the possibility to first "dock" and then "exit pod" and be done with it. From a pure gameplay perspective it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be forced to exit the pod just to change ship and being forced to load a second client all for nothing just adds on top of that.

The current implementation of incarna is fairly blunt and I really would like a more seamless experience between "old eve" and incarna. For example, I dock my ship much like I can at the moment, I choose to exit my pod and I see it leave the ship and fly to a "pod-docking" and then transported to a pod-room and from there I can do the incarna. Completely skipable sequence of course.

Also, the current hangar itself really need a revamp though, the lack of scale make our huge ships look really tiny, even after you moved them closer to the balcony.


QFT.

How many times to we have to ask you to make undocking from our pods OPTIONAL?

Are you helping out players by making the loading of the CQ optional? Yes. But you are avoiding the real issue entirely: WE DON'T WANT YOU TO FORCE THIS ON US AND BREAK COMMON SENSE AND GAME LORE IN THE PROCESS.

northwesten
Amarr
Trinity Corporate Services
Terran United Federation
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:54:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: S'qarpium D'igil
Originally by: Rixiu
Just add the possibility to first "dock" and then "exit pod" and be done with it. From a pure gameplay perspective it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be forced to exit the pod just to change ship and being forced to load a second client all for nothing just adds on top of that.

The current implementation of incarna is fairly blunt and I really would like a more seamless experience between "old eve" and incarna. For example, I dock my ship much like I can at the moment, I choose to exit my pod and I see it leave the ship and fly to a "pod-docking" and then transported to a pod-room and from there I can do the incarna. Completely skipable sequence of course.

Also, the current hangar itself really need a revamp though, the lack of scale make our huge ships look really tiny, even after you moved them closer to the balcony.


QFT.

How many times to we have to ask you to make undocking from our pods OPTIONAL?

Are you helping out players by making the loading of the CQ optional? Yes. But you are avoiding the real issue entirely: WE DON'T WANT YOU TO FORCE THIS ON US AND BREAK COMMON SENSE AND GAME LORE IN THE PROCESS.


If they make this CQ optional then whats the problem? You just don't load up CQ just that simple but you asking them to not download CQ stuff at all means they will have to have 2 clients?


Xessej
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:57:00 - [38]
 

My hardware is well above the minimum specs and I will be opting out of CQ for as long as I can. I do not want CQ, do not need CQ and will not use CQ.

Mi Wan'Chou
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:00:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Mi Wan''Chou on 14/06/2011 14:01:00
Edited by: Mi Wan''Chou on 14/06/2011 14:00:34
Originally by: CCP Games

we're in the process of revising and updating the EVE minimum and reccommended hardware specification

Again, to be really clear; running a single client works fine on all hardware supported by us.


http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

Did you hire this guy to write that blog?

Image changed to URL. Zymurgist

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:01:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: S'qarpium D'igil
Originally by: Rixiu
Just add the possibility to first "dock" and then "exit pod" and be done with it. From a pure gameplay perspective it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be forced to exit the pod just to change ship and being forced to load a second client all for nothing just adds on top of that.

The current implementation of incarna is fairly blunt and I really would like a more seamless experience between "old eve" and incarna. For example, I dock my ship much like I can at the moment, I choose to exit my pod and I see it leave the ship and fly to a "pod-docking" and then transported to a pod-room and from there I can do the incarna. Completely skipable sequence of course.

Also, the current hangar itself really need a revamp though, the lack of scale make our huge ships look really tiny, even after you moved them closer to the balcony.


QFT.

How many times to we have to ask you to make undocking from our pods OPTIONAL?

Are you helping out players by making the loading of the CQ optional? Yes. But you are avoiding the real issue entirely: WE DON'T WANT YOU TO FORCE THIS ON US AND BREAK COMMON SENSE AND GAME LORE IN THE PROCESS.


If they make this CQ optional then whats the problem? You just don't load up CQ just that simple but you asking them to not download CQ stuff at all means they will have to have 2 clients?




That is not what he is saying. he's asking CCP to keep the current hanger view, and have CQ as something that happens after that if you so chose (say a disembark button on the station services window).
and for what's the problem... read this, and this ...

Chruker
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:04:00 - [41]
 

Where do you guys think the incarna part look amazing? TBH. the characters look like something from a 2005 game like Battlefield 2...

Also when are you going to start handing out forum bans for those stupid 'first' postings?

/Old Grumpy

GiveMeISK
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:05:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Radix Salvilines
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"



EVE on DVD - next you are going to tell me it has sound ?

S'qarpium D'igil
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:12:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Soden Rah
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: S'qarpium D'igil
Originally by: Rixiu
Just add the possibility to first "dock" and then "exit pod" and be done with it. From a pure gameplay perspective it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be forced to exit the pod just to change ship and being forced to load a second client all for nothing just adds on top of that.

The current implementation of incarna is fairly blunt and I really would like a more seamless experience between "old eve" and incarna. For example, I dock my ship much like I can at the moment, I choose to exit my pod and I see it leave the ship and fly to a "pod-docking" and then transported to a pod-room and from there I can do the incarna. Completely skipable sequence of course.

Also, the current hangar itself really need a revamp though, the lack of scale make our huge ships look really tiny, even after you moved them closer to the balcony.


QFT.

How many times to we have to ask you to make undocking from our pods OPTIONAL?

Are you helping out players by making the loading of the CQ optional? Yes. But you are avoiding the real issue entirely: WE DON'T WANT YOU TO FORCE THIS ON US AND BREAK COMMON SENSE AND GAME LORE IN THE PROCESS.


If they make this CQ optional then whats the problem? You just don't load up CQ just that simple but you asking them to not download CQ stuff at all means they will have to have 2 clients?




That is not what he is saying. he's asking CCP to keep the current hanger view, and have CQ as something that happens after that if you so chose (say a disembark button on the station services window).
and for what's the problem... read this, and this ...


Was going to respond, but you handled it for me; thanks!

Gizan
Hounds Of War
R-I-P
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:13:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Gizan on 14/06/2011 14:30:02
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??


Your already have the button "load station environment" <- mine is unchecked since 2006.

Eliniale
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:14:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Eliniale on 14/06/2011 14:25:21
First off, let me just say eve is great, and CCP is doing a lot of great things with it. And this new incarna system will attract a lot of new players and a whole new target group than most of the other eve features will, which makes it only even more great.

HOWEVER, I have noticed this tendency that you guys (CCP) have to have all these great new ideas, so many that only a part can be implemented, which you keep adding to the game (which still is great), but while losing sigh of what has been done in the past, and neglecting some past projects and features that are great as well. (an example here would be the survey mission sites that only got completed have assedly). The little things you are fixing is one great step in the direction of fixing this issue, one I praise and applaud.

Yet I do believe that incarna will be one other project where losing yourself in the new and awesome stuff you are making is a very real and possible danger.
I also believe it's quite possible that by eliminating the hanger view as it is, and obligating EVERYONE to use the captains quarters, you will alienate a lot of the older player base(or at least leave them with a feeling of abandonment).

Edit: Also I realize that you are likely forcing everyone to use the CQ because of:
A the new players, so they are more immersed from the start.
B because quite bluntly if you donít know one would currently exit his/her pod, which actually goes to show that currently itís an unnecessary and quite frankly unwanted feature. (this isnít a bad thing, or it doesnít need to be).
The solution would be to make it in some way useful to exit ones pod, which I believe you totally will do once the MMO environment inside stations will arrive, but for now, please please please pleeeease, donít force us to use the CQ, (and if at all possible, donít even force us to use the walking in stations when it comes out, have use decide ourselves whether we want to do so). From a role-play point of view I wouldnít ever exit my pod as an egger seeing as it would make me vulnerable, and I want to be able to role-play as I if never have left my pod since becoming an egger.

Who knows I could be totally wrong here, and be proven wrong in a few days,
but I don't believe I will be. I seem to be another in a long line of people, who are concerned about this same thing.

In an event, keep up with the good work, keep innovating, but please, don't lose track of where you came from, and the things that make you great.


Dr Zom
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:19:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Dr Zom on 14/06/2011 14:20:25
Edited by: Dr Zom on 14/06/2011 14:19:47
Just to throw in my $0.02, on the EVE universe:

You live in a pod, directly wired into your ship controlled by your every thought. According to the chronicles and other official fiction, you have crew on board as well, deeply committed to do your bidding either through threat of violence, a hefty paycheck, or promise of adventure. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to be able to dock your ship and remain plugged in, viewing your ship from your camera drone spinning around the bay as usual while your minions take your goods to the market to sell. Why Concord would at any time mandate that the owner of the ship must disembark while docked, and how that mandate could possibly be enforced where they maintain no authority are questions that would be hard to explain.YARRRR!!

That word Temporary in the blog really seems out of place.

Gibbo5771
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:32:00 - [47]
 

I like the face ccp are taking performance into consideration, its a sign that they care a little bit about there customers, infact its the most considerable thing in a while.

However my PC specs are way overkill, I still find it **** I have to use this feature which is completely irrelevant to the original image of eve. Completely forced just like incursions.

Tweakalvos
Gallente
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:37:00 - [48]
 

I sorta thank you guys on not setting yourselves up with too high of systems reqs for this new stuff. Just hope you don't try to hard and make it harder to run the game for the other people that don't have or above system reqs. IE Keep hearing about performance issues.

northwesten
Amarr
Trinity Corporate Services
Terran United Federation
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:43:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Soden Rah
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: S'qarpium D'igil
Originally by: Rixiu
Just add the possibility to first "dock" and then "exit pod" and be done with it. From a pure gameplay perspective it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be forced to exit the pod just to change ship and being forced to load a second client all for nothing just adds on top of that.

The current implementation of incarna is fairly blunt and I really would like a more seamless experience between "old eve" and incarna. For example, I dock my ship much like I can at the moment, I choose to exit my pod and I see it leave the ship and fly to a "pod-docking" and then transported to a pod-room and from there I can do the incarna. Completely skipable sequence of course.

Also, the current hangar itself really need a revamp though, the lack of scale make our huge ships look really tiny, even after you moved them closer to the balcony.


QFT.

How many times to we have to ask you to make undocking from our pods OPTIONAL?

Are you helping out players by making the loading of the CQ optional? Yes. But you are avoiding the real issue entirely: WE DON'T WANT YOU TO FORCE THIS ON US AND BREAK COMMON SENSE AND GAME LORE IN THE PROCESS.


If they make this CQ optional then whats the problem? You just don't load up CQ just that simple but you asking them to not download CQ stuff at all means they will have to have 2 clients?




That is not what he is saying. he's asking CCP to keep the current hanger view, and have CQ as something that happens after that if you so chose (say a disembark button on the station services window).
and for what's the problem... read this, and this ...


ah ok gotta ya :)

Mitchello
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:48:00 - [50]
 

I must say, commendable as it is for the duration, in light of how close we are to the actual magic date this just makes me nervous. Don't misunderstand me please, but how many days till delivery? And now a tweak on a test server becomes an intermediary feature? I really hope that the patch goes well ...........

At the same time, I'm just puzzled. I understand Incarna has come a long way, looks good on far end high spec machines, and has brilliant potential for microtransactions. Sure. But these kinds of performance variables, considerations and decisions in this timeline?

It just gives so much of an impression of "HTFU, style > substance so just quit" being thrown at:

business notebook user markets
family pc user markets
oem pc user markets
IGP user markets
developing country and/or emerging markets

And basically, at the proverbial last minute. Not so much in the sense of how many days till patch, but this is stuff which should be a topic in development processes months ahead before it even comes to a patch. This is a deep impact topic.

Remarkable. That's a lot to discard simply on a basis of "we're partners with Nvidia and we want to do awesome without having to provide argumentation", that is the kind of impression this creates. And that perception is what defines reality. If you lot were in retail it wouldn't matter, but you're not. At minimum do your cost projections and research on timelines of adoptions of all those user markets and their individual groups. Then follow feedback tracks and correct adoption paths, work out prioritisation on a solid basis which involves tangible research and interaction with customers, and then make the plan and get to work.

No wonder there is such a strong push towards changing the underlying operational principles of EVE, it has to add on top of a still growing but flattening subscription curve where both speed and cost of recycling user types is increasing. And that with a growing potential requirement to recycle core usertype groups alltogether. Honestly, I always thought CCP wanted to be different. To be a leader, not a follower. An inventor, not a copy machine. A company with not just a unique presentation of culture, but a business acumen suitable to conquer the world. At this rate, yes there will be money made, but the CCP that set out to be, will be no more. Same as EVE, along the road, will not be different or strong anymore. Both will just be a common ratrace of corporate recycling.

I do hope the ship can be turned around. To conquer the world, you don't need to follow the paths of others. There are better, simpler and more productive and awesome paths at your disposal. You make your own. You have been strong at that. If really all this is just a case of "if it looks good, it is good enough" then at least be honest about it. If indeed the motivation is to grow big because of growing big and fear of being left behind, I am sorry, but that signifies that CCP is now merely another enterprise in a mainstream business without awesome and simply on a common track towards capitalisation for the few. That does not mean this will happen, as it does not have to happen. It's almost as if somewhere, at some point, a leading part of CCP lost touch with what grows unique commercial prospects such as EVE, or perhaps even lost will or faith in continuing it as a generational potential.

Enough said. Good luck.






Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:06:00 - [51]
 

As this is a CCP sit down and make decisions week. I expect we will be seeing more answers soon to all the questions we have been asking lately.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:16:00 - [52]
 

Hmmm...I can distinctly remember the captain's quarters would remain optional. When exactly was 'temporarily' inserted in there ?

Lost Hamster
Hamster Holding Corp
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:28:00 - [53]
 

What does this mean in clear text?

Those who switch off CQ, will get a black screen, no station environment, just the menus?
Or they get back the current hangar view, so we can spin the ship?

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:30:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Hmmm...I can distinctly remember the captain's quarters would remain optional. When exactly was 'temporarily' inserted in there ?


The temporary is on the ability to load no station environment at all, however that is not an option to not having CQ, and the no station environment, has less functionality as the current station hanger... loaded or otherwise.

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:32:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Lost Hamster
What does this mean in clear text?

Those who switch off CQ, will get a black screen, no station environment, just the menus?
Or they get back the current hangar view, so we can spin the ship?


as it stands on SiSi you get a static (blurry) pic of the inside of (atm the Minmatarr) CQ.
You always have the old station UI.
But you don't have the drag and drop functionality, and r-click select ship functionality that you do in the current hanger view.

Xander Hunt
Minmatar
Dead Rats Tell No Tales
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:48:00 - [56]
 

I'm sick of EVE. I'm giving away all my ISK! Send me.. wait.. nevermind... Been played.

Anyway, if CQ ends up being permanent and it takes me 5 minutes to get ANYTHING done, I'll just hand my corp over to someone else, melt all my characters on my three accounts and say goodbye if CQ becomes permanent, forced, and always required. The way CCP has been behaving lately with new features, unfinished work, promises of bug fixes, and lack of communication with the community, and considering that this is supposed to be "OUR GAME" (to which they repeated over, and over and OVER at fanfest), its pretty nasty (I'd use other words, but they'd get filtered) that'd they force something on us that can easily be toggled on and off. Its in the damned code. Default on, sure, OK, that I can accept. But let *ME* decide how I want to absorb the visuals, how I want to play the game, and how I want to deal with the UI.

Old hardware be-damned. New hardware be-damned. My problem isn't with hardware specs as my machine is well beyond what CCP even suggests as a good spec.

CCP hasn't given a lot of answers to any of our questions as of late. Any question that could possibly illicit a POSITIVE feedback towards their feature set is answered almost usually in the next post, but anything that is neutral or detracts from the overall sense of what is being offered is completely ignored by ALL members of the CCP staff that monitor these boards.

Our voice isn't being heard, and I guarantee its internal politics that is making our concerns go unanswered. It NEVER fails when a game becomes successful.

Narkhana
Gallente
Infinium Trading Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:54:00 - [57]
 

It's amazing how every single dev blog you release pushes me one step closer to canceling my three subscriptions.

I haven't seen a single person on the forums that believes forcing CQ on players is a good thing; yet we do not receive any response about why CCP made that decision.

You state that CQ runs great on low-end machines despite plenty of feedback on the sisi thread that in fact it does not. (I have a mid-level PC and I get 3 fps running a single client.)

I'm not sure what world CCP lives in, but it sure isn't the same one your players live in. Keep up the good work CCP. Neutral

northwesten
Amarr
Trinity Corporate Services
Terran United Federation
Posted - 2011.06.14 16:02:00 - [58]
 

I will repost this incase people miss the video. Watch the first 2 mins of it and see how he docked and clicked the button for CQ... Why not this?

Video Fanfest - incama


Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.14 16:02:00 - [59]
 

I have consolidated My questions, and your responses so far into this thread in test server feedback.

The original multi page post which ended in those questions is here.

We have been promised dev blogs with actual answers in them.
Can one of you please write one.

Doublewhopper
Posted - 2011.06.14 16:05:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Doublewhopper on 14/06/2011 16:06:23
Edited by: Doublewhopper on 14/06/2011 16:05:20
Quote:
This allows us to accomodate users with old and gnarly hardware, a group weĎve been proud to be able to serve in the past


A joke, right? This can't be serious?

Yeah well...let us recap what has been dropped over the years...

Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows 2000
The Classic Client
Shader Model 1.0
SSE CPUs (Celerons and older)
The Official Linux Client (still running on wine)
SSE2 CPUs (Pentium III and older)
Shader Model 2.0 by March, 2011

And the future:

Windows Vista Home by April 12, 2012
Windows XP by April 8, 2014
Shader Model 3.0 around 2015
Windows Vista Business and Enterprise by April 11, 2017





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