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


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (46)

Author Topic

Izzy Alistair
Amarr
The Edge of Infinity
Posted - 2011.06.20 23:50:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Awesome Possum
Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


demand this gets answered


I swear to god I'll get everyone I know in all of they're accounts (100+ accounts) to spam this if this question does not get answered.

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.20 23:52:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Awesome Possum
Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


demand this gets answered



ArrowCurrent SiSi build includes this option.

ArrowCurrent SiSi build includes this option.

ArrowCurrent SiSi build includes this option.


Izzy Alistair
Amarr
The Edge of Infinity
Posted - 2011.06.20 23:54:00 - [33]
 

So if it's in the Sisi build then it will for sure be in the patch on TQ?

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.20 23:57:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Izzy Alistair
So if it's in the Sisi build then it will for sure be in the patch on TQ?



well they wrote an entire (pointless, information-less, missed the point) devblog about having this button, and put it into the SiSi build, and have kept it ever since...

So I would be exceedingly surprised if the last minute changes between the last test build and the final release build include removing this button...

they might break it by accident, but they are unlikely to remove it.

Cancel Align NOW
Posted - 2011.06.20 23:57:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Izzy Alistair
So if it's in the Sisi build then it will for sure be in the patch on TQ?


Probably not.

Izzy Alistair
Amarr
The Edge of Infinity
Posted - 2011.06.20 23:59:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Soden Rah
Originally by: Izzy Alistair
So if it's in the Sisi build then it will for sure be in the patch on TQ?



well they wrote an entire (pointless, information-less, missed the point) devblog about having this button, and put it into the SiSi build, and have kept it ever since...

So I would be exceedingly surprised if the last minute changes between the last test build and the final release build include removing this button...

they might break it by accident, but they are unlikely to remove it.


I know it was in the dev blog, but I thought that it would be in the patch notes if it was feature.

Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:03:00 - [37]
 

Awww .. poor Burn Eden need to find a new gimmick that won't be fixed for two years.

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:04:00 - [38]
 

I don't think they believe that being able to disable their new baby that they are trying to cram down our throats is a 'feature'... also the button already exists on TQ, the only time it didn't was on early test builds of Incarna, till we yelled at them a lot.

They totally missed the point of the yelling, and haven't answered/fixed the central issue. But the flames from them going back on their word and removing this band aid would be spectacular... and I think they think they have had enough bad pr the past few weeks...

Sokkerdino
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:07:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Awesome Possum
Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


Quote:
we can turn QC off via do not load station environment like stated in the blog right?


demand this gets answered

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:10:00 - [40]
 

This is going to be a long night.... for ccp. I am going to bed... see you all on Wednesday...


next month...

Hockston Axe
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:18:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Soden Rah
Originally by: Estep
what time is that in EST?


bangs head on desk.....

How can people not be able to work out time.... CCP gives everything in GMT+0=UTC

If you can't manage to work out the difference between your time and CCP/EVE time then you are not intelligent enough to PLAY eve.

use google, or your built in computer clock.


subtracting 4 is hard apparently...

Seriously though, what's the deal with the hardwiring thing, what if somebody has a hardwire plugged in that they no longer have the skill to plug in?

Minsc
Gallente
Alpha Empire
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:26:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Soden Rah
Originally by: Vincent Athena
To all those with graphics card issues with CQ: Try turning "interior effects" to low and see if that helps. If its not enough, then hit that "do not load" button.


I have been testing on ALL settings... I have a core 2 duo intel processor and Giggabyte GTX 460.... and on everything low or off I still overheat my GPU with my CPU running at 80~90% on both cores, just to stand still. my ave FPS goes from 20 to 30 by changing the settings but overheating happens either way.

now if I went into CQ when I wanted to and didn't need my in space UI, then it might be ok... but as it happens every time we dock, and there is no content, and the new UI is fail... I am just not going to load it.

CCP should provide separate settings for in space, and in Incarna... and they should find out what is nukeing my CPU/GPU... and they should put the damn hanger back... Till then I wont be using CQ on TQ.
I will never be using the 'Noble (read money-grabbing) store' so, that is a total waste of time... And sad cos the 'free' outfits are pretty bad...


I don't honestly know what's wrong with your system but I'm running a core2duo 3ghz and a gtx285 and I get 60 fps in CQ and my gpu runs at normal running temperature. Which drivers are you running? What brand of card? Have you messed with any fan control settings? It doesn't make sense for your card, which should be more powerfull than mine to give lower performance.

Bl4ck Ph03n1x
Echoes of Nowhere
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:29:00 - [43]
 

Wow patchnote.
This is what i call a patch.
Maybe you don't do enough for the bigs broken stuffs, but... woot fixing little bugs.
Don't stop now, CCP.

ps: and watch the market carefully, after the aurum deployment.You DON'T WANT a plex price explosion.

Kytayn
Gallente
Kronos TEchnologies
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:44:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Hockston Axe
Originally by: Soden Rah
Originally by: Estep
what time is that in EST?

bangs head on desk.....
How can people not be able to work out time.... CCP gives everything in GMT+0=UTC
If you can't manage to work out the difference between your time and CCP/EVE time then you are not intelligent enough to PLAY eve.
use google, or your built in computer clock.

subtracting 4 is hard apparently...

Well, technically, he asked about EST, which is -5. Those of us in the Eastern U.S. time zone are currently in EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) which is -4.

Noleai
Posted - 2011.06.21 00:51:00 - [45]
 

Looking at the patch notes "Grouped-weapons have been optimized to further increase their performance gain compared to ungrouped weapons.", what performance gain do they currently have other than firing at the same time if grouped, and what's the new performance gain?

Leon Razor
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.21 01:11:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Noleai
Looking at the patch notes "Grouped-weapons have been optimized to further increase their performance gain compared to un-grouped weapons.", what performance gain do they currently have other than firing at the same time if grouped, and what's the new performance gain?

I think the way it works is that grouped weapons fire as a single unit, so what ever overhead is involved with firing all your guns is reduced to a single event. For small fights this isn't much, but imagine 1000 Battleships x 8 Guns = 8000 events per cycle vs 1000 events per cycle with grouped weapons.

Kim Aumer
Posted - 2011.06.21 01:12:00 - [47]
 

Now for the next patch, come on guys, let us choose icon sizes for items. They are so big right now and take up too much space.

Reilly Duvolle
Posted - 2011.06.21 01:16:00 - [48]
 

So... do we get 4 racial CQ as promised.... or just the minmatar one for all stations? Sisis buld has never shown the other 3 races so I assume the last, but to my knowledge CCP has never acknowledged that the other 3 would be delayed.

CCP Masterplan


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.21 01:17:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: CCP Masterplan on 21/06/2011 01:24:04
Originally by: Leon Razor
Originally by: Noleai
Looking at the patch notes "Grouped-weapons have been optimized to further increase their performance gain compared to un-grouped weapons.", what performance gain do they currently have other than firing at the same time if grouped, and what's the new performance gain?

I think the way it works is that grouped weapons fire as a single unit, so what ever overhead is involved with firing all your guns is reduced to a single event. For small fights this isn't much, but imagine 1000 Battleships x 8 Guns = 8000 events per cycle vs 1000 events per cycle with grouped weapons.

Grouped weapons previously made some savings by doing things like combined aggression/damage checks. I did some changes to extend that out to also combining the client updates that show you when someone is firing.
Now instead of sending everyone on the grid 8 individual network messages like:
"turret 1 on ship X is firing at ship Y", "turret 2 on ship X is firing at ship Y"...
it now sends one network message saying
"turrets 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 on ship X are firing at ship Y"

Edit: So yes, Leon is basically correct

Tango Cainne
TERRIBLE EMO ALTS REGIME
Posted - 2011.06.21 01:20:00 - [50]
 

Looking under ships, am I correct in seeing that, as on SiSi, they still haven't fixed the Nightmare's turrets? I guess two turrets will still be sharing a single hardpoint. It's funny that Incursions broke this, where the Nightmare is one of the visual centerpieces of the expansion, and here we are on our next expansion and it's not fixed yet.

As someone previously said, having the code open and not fixing = fail.

Mister Rocknrolla
Posted - 2011.06.21 01:55:00 - [51]
 


Technically This is an "expansion" not a "patch."


Pace eGuerra
Posted - 2011.06.21 02:17:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Minsc
I don't honestly know what's wrong with your system but I'm running a core2duo 3ghz and a gtx285 and I get 60 fps in CQ and my gpu runs at normal running temperature. Which drivers are you running? What brand of card? Have you messed with any fan control settings? It doesn't make sense for your card, which should be more powerfull than mine to give lower performance.



Yeah. I have a similar problem and it's definitely not a performance issue. It's a crappy cooling issue. The combined PSU, CPU, RAM, GPU and other component heat generation isn't handled well enough by my system so when I enter CQ on full quality my GPU fan goes crazy. It's easy to put that down to a performance issue but as you say, it's more about the combined heat generation vs cooling effectiveness. For me, this sort of problem started when I built a new wide desk and neglected to ensure enough air movement around the outside of the box. So now my water cooled quad core beast sounds like a plane in takeoff if I use CQ on full quality.

For me, it's definitely NOT the software, just a simple airflow issue. Incarna will finally get me off my butt to fix the problem. :)

Selnix
Gallente
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.06.21 02:18:00 - [53]
 

@Navigator

Since it was blatantly disregarded in the first blog comments thread which indicated CCP's intent to prevent ships from being incapable of being probed down I would like to ask this again...

Will you change the bonuses of the Tech III Warfare Processor subsystems to allow the ships to fit some semblance of a tank whilst running their links? I think that a snapshot of TQ would find that 90% of T3s which have command links fitted are running 2-3 of them and that this requires a T3 to be fitted with the majority of their low slots housing co-processors and their mids partially filled with command processors.

If T3s are to be brought back onto the battlefield they need to be more than a 15k EHP pinata. This is an easy fix as well...

Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need. Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously.

Jonak Demarsk
Posted - 2011.06.21 02:23:00 - [54]
 

Has the problem with t3 ships being able to jump through a covert cyno been fixed yet? I don't intend to invest in t tech untill it is :-D

PDS001Sniper
Caldari
Dear Old Loong Man
Posted - 2011.06.21 02:39:00 - [55]
 

too bad the dev didnt fix the Nightmare battleship's missing turret bug

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.21 02:51:00 - [56]
 

Quote:

Drones now take area-of-effect damage from mission entities.


Does that mean NPCs now have smart bombs? Or does it mean that exploding things such as the Pleasure Gardens will now damage drones?


Also, good patch notes, just wish they were out sooner. And kudos on the plethora of non-CQ fixes, tweaks, and additions.


Kemhotep
Posted - 2011.06.21 02:53:00 - [57]
 

Quote:
All players logging into Tranquility will now have to create an avatar. You will not be able to proceed into game without one.


**** you.

Joe Space
Pod Liberation Authority
Posted - 2011.06.21 03:07:00 - [58]
 

Quote:
It is no longer possible to set up a ship to be impervious to scanning while uncloaked.


I think this is an excellent change!

It hurts me pretty bad personally. I have two accounts that can each run 3 of the 4 unprobable T3s. That's a decent amount of training time and a lot of isk sunk into ships and fits that will need big adjustments. This will definitely make it more difficult for us small gang types.

Nevertheless, the change does far more good than bad. Imho, unprobable sniper BS, unprobable mission runners, and even unprobable links are bad for the game. So I welcome this change.

There is, however, one problem I foresee. Links can still be run out of POS. In my experience, the systems where gate camps are most prevalent are systems where the campers have POS. Being able to run T3 links out of POS (and, therefore, out of harms way) is a pretty big advantage.

What I propose is that links are made so that they do not work within POS shields. This will force the campers to run links with the same risks as the gangs that come to fight them.

Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.06.21 03:09:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Joe Space
Quote:
It is no longer possible to set up a ship to be impervious to scanning while uncloaked.


I think this is an excellent change!

It hurts me pretty bad personally. I have two accounts that can each run 3 of the 4 unprobable T3s. That's a decent amount of training time and a lot of isk sunk into ships and fits that will need big adjustments. This will definitely make it more difficult for us small gang types.

Nevertheless, the change does far more good than bad. Imho, unprobable sniper BS, unprobable mission runners, and even unprobable links are bad for the game. So I welcome this change.

There is, however, one problem I foresee. Links can still be run out of POS. In my experience, the systems where gate camps are most prevalent are systems where the campers have POS. Being able to run T3 links out of POS (and, therefore, out of harms way) is a pretty big advantage.

What I propose is that links are made so that they do not work within POS shields. This will force the campers to run links with the same risks as the gangs that come to fight them.


Supported.

Hyssar
Posted - 2011.06.21 03:10:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Joe Space
Quote:
It is no longer possible to set up a ship to be impervious to scanning while uncloaked.


I think this is an excellent change!

It hurts me pretty bad personally. I have two accounts that can each run 3 of the 4 unprobable T3s. That's a decent amount of training time and a lot of isk sunk into ships and fits that will need big adjustments. This will definitely make it more difficult for us small gang types.

Nevertheless, the change does far more good than bad. Imho, unprobable sniper BS, unprobable mission runners, and even unprobable links are bad for the game. So I welcome this change.

There is, however, one problem I foresee. Links can still be run out of POS. In my experience, the systems where gate camps are most prevalent are systems where the campers have POS. Being able to run T3 links out of POS (and, therefore, out of harms way) is a pretty big advantage.

What I propose is that links are made so that they do not work within POS shields. This will force the campers to run links with the same risks as the gangs that come to fight them.

Supporting this as well.


Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (46)

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