open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [CSM] July 2011 Prioritization Crowdsourcing Preparation Plea
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.07.21 17:11:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 21/07/2011 17:13:25
Originally by: Salpun
29- jump distance indicated in game not sure if it fullfills the objective of the topic.


I can answer as a jump capable pilot: EVE currently displays a sphere with the radius equal to your jump range - i.e. encompassing the area you can jump to. However, using the 3D map, and especially in cluttered regions, it is difficult to see which systems - especially at the borders - are still covered in the sphere.

A graphical red/green indication would be much clearer. Additionally the suggestion offers several improvements, such as fuel consumption per jump. I would like to keep the item.


Going off on a tagent, what I would *really* love to see would be some kind of a measuring tool, which would allow you to see the distance between systems (both in LY and in jumps) without having to be in one of the systems yourself. I don't see CCP implementing a dotlan-style complex jump planner, but at least a simple yes/no "can I jump from A to B" could be easily answered only using the starmap.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.21 17:18:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 21/07/2011 17:13:25
Originally by: Salpun
29- jump distance indicated in game not sure if it fullfills the objective of the topic.


I can answer as a jump capable pilot: EVE currently displays a sphere with the radius equal to your jump range - i.e. encompassing the area you can jump to. However, using the 3D map, and especially in cluttered regions, it is difficult to see which systems - especially at the borders - are still covered in the sphere.

A graphical red/green indication would be much clearer. Additionally the suggestion offers several improvements, such as fuel consumption per jump. I would like to keep the item.


Going off on a tagent, what I would *really* love to see would be some kind of a measuring tool, which would allow you to see the distance between systems (both in LY and in jumps) without having to be in one of the systems yourself. I don't see CCP implementing a dotlan-style complex jump planner, but at least a simple yes/no "can I jump from A to B" could be easily answered only using the starmap.


Thanks for the answer trying to get some movement on this thread to help the CSM out.

NDA hurting you much Trebor.Wink

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.22 14:14:00 - [33]
 

OK guys, I've locked down the categories, prioritization will go live sometime this weekend.

Much obliged for your help.

After reviewing all of this, I am thinking that I need to go back and totally redo the CSM categorization system sometime this fall. Lucky me.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.22 23:05:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Salpun on 22/07/2011 23:10:25
Edited by: Salpun on 22/07/2011 23:09:00
Quick Test on Sisi shows 27 to be still broke adding advanced Cargohold II does not change the size of the cargo bay untill you make the ship active.
What categories are you thinking of changing to?

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.07.23 02:50:00 - [35]
 

in no particular order, here are my priorities

2,13,14,16,19,20,22,36,38,43,44,81,81,81,81 (can't emphasize that one enough),127,142


please add the motd for alliance and corp channels topic Link should be in the hot topics thread.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.23 02:58:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
in no particular order, here are my priorities

2,13,14,16,19,20,22,36,38,43,44,81,81,81,81 (can't emphasize that one enough),127,142


please add the motd for alliance and corp channels topic Link should be in the hot topics thread.


will need to repost in proper thread in a day or soLaughing.

d4shing
Posted - 2011.07.23 03:27:00 - [37]
 

Most of these items have been voted on before, no?

Can you also include the rank that the item achieved in the previous round of voting, and any action taken by CCP?

E.g. Assault Frigate 4th Bonus -- #5 in August 2010 crowdsourcing, #7 in November 2010 crowdsourcing, and still nothing done

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.23 03:54:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Salpun on 24/07/2011 13:36:22
Edited by: Salpun on 24/07/2011 13:01:23
would be a nice thing but a clean vote would be best and then in the after action report include that info

Suggest you link this thread to the actual crowd sourcing thread as the feed back thread. At lest copy all feed back over here so it does not get lost in the responses.

or link responses on the front page lol

item 19 seems to be noted as complete so people do not vote for it.

Apolion
Posted - 2011.07.24 19:22:00 - [39]
 

I noticed that a topic that continually is spoken about in the forums is missing.
"Line of Sight"; "L.O.S." may seem as a minor game mechanic that has the potential of really screwing with LAG but there are so many ways to overcome the CPU load that I plead with you to pass it along to the development guys at CCP. I donít claim to have looked at the over 2000 LOS comments on the forums but I have looked for any responses from DEVs on this issue. I havenít found any. That doesnít mean there havenít been any. Iím just saying, I and quite a few others would simply like to know if true tactics that are derived from this concept will ever be implemented. Itís simply a natural human expectation that; I canít shoot at something if there is a wall, roid, titan, station between me and it.

EVE IS REAL...MAKE IT SO.

Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.07.25 09:34:00 - [40]
 

Commenting in the other thread is not really practical, so I'll just put in here that #124 is already in game and although #32 and #145 are sort of duplicates I voted for both of them.

Seamus Donohue
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.25 20:20:00 - [41]
 

I'm unable to find anything about railgun or hybrid rebalancing on the list. What is the status of this issue in regards to the crowdsourcing?

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.26 00:52:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Lucas Quaan
Commenting in the other thread is not really practical, so I'll just put in here that #124 is already in game and although #32 and #145 are sort of duplicates I voted for both of them.


It was retained as a issue becouse while fixed the second generation changes = Carbon UI broke funtinality and needs tobe tweaking again.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.07.26 10:51:00 - [43]
 

Too late now, but the FW issues need to be reviewed. There are many duplicate ones that need to be merged.
This way the issues will be underrepresented as votes for the same issue will be spread out over several more or less identical issues.

InColdBlood
Posted - 2011.07.27 15:48:00 - [44]
 

What happened to


HYBRIDS ??

Wraithik
Posted - 2011.07.27 17:06:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Wraithik on 27/07/2011 17:06:22

Malkev
Posted - 2011.07.28 21:58:00 - [46]
 

In the future, would it be possible to break the list down into basic sections?

Mining, manufacturing, UI, null sec, misc., WH space, empire, drones, balancing, etc.

I'm trying to go through and narrow down what I want but I'm finding myself staring at this giant list of stuff.

Jita Bloodtear
Posted - 2011.08.01 01:25:00 - [47]
 

Oh geeze, get us #106 Shares, dividends and stocks (CSM). This would open up a huge number of possibilities for the market and economic community

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.01 02:40:00 - [48]
 

On item 100, Scan-able wrecks&containers for the salvager profession(1.2)

"Helen Highwater didn't want to give wrecks special protection as per the proposal when nothing else gets masked any more.

TeaDaze didn't like the the idea of allowing core probes as it could in theory allow scanning out combat ships via wrecks and instead suggested the proposal be amended to require combat."



I'm surprised that none of you CSM folk see this proposal for what it really is: a rather transparent ploy to find mission runners thru their wrecks. Yes, the ones in there heretofore unscannable T3's, who are currently pretty difficult to find. Rather sleasy that none of you CSM-ers listed this under 'cons'.


Pages: 1 [2]

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