open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Organizational tools, standings and other changes
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.02.25 22:25:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 25/02/2010 22:54:01
Calender looks really good for what we (Eve University) need. :) Alliance standings and an improved buddy system are also very good features.

However, players should really have the option to set more than -10, -5, 0, +5 and +10, and removing this ability will hit the people who care about standings the hardest. I appreciate that you want to give students an 'easy' method of assigning standings: but allow also a "detail view" if you will, which displays the standard slider. There is no reason why the 'new' and 'old' systems cannot exist side by side, allowing people to use them as they see fit - WITHOUT making the interface 'more complex' for people who dont want/need it.

When CSM3 requested a corporate overhaul with CCP, the proposal was clear in that we wanted more granularity/details in corp management, not less.

This is an especially strong example of the Sandbox gameplay: people using a highly refined system of standings instead of five basic icons. I would think the last thing you guys want to do is take away tools from our sandbox.

Assemply hall thread on this issue


As for some of the requested suggestions: A corp member list should definately NOT be public by default. Perhaps make it a corporate option to make it Corp Only/Public, or tie it into war dec's. Anyone looking to declare on others has to reveil their members.


Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.25 22:35:00 - [32]
 

i think the proposed standing simplification does only have a real impact on player owned station management. every other impact can be adopted to, so it only leaves stations.

So if the station management UI changes to like some table

______docking serviceA serviceB serviceC etc.
Base_value
+10
+5
0
-5
entityA
entityB
entityC
etc.

so the columns represent station functions & the rows comprise 5 standard settings and in addition slots for specific entities (be it chars, corps or alliances) that can be adjusted manually. For the final result char setting has top prio, corp second, ally third while the standing based have the lowest priority.
concerning values in the matrix:
-1 means denial of service,
left blank is masked by other relevant rows, if the end result is still blank, then it means denial of service
0-100%value of base costs/value, the value with highest prio is taken (if that is not blank)
Base_value is ISK or % depending on the service

With this seperate way of handling station management, the standing simplification can take full effect in all other aspects of the game while not harming a detailed and complex differentiation of relations hosted on a station.

hfo df
Posted - 2010.02.25 22:42:00 - [33]
 

Dont forget about fleets ... they use standings to decide who can join and who cant (different levels of blue).

Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2010.02.25 22:49:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Frug on 25/02/2010 22:51:26

Regarding standings in the overview:

You're right about the way it works now but more important than changing how the overview is filtered by standing, can you PLEASE look at allowing the overview to show wartargets only? There is a checkbox to show this, but it is overridden by standings and effectively does nothing at all (try for yourself, i have bugreported this but that is not always effective). There are nuances with the war system which can often cause people who you have not set to red to be at war with you, and there is currently no way to show only them on the overview. For me, and a lot of people I know, this is far more important than hiding blues (hiding gang mates is enough).

TLDR: "at war with" is important with respect to overview filtering, often more important than standings, but the overview cannot currently be filtered to show only war targets. You can consider this to be part of 'diplomacy' in general. We're very diplomatic with our war targets, in that we shoot them.

Incidentally there is another issue with the overview standings filter, and that is that it does not correctly filter alliance -> corp standings. ie. our alliance sets a corp to red, I choose to show only reds on the overview, but they don't show up on it. Please look into it.


Darque Ly'Yte
Government Sanctioned
Posted - 2010.02.25 22:50:00 - [35]
 

The new calender looks cool. I agree with others ideas that the skill queue should be linked to the calender.

As for the new standing system, I think it should only be simplified to be integers, -10 to 10. The proposed 5 standing system is overkill.

Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2010.02.25 22:57:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Frug on 25/02/2010 23:00:01

Oh, and about providing a complete corp list on eve-gate rather than having people do what we do now (search various sources to compile an intel list, or put a spy in corp to get the corp list) I think the vast, vast majority of players will say DONT DO IT. A list of corp members is a valuable piece of intel and it can be fun to acquire. It would be much better if you could try to find a way to prevent people from generating that list in an automated fashion using evegate, which I assume is what you're afraid of. If we could hide our corporation from the web interface, or even hide everything about ourselves to make it only privately viewable (in facebook you can set it so they only see your pic and your name, but not where you're from) that should be enough.

At the moment, things like battleclinic are the best tool for gathering names, but that has some obvious limitations on how fresh the data is, etc etc.


Odhinn Vinlandii
Minmatar
Apolitical
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:04:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Frug
Edited by: Frug on 25/02/2010 22:51:26

Regarding standings in the overview:

You're right about the way it works now but more important than changing how the overview is filtered by standing, can you PLEASE look at allowing the overview to show wartargets only?


It does,

You need to change the priority.

Open overview settings.

Click "Appearance" tab.

Click "Colortags" subtab.

Raise "Pilot is at war with your corporation/alliance" to the top with the buttons at the bottom of the window.

Ricgt clicking it can also enable/disable blink or change colors.

---

I often wondered if the poorly designed standing system is the source of much lag.

local and stations often get standings bugs and I see neuts as corp mates or alliance mates as neuts quite often.

I am glad it is being simplified, good job CCP.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2010.02.25 23:07:00 - [38]
 

On the issue of corp membership lists:

The bit where it becomes more complicated is that your public EVE Gate profile will (according to the current plan) contain the information available in your show info window. This includes your corporation membership. This is all currently available ingame, so we're not releasing any new information... However, obviously it's substantially easier to collect this data from the web than it is to collect it ingame currently.


Originally by: Sir Fourhead
Can you name it something other than a "watch list"?


Yes, we can, and we most likely will. Words in that screenshot are not final.

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
I don't get this. I skimmed the whole thing quickly, but you don't seem to give any good reasons for the change and clearly see some negatives. The number of options is an overkill in most cases, but so what? Is the number of options a performance problem? What is the clear benefit from this, that could not be achieved while maintaining more options? Some clarification would be nice to hear, since you obviously had a clear reason for doing it, but forgot to write it plainly in the devblog.


The long and short of it is that this system is intended to fill the role of a "friends" system for EVE Gate, and as such we want to have simple and intuitive, both mechanically and in terms of UI. For the majority of users there's no need for anything beyond the "five overview states", so we trimmed it down to reflect this mechanically. There are pros and cons to any decision; we've tried to be as forthright about the perceived downsides as possible, but (obviously) we feel that they're outweighed by the upsides. That said, we're (again obviously) monitoring this thread for feedback :)

Originally by: Drazdin
Another area affected by the standings change that I can see: the Fleet Finder. What changes are going to be made there?


Under the current plan, the standings slider will be replaced with a choice between the two positive standings settings. It doesn't allow you to set a standing below 0.1 currently, and replicating this functionality means that we only have two options under the new system.

Originally by: Faraelle Brightman
Re: the calendar:

Time zones. How are you going to handle them, if at all? Obviously the default is GMT, but it would be nifty if, for example, in the settings menu or your account settings, you could select your local timezone and all calendar entries in your view would automagicly display in your local time. Good web-based systems can already do this (I should know, I've set it up in Drupal).


Current thinking is that, as with everything else currently in the game, all time will be in EVE time, with no variable-timezone options. While in the shortrun providing timezone support might seem useful, our feeling is that in the long run it's more beneficial for everyone to be used to working off the same clock. That said, we are looking at showing upcoming events (in atleast some views) in terms of "hours until start time", so you can quickly figure out how long until that fleet op without having to do too much math.

Originally by: Johraiken Fenris
Also, we need ability of alliance to set standings to an individual.


Note to self: investigate status of alliance->personal standings in the new system tomorrow.

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
However, players should really have the option to set more than -10, -5, 0, +5 and +10, and removing this ability will hit the people who care about standings the hardest.


What are your specific concerns here? Is it bookkeeping, station/starbase settings, or a combination of the two?

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:09:00 - [39]
 

Would it be possible to change Jump Bridges belonging to your Alliance so that they no longer need the password entering each time you jump in system, please? I know a lot of people who find it an unneccessary annoyance.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:19:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 25/02/2010 23:20:43
How about this: Have the same bar we have now, but below it stick those five coloured buttons, and have pressing them set people to the appropriate standing? It'd let people who don't care set people to +10/+5/0/-5/-10 with one click, but leave in the more powerful options for those who actually do care. Perhaps make the simplified system be what's used for standings set by individuals, if you want it to be more intuitive for them, but let corps and alliances have the detailed version as an option.

Regarding corp member lists, please don't make them public by default. Secrecy in that regard is a good incentive for spying, and it's a nice way to help a corp fight wardecs, as well as making it so that better players have a better level of intelligence than less-good players. The idea of alliance > corp > personal standings working in that order is a good one, though.

That said, the calendar functionality is very cool. Definitely looking forward to the final version. See if you can't include queue exhaustion and account expiry on there as well, because those are two events that should definitely be as visible as possible.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:27:00 - [41]
 

so this is all coming on April 1st then?... SWEET!

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:29:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 26/02/2010 00:24:39
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
However, players should really have the option to set more than -10, -5, 0, +5 and +10, and removing this ability will hit the people who care about standings the hardest.


What are your specific concerns here? Is it bookkeeping, station/starbase settings, or a combination of the two?


I think it is all the problems you already identified, plus more you or I can't think of. The problem is that you're reducing a possibly very complex set of relations between one entity and others to a set of 5 options, a granularity way too small to fit the complex range of inter-corporate (and human) relationships.

Standings can be used
* To determine station charges/POS access
* To maintain diplomatic relationships (levels of respect/trust/assistance)
* To determine fleet access
* etc etc

Just think: at work @ CCP there will be people who are your best friends, people you occasionally go out with and people you just say hi to in the corridors. That are three very different levels of positive relationships, and already 'too complex' for the proposed system (I'm assuming you'd still be blue to fellow CCPers, they are your collegues afterall). An Eve equivalent of this could be "People I would go to defend, even at my expense", "People I trust to fly with me", "People I do not shoot at but do not want to fly with".

For many people to whom standings are just a way to make their space more colourful, five options will be fine. But for people who actually need to be aware of and keep track of their relationships with others, more detail (or really, the current detail), is required.

Indulging us and our love for serious business standings does not have to cost you the elegance and simplicity of the new system, as these two systems can coexist peacefully. Just allow users who so desire to toggle from icons to a numeral standing display (obviously the overview would still use icons). The icons are just graphical fronts that can correspond to the -10, 5, 0, 5, 10 numeral standings. This way most people will be happy with their new and simple interface, while the serious standings business alliances can maintain their (our) intricate web of diplomatic relationships and backstabbing.

Kern Hotha
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:34:00 - [43]
 

Upgrades to functionality and the UI = change I can believe in. Looks good.

Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:37:00 - [44]
 

Quote:

support for standings to NPC entities will likely be dropped as they're essentially non-functional.



Setting standings to NPC corps can be very handy, especially in faction war.

Please don't needlessly remove this useful feature.

Quote:

The question then is whether the corp member list should be globally viewable, or just viewable to corporate members.



You seriously think there is any question? Gathering members lists intel for wardecs is half of that area of the game.




Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:41:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Mynxee on 25/02/2010 23:43:14
Quote:
The question then is whether the corp member list should be globally viewable, or just viewable to corporate members.


Never, ever globally viewable unless a CEO decides to set it that way, please--and then allow individual characters to set it Public or Private like they can with their Certs, as someone else suggested. If someone wants corp member intel, they should have to work for it.

The Calendar is going to be seriously cool and useful. I like the implementation of alliance standings > corp standings > personal standings. That will be really helpful in avoiding mix-ups where personal standings are different from alliance standings. I wish that we could assign whole numbers from -10 to +10 and have those numbers show up on the tags for more accurate assessment of relationships with others based on the meanings internally assigned to those numbers by a corp or alliance. I know I'll never see this, but I can still want it!

Also happy to see Alliance standings be meaningful related to POS's. Good changes all around!

Mkah Mvet
Duolith Systems
Posted - 2010.02.25 23:41:00 - [46]
 

*<sigh> One step forward two steps back.

Every UI 'improvement' implemented seems to look good on paper, look good at first glance, but always reduces functionality significantly. ctrl-tab menu was rendered completely useless, bulletins are just about the least possible effective way to make actual bulletins, the fleet stuff is 90% more annoying, and I could go on. This time you're admitting to breaking stuff on purpose, including implementing a fool proof griefing engine (by providing free intel to highsec griefing corps), a calendar that doubtless will not actually tell anyone when something new has been posted (a la the stupid bulletins window), and lobotomizing the standings system. You people realize the UI is supposed to get better over time, not worse, right? Please just unlock the ability for us to make our own UI plugins so we don't have to deal with yours.

Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation
Tauri Federation
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:00:00 - [47]
 

Ok, I'm very exited to see these changes come around, however as a director in a small corporation, I am a little concerned about the standings changes on the corporate and alliance side.

First off, let me state this, the system outlined is PERFECT for individual use, and I like the way it is now with 5 simple choices for standing. I would however like to see some kind of tagging system for individuals similar to what we see in the new EVE Mail UI. Like the EVE Mail UI it should be custom tags, nothing pre-set except for what has already been provided. Then, when setting standings to a player/corp you can simply show the additional checkboxes for the additional custom labels in the same area as the watch list checkbox. This would allow people to for instance, set standings, but then go a step further and for instance create a label for pilots who have podded them, adding more of that sandbox customization.

Now, lets move up to the corporate/alliance level. Let's take this same functionality of the new buddy/standings system and move it into the big leagues. The system by itself really doesn't have that sandox use that we are used to with the current system? My remedy to this would be to carry over the "Labels" system implemented for personal use. The difference is, while they still serve as organizing for corps and alliances in their interface what you do to simplify and streamline things such as access to stations/outposts you modify the station system to use the custom user-created labels (At this point, it becomes a mini, 'enhanced' role system) for the corps and alliances to provide access and use of stations and services to people not in their corporation.

So on the corp/alliance standpoint lets use this as an example:

Alliance A sets Alliance B blue.
Alliance A creates custom 'label': Dock in PWN-1337 Outpost 1
Alliance A manages outpost and under a "dock permissions" dropdown, selects their custom label: Dock in PWN-1337 Outpost 1
Alliance B is now able to dock at PWN-1337 Outpost 1

Then you allow the same on corporate and individual levels. Then, for sorting purposes when viewing your labels (just mini folders) you see an asset window style view, so lets say we open our label "PWN-1337 Outpost 1" what we would see is this...

ALLIANCES
- Alliance B
- Alliance C
- Alliance D
CORPORATIONS
- Corporation A
- Corporation B
- Corporation C
INDIVIDUALS
- Individual A
- Individual B
- Individual C

So, this system would not only allow intense customization to standing access, but also organization to which corps, alliances and individuals hold what kind of standing... Basically as the person setting the standings dictates the name of the label, all you would have to do is make those same labels viewable in the corp/alliance interface in the standings section to all members, and other members have highly organized information at their fingertips.

The best part about this 'labels' system is you can have a person/corp/alliance with multiple labels. Then, from a UI standpoint for setting the labels, you simply use the section that contains the checkbox "Add to watch list" and just add the labels underneath it in a scrollable section so players can set as many labels as needed.

Now lets say you have a network of POS's, or private POS's. Anyone when placing a POS/outpost would then have the ability when setting labels for access to the POS to simply have three radio buttons in a section:

- Use Personal Labels
- Use Corporation Labels
- Use Alliance Labels

This setting on the POS would allow the simplified management of an entire POS network. For example a corporate CEO can drop a POS intended for alliance use and quickly set it up to conform to alliance access standards simply by checking the appropriate box and applying the labels from the alliance, instead of setting custom labels in their corporation/individual tabs. Nifty eh?

--- Continued in my next post ---

Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation
Tauri Federation
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:06:00 - [48]
 

---- Continued from my previous post ---

Obviously there are some pros and cons to this, let me address the ones that immediately come to my mind:

CONS:
Additional coding and reworking of POS system
Possible interference/conflict with existing corporate roles system

PROS:
- Enhanced Outpost/POS Access Management
- Corporations/Individuals may sell/provide access to their POS's to people outside their organization
- Corporate/Alliance Labels viewable to members, providing hyper-organized (should it be set up that way) lists of who is who and can do what, instead of a simple list.
- Easy maintenance for setting access levels to a POS/Outpost network without traveling to every POS/Outpost in question
- Enhanced management of personal POS's.
- Enhanced management of corporate POS access (a feature severely lacking right now)
- Groundwork for a re-format of the corporate roles system



Over-all I think this would alleviate a lot of pain of POS management for corporations and alliances, as well as provide the customization and high amounts of super organization for people like me who like every detail clearly defined point blank.

Welcome to EVE Online, Welcome to the Sandbox. :)

(I do have more ideas for UI implementation of these features, but I figured those should be saved for more discussion on the effects of my idea)

Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation
Tauri Federation
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:18:00 - [49]
 

Oh! I almost forgot... In additional to the watch list I would like to see Corporate and Alliance watch lists as well.

Basically I would like the ability when modifying someone in addition (and if proper roles [say communications officer?] are granted) you see the additional checkbox for "Add to Corporate Watch List" and "Add to Alliance Watchlist"

As outlined in my post announcing the Tyrannis expansion, this would allow easy sharing of a joint war-target list within entire corps/alliances, shaving off that precious time that each member who wants to bother with maintaining their watch list and changes to it... no more will everyone maintaining their own list have to do the work. A change is made, everyone gets it. :)


Additionally, member lists should never be public, there should however be a role added for the common things of "Diplomats" and "Recruiters" that show them in a special section of the corporate info, allowing people to remove them from their descriptions, but that isn't really necessary, would be cool though.

But seriously, I've been in a few wars, and as nice as it would be to have member lists for opposing corps, research and espionage needs to be required, not given to you for free.

I also agree with a previously mentioned idea that allow individuals/corps/alliances to make certain parts of their EVE-Gate pages private. :)

Chienka
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:19:00 - [50]
 

I see all these screenshots, and I see the same old GUI.

PLEASE REDESIGN THE UI. ITS JUST PLAIN CLUNKY AND HORRIBLE. Usability experts who play this game just want to tear their eyes out because its so painful to use.

Sowaatua Nega
Anuran Origin Holding
Anuran Origin
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:25:00 - [51]
 

Let us say I had several NAP agreements, and would need to keep track of them in different systems in my "head" or I had a NAP and a null-sec set of standings... Now with the new system these would completely clash. I am sure I could work out a way, as suggested, since I am indeed intelligent Laughing but it would not make it easier for me or my pilots to identify - ahh, that guy is +2, that is a null sec standing. Or that guy is +5, he is a neighbour. I certainly make use of the more graduated standings, as do most of the people I know. Like set loot and ore thieves to -8, but real enemies who will hunt and destroy you to -10. Please could we have at least 2 levels of standing within each colour, preferably more - I would greatly appreciate not having to have sheets of paper to tell me things I could so easily see by looking at the actual standing. I think this may be a bigger problem to some corps or alliance than others, depending on how much politics you do, and how much things are just red or blue and actions are "simple".

Is it possible, like the overview "move up" and "move down" to set your view to personal, corp, alliance or reverse or any given order in a settings menu - or make it follow overview, so that it tells you the applied standings in your preferred overview order?

o7

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:27:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Cailais on 26/02/2010 00:27:38
Originally by: Mkah Mvet
*<sigh> One step forward two steps back.

Every UI 'improvement' implemented seems to look good on paper, look good at first glance, but always reduces functionality significantly. ctrl-tab menu was rendered completely useless, bulletins are just about the least possible effective way to make actual bulletins, the fleet stuff is 90% more annoying, and I could go on. This time you're admitting to breaking stuff on purpose, including implementing a fool proof griefing engine (by providing free intel to highsec griefing corps), a calendar that doubtless will not actually tell anyone when something new has been posted (a la the stupid bulletins window), and lobotomizing the standings system.


Finding members of a corp is remarkably straightforward at any rate - so I can't really see this as a major issue. Admittedly the bulletin board could do with an alert of some type. You dont really say why fleet "stuff" (whatever that is) is 90% more annoying - personally I find the fleet finder pretty useful so that seem subjective to me.

On the flip side whilst the standing system is streamlined somewhat you really need to see the wider picture of how EVE Gate ties in to existing play, and the future in terms of social interaction between DUST 514 and potentially Incarna. That, and the ability to 'network' out of the client Id say the small sacrifice is worth it.

C.


Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:31:00 - [53]
 

Just to confirm,

so alliances will have to set all the alts of the pilots to blue so that they don't get shot at by a corp POS?

It seems to me that dealing with membership issues, alts and stuff like that should be handled at the corp level.

maybe I misunderstodd the blog, though, but some kind of confirmation would be appreciated.

CCP Karuck

Posted - 2010.02.26 00:31:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
On the issue of corp membership lists:

The bit where it becomes more complicated is that your public EVE Gate profile will (according to the current plan) contain the information available in your show info window. This includes your corporation membership. This is all currently available ingame, so we're not releasing any new information... However, obviously it's substantially easier to collect this data from the web than it is to collect it ingame currently.



Exactly, and since we have some pretty smart customers it's only a question of time when someone creates a spider that crawls a big portion of the EVE Gate website to automatically gather this information. That is a scenario we want to prevent.
Also don't forget that even though this information has been hard to get to, EVE Gate will change the landscape of player to player interactions and bring the social networking aspect to it. We want people to network and make new friends, and the more data we hide the harder that gets.
It's all a question of finding the right balance, and that's one of the reasons for this devblog.

Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation
Tauri Federation
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:32:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Aidan Patrick on 26/02/2010 00:34:16
Originally by: Sowaatua Nega
Let us say I had several NAP agreements, and would need to keep track of them in different systems in my "head" or I had a NAP and a null-sec set of standings... Now with the new system these would completely clash. I am sure I could work out a way, as suggested, since I am indeed intelligent Laughing but it would not make it easier for me or my pilots to identify - ahh, that guy is +2, that is a null sec standing. Or that guy is +5, he is a neighbour. I certainly make use of the more graduated standings, as do most of the people I know.


I think my proposed label system would work perfectly for scenarios like this for one reason, not only do you have the information marked, but it's labeled with text that tells you and everyone else what it is :)

Originally by: Sowaatua Nega
Is it possible, like the overview "move up" and "move down" to set your view to personal, corp, alliance or reverse or any given order in a settings menu - or make it follow overview, so that it tells you the applied standings in your preferred overview order?


If I'm understanding this part right, you are simply wanting an enhanced organization of the standings list? If so the labels should cover that. Or are you looking for enhanced overview organization?

Originally by: Don Pellegrino
Just to confirm,

so alliances will have to set all the alts of the pilots to blue so that they don't get shot at by a corp POS?

It seems to me that dealing with membership issues, alts and stuff like that should be handled at the corp level.

maybe I misunderstodd the blog, though, but some kind of confirmation would be appreciated.


Yet another thing I think the labels system I proposed would handle gloriously. :)

Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:34:00 - [56]
 

With the changes to standings and how you percieve friends in the universe, and with alliances now being an actual entity, is there any talk/possibility of finally letting blues fuel each other's JB's, or use their Cyno beacons if standings are set to "deep blue" or somesuch?

Marchocias
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:34:00 - [57]
 

Quote:
Well, in the process of implementing the new standings system, it has been determined that it's easier to rewrite Alliance standings than make the old system play nice with the new Contacts system.


Does this mean that the rewrite is potentially going to allow you to do useful things, like having alliance/corp-wide addressbooks & bookmark lists?

Ancy Denaries
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:35:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Cailais
"The question then is whether the corp member list should be globally viewable, or just viewable to corporate members".

Simple solution: Player choice - button switch to publicly viewable or restricted (like certs) modifiable by CEO, Directors and Communications roles.

Harder solution: Player choice with restrictions based upon standings (reds cant se, blues can etc).

C.

This indeed.

Kyra Ivanova
Posted - 2010.02.26 00:55:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Kelduum Revaan

And a random thought on the member list thing... maybe force it to be listed publicly for any corps which initiate a wardec against another group?

As is, the only cost is the 2 or 50 million (times the number of wars), but making it public for the 'attacker' would give the 'defender' a better idea of who they were up against, while discouraging some of the less researched wardecs, while allowing mercs to get involved easier for defence purposes?


Lord no. Getting intel is a fundamental part of the wardec process and should not be dumbed down in favor of any side. That change is only good for your alliance.

CCP please keep the member list private, or at least a configurable option for the CEO to decide!


Dragon Greg
Posted - 2010.02.26 01:06:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Dragon Greg on 26/02/2010 01:10:13
Edited by: Dragon Greg on 26/02/2010 01:06:26
@ Greyscale & Karuck

Call me paranoid, but while I really like the Calendar functionality, again the principle of "you got to work for it" applies. Calendar view capability should be tied to a role/role by title, it should not be a blanket free for all.

To be perfectly honest, if you really want the calendar functionality to hit it off, you should thoroughly consider providing the means to create events which are conditional for viewing. Once again, role or role by title based. A second level could be added for corporations / alliances to share calendar events, through ceo / executor configuration option plus standings.

Without this, it's a tiny shiny thing useful only for folks who don't invest in out of game environments, and of use only to those who don't (have to) think or worry about security of information (once again, we're supposed to work for hostile information).

I do hope the process for the functionality described in the devblog is not at a stage where there was something to show since the sprint was nearing completion so going back to the table for making things truly useful is not a practical option, which would result in just a tiny little shiny but without capsuleer organisations picking up on it en masse.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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