Active module, inactive module

Imagine that you can determine whether a simple light switch is on or off more clearly and quickly than on a hyper-advanced billionaire spaceship, where you have to wait to check if I turned it on or not. Has the little circle on the module appeared? Is it flashing enough? When the situation is tense, the eye first sees movement, then shape, and then color. Currently, it’s difficult to perceive the module’s movement, its shape is the same, and its color is similar or hard to discern, especially when the sun is in your eyes. I ask, wouldn’t it be simpler to have an immediate “active” label in green above or below the module, and when it shuts down, a “shutdown” label in red? This way, when you glance at it, you can see what’s active and what’s not even with just a quick look. (Space Age)

1 Like

Shape and movement are a lot more colour-blind friendly than a red or green status though.

And to solve the problem of the sun, see my answer in your other thread.

There’s also the issue of latency to contend with.

You click on the module.
Command goes to Tranquility
Command is processed
Tranquility has your modules on.
Tranquility says “turn on indicator”
Command goes to client
Command is processed
Indicator light on client turns on

This isn’t a matter of space billionaires, but of real world physics. This can be, and often is, over a second of latency combined.

1 Like

could be improved by dissociating the request to activate, from the actual activation

You could also accept there’s limitations in 21 year old legacy code, and that you’re not getting the latest and greatest gaming features out of EvE. At some point you need to have your expectations yanked back into reality. :thinking:

I think it would be good to have an option to view the modules in their active and inactive states. However, it’s not just the modules that are the problem; the player numbers reflect this too :smiley: . Only the core group is playing.

Yeah, that’s what happens with niche games. EvE has always been a niche game, and it will never appeal to a wider audience without making it something that isn’t EvE.

1 Like

EVE is sociopathic unhinged free market capitalism…in space. And we love it.

While the hardware etc is up to date, coding is not for all aspects and there are still limits to what ccp can accomplish

9 posts removed for the below stated reasons.

1. Specifically restricted conduct.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.

In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:

  • Trolling
  • Flaming
  • Ranting
  • Personal Attacks
  • Harassment
  • Doxxing
  • Racism & Discrimination
  • Hate Speech
  • Sexism
  • Spamming
  • Bumping
  • Off-Topic Posting
  • Pyramid Quoting
  • Rumor Mongering
  • New Player Bashing
  • Impersonation
  • Advertising
1 Like

Again, the limits are in terms of what they are willing to invest.

CCP choosing to improve or not does not make it less of an improvement.

Claiming we should “accept” the game to be bad just because that’s how he enjoys it, is bigotry.

2 Likes

Do you not understand what this word means? Seriously?

Bigotry:
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Your use of that word is wrong. Very very wrong.

Anyway, ccp updates their hardware to the top that they possibly can. But there are limits to what can or cant be done that is not in their control.

There are three words that rule business. These three words mean everything, and will separate smart business owners from former business owners.

Return on Investment.

The question is never “how much am I willing to invest” because that number is irrelevant in the face of ROI. If the ROI is high you will do what you need to do to secure that return. If the ROI is low, you have better uses for your resources.

I’m curious, what mental defect is required to continue to do business with a company you believe makes a bad product? I couldn’t begin to list the number of companies I will not give my money to because I don’t support their product, business practice, or pandering campaigns.

I’m genuinely baffled at how many people come onto these forums to say how much they hate the game and how bad they think it is, while continuing to give the company money.

Why do that? It makes no sense. Take your money elsewhere, we really don’t need your negativity here.

As quoted belot, @stefnia_Freir seems to be of the opinion that if CCP throws enough money at the problem, they can fix it. They can’t seem to grasp that a pretend issue limited to a handful of exceptionally picky players, and that absolutely no one else cares about, doesn’t deserve an unlimited resource budget.

This sounds like a great way to cause desynchronization between the server and the client (i.e. client thinks module is on but server disagrees) or maybe opens a window for cheats.

This.
That person has the unreasonable belief that nothing must be changed in the game, even things that would make the game better.
And goes on a useless rant about return on investment to justify that unreasonable belief - which it does not.

Now, if you have a better word for “someone who uses his belief as an argument against anything even if it’s not related” then tell me.

So what ?
How does this fall into the “cant be done” ?

So far this is plain BS.

no more than this already happens.

1 Like

To go back to the initial question:

The problem is that modules show more than a simple binary ‘active’ or ‘inactive’ state.

Modules show:

  1. online/offline state
  2. overheat status
  3. heat damage
  4. cycle time (when active)
  5. type of module

Turning the module green when active is confusing when ‘green’ is already used to show the overheat status.

Likewise using red to indicate turning off the module is confusing when 'red ’ is used to show the heat damage taken.

Lastly an active indicator is redundant information when there already is a cycle time indicator. You need to know the cycle time on modules anyway, which automatically tells you that the module is active, because it would not be cycling if it were not active and no module is active without a cycle duration.

This means showing when the module is active in addition to the cycle time is showing you this same information twice, which is not efficient use of UI when the module also has to show other important information.

I do not see how the proposed suggestion improves the game.

1 Like

Projection is a real thing.