Well I can give loads of examples of where it has happened. e.g. almost all of the windows in game are now stackable etc
As for the ease… are we really discussing this? I suppose if your major concern is giving CCP an easy life, I would class ‘easy’ as where it was a minor footnote and major where it was a big game change.
Let’s say renaming an item a relatively easy change and introducing wormholes relatively hard. This woudl be on the relatively easy side of the spectrum… really didn’t think this is where it would lead.
Having to flip between tabs is annoying esp if you are multi boxing. More information at your disposal is a good thing. Not saying it has to be mandatory, you should have the option to just leave them stacked.
Almost all of the windows in the game have always been stackable. But we’re not talking about windows, we’re talking about tabs.
We’ll discuss any point you put forward as justification for why your change is worthwhile.
Your request is comparable to neither renaming an item (a database edit and not a code change) or a new feature. A minor observable outcome does not necessarily mean a small effort, or minor complexity. Especially when you’re dealing with some of the oldest code in the game.
You’re also reducing development effort to only the time taken to implement a code change. This change has to be designed, including those window’s interactions (or not) when stacked (such as blinking behaviour). Then the real kicker is that you’re not even considering the testing effort. A minor code change does not equate to minor testing effort. In a layer like the UI there is significant scope for regression, not only affecting the new numerously-spawnable new stackable interface elements but also the rest of the windows in the interface (which share inheritance with your new windows). Then there’s also the performance consideration of having those new windows on screen. The draw time - whatever draw time cost stacked windows may have, and the additional system resources used by adding several new windows to the object stack where previously you only had one.
So yeah, we’re discussing your assertion that it’s an easy change.
Just leave ‘easy’ or ‘hard’ out of it - don’t make claims you cannot support with authority.
Make your argument based on perceived value, and back it up with use cases. That will direct discussion to the merits of those use cases, instead of your argument’s fallacy.
You might not like it, but i’ve run it past about 30-40 people who agree it would benefit in pvp. I certainly would love it and would make many people who run multiple accounts lives easier in fleet fight situations. To be able to quickly lock specific types of targets, drones, bubbles, tackle, capitals etc. There are LOADS of benefits to be able to see more at once.
Agree to disagree at least.
As far as the easy and hard argument. People have semi-derailed the OP to argue the ease of creating it. You’re a fool if you cannot see that out of ALL of the changes CCP have made to the game over the last 20 years, this would be a minor and RELATIVELY EASY change to make. Even if you disagree with this, why waste the energy to argue against it?! It’s not like CCP don’t do things even if they are hard. Just leave it and either discuss the concept or don’t post lol
“Don’t make claims I cannot support with authority”??? WTF, what is this a criminal trial? Are we conducting scientific research? Am I writing a dissertation? LMFAO this is a forum about hypothetical changes to an internet spaceship game. Neither of us work for CCP so neither of us have authority.
I haven’t posted in the forums for a long time and I remember why haha
If there are several benefits and/or the benefits are to a massive extent, you have yet to make clear what they are or to what extent they would be beneficial. All I’m saying is your argument sucks, not that the idea sucks.
please do not undermine your argument with this bullshittery all over again
You are proposing a change to the game, in a discussion forum. Everything you post is subject to dissection by other players. If you want your suggestion to be taken seriously, you need to apply logic to your suggestion. Using logical and rhetorical fallacies will get your argument shredded, because it shows you do not care enough about your suggestion to actually back it up with valid arguments.
Give us some valid (non-fallacious) arguments for why this UI change should be made. ‘It would be easy to add’ is not a valid argument. ‘It would make my life easier’ is not a valid argument. ‘It would simplify X because of Y condition’ is a valid argument, provided ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are both true statements.
Keep in mind that there are existing features in the Overview that may already solve your scenario. Be prepared for players to point those out and use their existence as a valid reason to not commit more development hours to an already solved situation. ‘New’ is not inherently better, and it is absolutely true that development time on any one area inherently prevents that time from being spent in other areas, so players have a valid response of ‘since Y other feature already solves this issue, it is not worthwhile to re-invent the wheel to do X in addition when other improvements could be made to the game instead’.
Specific to your statements here:
To be able to quickly lock specific types of targets, drones, bubbles, tackle, capitals etc.
There is already overview preset functionality and custom layout tabs that allow you to define target types and rapidly switch between them on dedicated tabs, entirely customizable by the player and shareable between users. Why not use this existing functionality to achieve your goal? If you are using presets, what is the situation where you are running into problems that this is not solving?
Also: please edit your forum category to ‘Player Features & Ideas’, under the ‘EVE Technology and Research Center’ parent category; otherwise ISD will end up moving it for you later, because it is in the wrong place. All feature requests live in one place so CSM and the CCP devs can easily find them.
It’s not ‘my criteria for a perfectly good idea’. You complained about people’s responses focused around your lack of logical justification. I told you how to avoid them. If you don’t want the reactions you are getting, change your behavior; otherwise, you’ll keep getting the same treatment.
CCP doesn’t make changes without a justification, simply because every change they make costs money. Give a justification if you want your idea to receive consideration. ‘It will make my life easier’ doesn’t explain HOW it is of benefit or HOW CCP can verify their implementation does the job - that’s why software development calls for use cases.
It is an easy piece of code. Simply allow multiple instances of overview windows. While it would not be intuitive (think: having to click the plus button for everything), it could be done (and relatively simple at that).
Other things that could be done is reducing the minimum window size, for example the bookmarks window is way too big, and sometimes I don’t need to see local CHAT at all but rather the names, and sometimes I need that little window of “selected” only for activating killrights etc.
Eve has a bad codebase, and just a suggestion to CCP: when I code stuff that’s complicated spaghetti, I re-code it.
If you don’t want the reactions you are getting, change your behavior; otherwise, you’ll keep getting the same treatment.