I love these. It’s such an easy fix, just click click done.
It’s even better when it is followed up with “well I’m a programmer so I know…”
That’s not problem at all. There’s “GROUPID” (besides itemid field you r writing about) field already exists in the database that can fix such problem in a moment (just set one group value for packaged, next group value for assembled, next group value - for ‘planck’ containers). So… I don’t understand why CCP doesn’t do it.
Agreed.
So… You like to not to have opportunity to deliver packaged containers inside assembled containers?
So… Do you like to carry everything in your hands instead of packing your stuff inside some bag when you r on vacation going to relax?
That’s not about “i’m programmer” but about naturality of game behaviour (for not making newbies thinkg - WHAT’s A DUMB GAME).
Irrelevant to my post
Irrelevant to my post.
No it’s about people saying things like,
As if they understand the underlying issues or conflicts. You “don’t see a problem” as if CCP can wave a wand and make it so.
If it was easy I’m sure they would have no issue making that change. I am not a programmer, however I’ve dealt with SQL databases enough to know often these situations are not trivial. It largely comes down to cost/benefit like every other decision in any software development decision.
Hmm… ANd I thought forums is for discussion of more game possibilities rather than CCP excuses from the mouth of capsuleers )
Ehm… Is CCP here? No? SO why we talking about their ‘problems’?
I think that’d be a good such function (possibility to place packaged containers anywhere - even @ other containers) to do in a game. What do you think (don’t write that CCP excuses please. I need YOUR EXACTLY and NOT CCP opinion)?
You wrong ) If everything would be easy in the game - who’d paying them a money for more possibilities then ? $) THat’s a developers task - to make a game most complex for the player for him to pay for little simplification (paying subscription). Didn’t you know? $)))
But making a game compex they somwhen just forget about some simple things to do.
Players (and forums) exists right for that tasks - for capsuleers have opportunity to tell developers about some nice things ‘to do’ a game more beautiful and pleasant.
About sql (from view of): I repeat: while container is packaged - that’s not a nested object - so no any resource-affected ‘investments’ problems exists while placing such (packaged) containers inside other (assembled which are nested objects in that case) containers.
So… “You like to not to have opportunity to deliver packaged containers inside assembled containers?” That’s exactly relevant to your post. If your post is your opinion and not a CCP excuses.
Sure discussion is fine. You lost the plot however when you went down the path of arguing a fix is easy and there is no reason they shouldn’t do it.
Would I like to be able to put containers in containers? sure. Would I even presume to understand if this is something doable in the game and be worth the effort? Of course not.
I just supported a:
as this is a discussion.
Thank you )
Not very well, as Ms_Steak effectively agrees with my assessment, that none of us knows the feasibility in the code to make such a change.
But if you are now saying you agree, then everyone here is in agreement. Would it be nice? Sure. Is it possible for CCP to do? no clue.
/discussion
But do we talk about fears CCP is experiencing or about ‘what to be nice’ in a game here? )
Everything that have a logic - can be programmed. That’s for sure. Only obstacle not doing it that can exists - is lazyness of ones who program it. Yep, we really don’t know how lazy CCP are but, as I said, we don’t talk here about CCP itself, we talking about their product and things that can be (done) better inside it. If someone (CCP that case) won’t be too lazy to do it.
Talking to Ms_Steak and discourcing about possible ways of such feature implementation we (her and me) just helping CCP to save their time on their own discuccion ‘about paths of doing it’ and focus on it’s implementation exactly choosing one of the way proposed by us.
Yep - that’s one of the thing why forums exists - to steal someone’s ideas who showed negligence posted valuable ideas at shared forum ) (however - do us a favor - steal our ideas, but implement such feature please!)
Ideas for better management of inventory have been around longer than I have been playing the game - nested containers, partitioned containers, etc… For industrial players, it’s virtually impossible to sort your materials, blueprints and finished goods unless you create your own ALT corp.
CCP knows this. It’s possible they don’t want to change it, more likely it requires deeper surgery than they can tackle as one of CCP Karkur’s “little things” and is part of a more extensive overhaul that has spent the past several years struggling to make it to the top of the backlog - like Faction Warfare!
Priorities do change - module tiericide is back after several years buried in the backlog - so we can hope, but don’t expect!
Calling CCP lazy is not a win for you.
Making edits to a codebase that is over 17 years old is not as simple as you are pretending. The fact is that no change is minor - it requires research time to identify all of the impacted areas, time to actually develop the code update that will deliver the desired result within the existing framework, more time to test the code (though they don’t do a great job on this sometimes), and then finally time to package it into a deployment and get it out there.
All of that is at a COST to CCP - paying for a developer to do the research/coding/install. There is a finite number of man hours available, based on approved budget for developer hours, that have to be allocated based on a cost/benefit analysis. And they have to sink some hours just to get enough data to DO a cost/benefit analysis.
So don’t sit here and call them ‘lazy’ for not coding a feature that you think is ‘easy’ - you very clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The concept is simple, the execution may be as well (but knowing EVE it isn’t- the storage system is archaic), but is it really worth CCP’s time to do nesting non-Plank containers instead of any number of other changes? If the answer from CCP is ‘no’, that’s the result of a business decision process - not ‘CCP is too lazy to get it done’.
1 Like
YEp… I already confronted that most changes in the game focused on more methods of totrtures and killing other capsuleers and not about peaceful life and own killing avoidance and other simple-life-improvements.
So… Yep. That’s sad. And I don’t expect and just hope. BUT STILL ROAR ABOUT THAT! CCP! MAKE AN EVE GREAT AGAIN (and not from the view of kills, weapons, war, etc)… Make me happy please! Let hopes (little things makes peaceful capsuleers happier and those who like to kill - much less happier) be implemented!
Hm. Make (love?) peace! Not war!
Have I be frighten? )))
I’m not @war with CCP to ‘win’ or ‘lose’.
And calling lazy people a lazy about something (what they do not want to implement long time as that’s not first talk about containers @forum)… is… Quite fair $)
Do you know that contaners could be placed inside each other (however all them without any difference 2 packaged/assembled)? So no need to ‘dig such old code’ - just 2-3 years ago code.
Again and again - do we talk here about excuses or about capsuleers wishes to be implemented in the game? I think you have to understand what are you talking about here.
Let them hire me - I will do it myself. No? THen CCP is just lazy people ) With such ones as you who writing their ‘excuses’ from side of capsuleers )
Hm… Do you see somewhere an “CCP answer” - or you are exactly a CCP-troll? ) and your words is a “CCP answer”?
like what?
triglavians? triglavians again? more triglavians? wow… that’s really needed changes (however it’s just additions and not fixing current issues) to make capsuleers happy. problem is - that makes happy just part of them. And what about others?
Are you a CCP marketer whose responsibility to make a CCP ‘to do’ priority list and you don’t agree containers logic ‘worth’ updating? $) That’s looks like it exactly.
So you can just tell here you are not agree it’s needed and not just moan about ‘CCP is so busy!’.
What is your personal opinion? Is such change @container’s logic needed?
You are making a lot of assumptions about other people, simply because they have pointed out errors in your logic. Attack their arguments, not the people. That’s how you actually debate a change. Also, take entire sentences in context - cherry picking fragments to argue about shows that either you are trying to twist the other person’s argument, or do not comprehend the entire point they are making.
I am not arguing against implementing the change. I am arguing against your baseless claim that making any code change is ‘easy’ and the only reason it hasn’t been done yet it because the developer is ‘lazy’. That claim is utterly false.
1 Like
If I’d seen then I would do that, but you do not write any arguments in favor or otherwise a proposition I gave. Just telling me CCP are good guys (that’s not argument at all). I don’t mind they are good, but that’s not concern a proposition any way.
Yeah… Spamming with long, useless (in context of proposition arguing) and pointless posts (like you do) is much better. I sure you think so, but not me. I prefer to point what am my sentence about (other way how could you know that is:
?
I don’t see any your arguments in favor of such your opinion (that’s right about you are not arguing at all still telling:
)
Opinion is opinion. That cannot be prohibited by anyone.
My arguments? There’s:
https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Read article 10 carefully, remember it and never try to prohibit anyone’s opinion, please.
I think they are lazy, because implementing WAR WITH TRIGLAVIANS (which was implemented already and changed couple of times last month) is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED game change then logic of that damn containers. So - yes - they are just lazy, or (maybe?) they just want capsuleers kill and hate each other (don’t want to think so, but it looks like) rather then live peacefully to each other.
What is your arguments (please, be my guest, and ‘cherry pick’ phrases you are arguing exactly rather then write one long message about ‘everything and nothing’)?
Hmm… So what are we talking about here with you? If post right about that? I still don’t understand what is your opinion - you think such (container’s logic) change is needed or not? Or you just not interested and have no opinion about that change exactly?
You are making claims about CCP’s reasons for taking actions, stating your ideas on why they did something, as facts, not as opinions. You didn’t say ‘I think CCP’s approach to programming is lazy’. You said “Only obstacle not doing it that can exists - is lazyness of ones who program it.” That is objectively not true - several players have already said why it is not true.
I think if nesting non-Plank containers can be implemented easily (low number of developer hours), without causing issues for features such as cargo scanning and courier packaging, it would be a nice Quality of Life improvement. If it is a significant time investment, there are actual issues I would rather see addressed, and other changes I would rather see happen first, before this change, as it is not a significant impact to gameplay to leave it as-is.
1 Like
Exactly otherwise.
You said for me to argue so I wrote you arguments here:
What is your arguments against? Any? I still don’t see. That’s not what I duscuss here that’s exactly
But not you. And we had agreement with anyone who posted anything. Have any own arguments? Post it!
“If”? Really?
So… when you want an icecream you go to all nearest shops asking - DO they have an icecream today, then returning home, planning a shop route, taking a CC or cash and only if shops answered you with “Yes, WE HAVE AN ICECREAM TODAY” phrase exactly instead of “we have it always” or “Why are you asking as it always here?” you visiting and buying icecream only from those shops who answered you first phrase and not just nearest where ice cream obviously always there?
Really?
That’s not an opinion that’s a “IF THEN ELSE” programming construct (conditional statement).
Opinion - is I think, I want, I don’t want… But NOT AT ALL “IF someone wants THEN I want too ELSE I don’t want” construct!
But, I know, you just want ti sit on two chairs. Ok - that’s your choice. Thank you for your post, neither that opinion or not (I think it’s not but… that’s just imho).
I in fact have already posted why it is not true. You are ignoring the argument that any development has costs, and keep insisting that laziness is the only reason to not develop the feature you want. You are wrong. Any game change requires a business justification, because any change costs CCP money to implement. Developers do not work for free, and do not have endless hours available - thus, they are a limited resource. Use of developer hours requires a cost/benefit analysis to say ‘here is the best way to spend our limited resource to keep EVE running and making money for CCP, that will in turn let us keep paying these developers so we can keep making updates’.
You appear to be willfully ignoring the fact that CCP is a business that needs to drive revenue. The Triglavian Invasion is a massive development effort centered on attracting and retaining subscribers. It has no relation on the feasibility of quality of life improvements.
What does impact the viability of implementing nesting containers?
- Asset Search mechanics (including UI updates for display of items)
- Cargo scanner mechanics (ability to retrieve nested contents and render accurately - see previously posted issue around double-wrapped courier packages)
- Database performance - nested containers significantly increase database query costs to retrieve contents and render them, due to how item storage functions. ‘get CONTENTS of SHIP’ won’t return the container inventory, so you then have to add clauses for executing a second ‘get CONTENTS’ on each container, and again on each container’s containers, and… it goes on and on, and progressively increases server costs.
There are legitimate reasons for NOT having nested containers.
Would it be handy to store repackaged containers inside an assembled container, which shouldn’t be triggering the above issues? Yes. Is it guaranteed to be a quick and easy fix? No. EVE’s code is a mess (there is a reason it is referred to as ‘spaghetti code’) and maintenance is never simple, even on newer content. Container behaviors are not newer content.
Please let them. Containers are a hauler’s worst nightmare, they leave empty space that could be better used to haul more junk for more people.
@Mkikaden_Tiragen You are a trooper for trying. I’d call it a day personally. The OP has made his post. CCP can read it. He talks about wanting to have a discussion, but there is a difference between having a discussion and being a d**k. A distinction I don’t think is understood in this case which is why I made my case and called it a day.
1 Like
You have some really strange ideas about how a discussion forum works.