Could you please explain this further? I am somehow missing, what exactly you see as the critical failure.
If you can only have 3 Active Shared folders then these slots are going to be used up very quickly.
Naturally your going to always want access to your corp bookmarks. This is something that is already in the game and people don’t like change. So there is 1 Active Share slot taken up.
As a player base, we have been asking for Alliance Level Bookmarks since forever, this is going to take up the 2nd Active Share slot.
The 3rd active share slot is more contentious:
Depending on who you are and how things are done, the 3rd Active Share slot is likely going to be used for the Coalition / Blue share that will inevitably go out. I can almost guarantee there will be something like this when changes go live. I suspect that the blue share will be something people switch on and off depend on needs.
That leaves maybe 1 spot for an actively shared folder to really be used for various activities.
Things that come to mind:
- DED Escalations
- Bookmarks for Alts
- Fleet Bookmarks (? Is this TBA)
- Non-Aligned/Ally-of-the-Day type stuff (Think WH and FW, i don’t do either but im sure there is a use case here)
- Have you seen my tactical pings folder
Granted, we will adapt and find ways to make it work. For example: leadership could go though and copy from one share to another as needed, swapping active share as situation depends, dying in a ball of fire because you forgot to switch your active share before you undocked. At worst, living with out because the interface is just not something that you want to deal with (aka “Stubborn Player that doesn’t like change”)
3 Active Shared slots just seems limiting.
Personally I’d want at least 5 Active Shared folder slots: Alts, Corp, Alliance & +2 for Variable use.
Ok so this makes a lot more sense now written like that.
I can create 5 bookmark folders, make those 5 visible and never create more or I’d have to hide/unhide them.
Within those 5 folders I can make hundreds of sub-folders as long as neither topfolder including the subfolders under it exceeds 3000.
Example:
Folder 1
- Subfolder 1-1 (1000 BM’s)
- Subfolder 1-2(1000 BM’s)
- Subfolder 1-3(1000 BM’s)
- Subfolder 1-4(1000 BM’s)
- Subfolder 1-5(1000 BM’s)
Folder 2 - Subfolder 2-1 (1000 BM’s)
- Subfolder 2-2(1000 BM’s)
- Subfolder 2-3(1000 BM’s)
Ok this is kind of messed up -
You can out right steel a shared folder if you have admin access to it simply by changing the ACL to one that doesn’t include the previous owner(s)
The player that creates the share should ALWAYS have admin authority over their shared folder.
double edit::
Also you can delete your self from your own shared folder by removing yourself from the ACL (granted there needs to be another admin assigned)
Winner winner chicken dinner
That depends on your perspective, I would say. That team burdens me with more work to find workarounds around this new system to make it work for me. I have to put more effort into making it work somehow. In my opinion this shift of burden from the developers to the players to make a bad system work is “fundamentally flawed”, “not viable”, “not sustainable”. And it requires people to delete things, namely their perfectly fine working system they have come up with already. And for what? Just so that a poorly thought through new system can be made to work.
See, your argument holds very little water here.
In the new system you will have to adjust your bookmarking strategy slightly. That is unavoidable and all I can say about that is this: Harden the ■■■■ up. EVE runs on an outdated, terrible format for bookmarking and with these changes it makes all our lives a lot more solid. It is absolutely neccesary.
Personally I have folders for personal bookmarks in >every< system I visit. This means that I have hundreds if not thousands of folders I will need to reorganise in the new system in order to effectively get what I desire. This will take me a few weeks to get it right, but it also means that I no longer have to maintain copies for my alts. I can make 2-3 master lists and subscribe to them without a hassle.
I already have an efficient system. It has been in place for 7 years now. This change will ruin this efficient system so that this new mechanic can be made to work at all.
Good to hear that you have an efficient system. In the new situation it will not change much other than that you have to split your bookmark folders into sub-folders in an intelligent manner. It’s actually not much different to what you describe using, other than you needing a few hours to make it look sensible.
As an olive branch and improvement suggestion: I can live with the limit of 3k bookmarks limit per folder. What makes this limit an issue is the limit of 5 active folders. If that limit was not there, the whole system would be a lot less troublesome.
Now this I do agree with, but I also realise that it fully depends on the load balance that such things create for Tranquility. I’d love to see a much more unlimited amount of lists, but let’s begin with this for now and see how that holds. CCP tends to try very hard but then miss crucial steps in base functionality.
Once that works as intended, we can always suggest higher numbers and argue whether the amount is correct for their usecase.
Exactly, Jordan.
It creates a much more granular control over our bookmarks with these subfolders being wickedly useful for things. Granted, I am still on the fence on the factual numbers they end up picking, but let’s wait for the Duality results!
so from what im testing out, the new bookmark system is pretty good, although i think we should have at least 2-3 more shareable folders active because although we can give a cathc all name for the main folders like PvP, PvE, Industry, etc. having only 3 sharable folders is very limiting in what we can share with everyone and ourselves if you have a lot of use for bookmarks in general.
i my self have bookmarks i would like to share for Mining spots, gate warps, tactical, structure book mark placements, stations, safes, etc etc. only 3 shareable folders active at one time isnt really viable to share and managing the active and non active book marks is rather tedious that no one wants to deal with
personally id rather have more shareable folders than personal folders because I can at least make use of 3 personal folders as its easier to deal with since only i see them anyway
or as a fix for clutter, start the bookmarks with
Personal > main folders > Sub folders
Shareables > Main Folders > Sub folders
basically how we have planets to moons to moon deployment spots or astroid belts to belts etc
would save space and allow us to have more folders while reducing UI clutter
I’m heavily against this. We dont need more options in the already cluttered right click menu.
You can press CTRL+B. Doesnt get much easier than this
1 Like
Actually after some consideration and optimizing the use of 3 folders the easiest way to categorize the main folders would be
- Corp/Alliance
- Combat
- Whatever else you want
The sub folders can still be the same as you would normally have them and pvp and pvp can go in combat obviously as well as safes and tacticals. The third is just whatever so in my case probably wormholes anoms, crates, or structure placement bookmarks etc.
this is just the easiest way to Min/Max 3 active sharable. For QOL adding a fourth folder would be amazing though.
Having to constantly juggles with what folders are visible and which are not depending on where I go and what I do is not “adjust slightly”. That will be a major pain in the back and it is absolutely unnecessary as the old system does not require this juggling. There is no reason whatsoever why the new system should require it either.
In the new system I will constantly have to activate and deactivate folders depending on where I am and what I want to do. This is a massive change for the worse and it should not be necessary to do this.
What can possibly be intentional about users having to constantly turning folders on and off? Justifying this retarded feature is just as dumb as the feature itself.
It amazes me how people can say something like this and still think a feature is a good feature. The other features are fine but these limits on bookmarks and visible folders reduces the whole things to absurdity. Especially for the scenario with alts because they likely need other folders visible than other alts, which means you have to turn even more folders on and off.
CCP just needs to remove this dumb 5 folder limit and everything will be mostly fine. The old system could handle thousands of visible bookmarks at the same time. There is no reason a more modern system than the 15 years old system should not be able to handle this.
My “combat folder” would be at something like 4000 bookmarks. I could not add another bookmark into that folder despite me adding new “combat” bookmarks on a regular basis. There goes your “optimized” setting.
No, the top-folder must not exceed 3000 bookmarks. This includes all sub-folders. Your folder 1-1 to 1-5 would exceed the limit by 2000. That is currently the case for my Personal Folder on Duality. It contains nearly 5000 bookmarks and I cannot create another bookmark unless I create a new folder.
That is amazing too. People willingly accept arbitrary and non-sensical limitations and say “it’s just those other people’s fault for not adapting and rejecting change”. It’s truly amazing.
which is also why i said adding another 1-2 shareable folders would most likely be needed as some people have thousands of BM’s that would need categorizing. what i said was just a compromise if they keep the the way it is now (which hopefully they dont keep it as it is)
1 Like
More active folders would help but I think the entire limitation on how many folders you can have active is unnecessary. The way it is, this system works for people who are new to EVE and do not have many bookmarks. But as soon as you have played a few months or years, the entire system collapses in on itself thanks to these limitations.
In current system you have just one personal folder limited to 13000 maximum with many subfolders within which are not one-level organized. In new system there are up to 5 personal active folders but each one is limited to 3000 to keep overall numbers close to what it was. And subfolders in new system is supposed to do what they did as folders in the old system, subfolders just have to be splitted in more personal folders which act like containers with lesser volume compared to big one container in former system.
And that is not an improvement. As described above, I will have reached the limit of 5 active folders by just being in one area of space. Unless, of course, I ruin my organization by putting certain sub-folders in other top-folders and thus split bookmarks from the same area of space into different folders… just so that CCP does not need to implement a better system.
In the current system I may be limited to 13000 bookmarks, but I can see these 13000 bookmarks all the time and I do not need to turn folders on and off just to be able to see certain things in certain areas.
As it stands, this implementation is the same kind of development approach as the new chat system: You can spam more (more bookmarks) but actual information is more limited (information on why people were blocked or banned from chats is not displayed in the new system and you cannot forget certain channels anymore). This is not acceptable.
1 Like
Why do you presume these limitations are arbitrary and nonsensical?
You seem to be making assumptions about a very complicated system that neither of us know anything about. It is unlikely that CCP is going to go into all the technical detail and jargon of why these limits are what they are.
Because the old system does not need them. I expect a new system to be more powerful and flexible than a system that is 15 years old. With these limitations, however, the new system is less powerful and flexible than the old system. I expect a new system with more advanced features to not reduce these features to absurdity by arbitrary and non-sensical limiations. I expect a new system to make all the things easier and more convenient but not harder and more cumbersome (in different ways) than the old system. That is why.
The system is better than the old one, just not the way you want it to be.
I actually like the new changes and options it is going to provide. I have doubts about the ACL integration, it’s a touch clunky. I don’t like the problems it’s going to create for DED Escals, but i’ll manage 
Funny that you mention this. With the limit on how many active folders you can have, you now also have to decide which folders to turn off to make a trade folder visible to someone who bought the escalation from you.
Why should you try to manage. You should be able to use a new and, in the opinion of the developers, better system without having to “manage”. Saying that means you have to compromise where compromise should not be necessary.
What I am arguing about is that CCP shoots itself in the knee and back and head and many other places with these limitations because people will have to “manage” instead of enjoying the new system despite cool new features. Why would someone possibly want to accept something that is objectively sub-par in terms of quality over an old system and which makes new features harder to use for no good reason?
thanks for new stuff!
Any chance to make BM shareable with evemail link or chat window? Same as with fits now.