Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
I SoStoned
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 06:24:00 -
[1]
Edited by: I SoStoned on 05/06/2010 06:27:56 Well, CCP's made another "Let's be idiots" change, and it's even in the patch notes.
Originally by: Tyrannis Patch Notes
It is no longer possible to start a manufacturing job without having the required quantity of RAM.
So, if you've got a 200 run project to set up that consumes 10% R.A.M. per run it should consume 20 units. Logically you would assume that you could put 20 RAM into the joblot location and initiate the job just fine... but no. Ohhhh, No CCP has said, Freck You, industrialists! You need all 200 units of RAM just to initiate the job!, leaving you with 180 units that you can never use! because you need to build another 20 to bring you back up to 200 if you want to set up the same job again.
Considering it's 40 minutes per unit you've got a substantial investment in time and resources for those 180 units you can never use.
Proposal: Immediately return production requirements to the proper calculation of consumption, not total quantity!
Oh, and CCP: "It is no longer possible to start a manufacturing job without having the required quantity of RAM."
required quantity should be the quantity consumed, not 1 unit for every single run that does not require 100% of every RAM component. --- Dreamer: My dream, Freddy! MY RULES. Freddy Kruger: *groans* Awwwww, f**k. --- Never give up! |
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 06:35:00 -
[2]
Originally by: STFU, Go away
This is by design. Yes, really. Yes, I¦m sure. Yes, I¦m really sure. :)
Sorry, we¦re handling lots of complaints about this one, but this is the intended behavior. The previous system that let you start a job with the smaller number of RAMs was actually a long-standing bug that has finally been fixed. (Yes, I¦m sure!)
I understand that you (and many others, trust me!) don¦t like this system, but since the devs¦ notes are clear that this is the intended behavior, there¦s not much that can be done through the bug reporting system.
If players identify it as a bug, it's a bug. --- Dreamer: My dream, Freddy! MY RULES. Freddy Kruger: *groans* Awwwww, f**k. --- Never give up! |
Jenny Wimbishi
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 06:48:00 -
[3]
Yes, this just turned my monthly batch cycle into a complete nightmare.
One 30 day batch produces 1600 modules that consume 15% RAM per run but it now requires that I have 1600 units of RAM just to launch the job. That's almost a week just to produce the RAM using a single BP.
There is one easy fix if they want to go with this flatly idiotic feature: Reduce the components and build time of RAM modules to 10% of their current levels, and make all runs consume 1 unit of RAM regardless of the item(s) produced. Turn RAM into a 'fully consumed' component and this change will work as intended.
As it is now, it is not working as intended by the original T2 production design (when RAM could not be produced, it had to be acquired from mission rewards).
|
Lunewrath
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 08:22:00 -
[4]
As someone who is making an Industrial alt this new change is extremely off putting.
I plan to make all the components needed for my invention jobs and needing such a huge amount of R.A.M when you don't need a huge amount of R.A.M is totally stupid in my opinion.
Can we at least hear the reasons for this change or just change it back?
|
Charles Park
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 09:41:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Charles Park on 05/06/2010 09:42:38 Edited by: Charles Park on 05/06/2010 09:42:01 As discussed in this thread http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1321718 a week before the patch this is a pretty meaningless change. Your actual RAM consumption has not changed, the game is just now requiring a certain 'stock' amount of RAM to always be present. To use an example from the thread; if you set a 1,000 light drone production run you need 1,000 RAM's to start it but as before only 50 RAMs will be consumed and the remaining 950 will be undamaged and still stacked. So basically this means you have to make a one time investment in a set number of RAMs and after that nothing will change from before. The only real downside to this is for the BPOers who were producing in POS arrays; you can't fit 30 days worth of materials in the Drone assembly Array anymore, or so I'm told. Honestly even though its a stupid change I'm not very sympathetic; just start you production runs twice a month instead of once a month for god sake.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 14:35:00 -
[6]
you still need to have more stock.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 14:41:00 -
[7]
Here's a better change - multiply all stacks of RAM by 100, and get rid of the idiotic percentage system.
|
Isidore Tailleur
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 20:54:00 -
[8]
I for one didn't identify this as a bug.
It is perfectly clear and logical that you need 200 tools to build something you need 200 tools, regardless of how much damage they will take from the building process.
|
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:44:00 -
[9]
Don't fix what is not broken and I don't see anything broken here. |
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 14:46:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Here's a better change - multiply all stacks of RAM by 100, and get rid of the idiotic percentage system.
there
|
|
Cyberman Mastermind
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 09:31:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Cyberman Mastermind on 08/06/2010 09:32:25
Originally by: Isidore Tailleur It is perfectly clear and logical that if you need 200 tools to build something you need 200 tools, regardless of how much damage they will take from the building process.
You realize (or probably not) that production is sequential, not concurrent? I.e. Run1 , Run2, Run3, etc...?
Why would you need 200 identical tools if you're only one person doing a job? Do you switch tools after each step?
What Herschel said - get rid of that idiotic percentage system. Not that I care anyway, I stopped producing, better for mental and wrist joint health anyway. |
Isidore Tailleur
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 19:12:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Cyberman Mastermind [ You realize (or probably not) that production is sequential, not concurrent? I.e. Run1 , Run2, Run3, etc...?
Why would you need 200 identical tools if you're only one person doing a job? Do you switch tools after each step?
Then do the jobs 1 run at a time and you won't need all the tools. Workers need managment you know, it is perfectly logical that they won't understand to use the same tools for the next run ... they are livestock afterall you need to put everything in perfect order for them before you leave.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 03:30:00 -
[13]
It's simple. Fix R.A.M. If it needs to be 200 units, then remove the damage and adjust R.A.M. blueprint accordingly. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |