Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Greig Hul
Ore Extraction Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 13:18:00 -
[1]
First up, I am enjoying the new PI much better than before. Routing is greatly simplified and its no longer an annoying clickfest.
My question is; Having noticed that when you overlap extractor heads' area of effect, the extracted amount decreases - will such a decrease be suffered if another player is extracting in the same area as me and overlaps their extractors with mine?
Bonus question: if i re-run the same job twice, will the result differ the second time around? do i need to move my extractor heads each time I decide to install a mining job to maximize output, or can i just leave them be and repeatedly install the same program?
|
Wezzord
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 14:54:00 -
[2]
Yeah the new PI seems nice. But I have an annoying problem. Every time I shall submit the pending edits then PI hangs(no windows pop up when clicking on a building, except for the CC). And if I press submit again a windows says that I shall wait 10 seconds. Well that doesn't work. No matter how long I wait PI will never go back to normal. I have to exit PI and enter again. Then the changes are done and I can continue with the next batch of changes, press submit, exit PI, enter again and continue. Takes a bit of time to set up all the new extractors.
Is there something going on with the server or do my client have corrupted cache or something?
Anyone with similar problems.
|
Amelie Cassi
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 15:07:00 -
[3]
Same problem here.
|
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 16:58:00 -
[4]
Probably something failed. Can you guys run the logServer and submit a bug report.
As for the questions. 1. No you are not affected by other players extractor heads 2. When you install a program we deplete the resource a bit. It does regenerate but your heads might not be at "optimal position" next time you survey for resources.
_______________ |
|
Amy Frost
Einmal mit Profis arbeiten
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 17:27:00 -
[5]
First off I love the new Extractor Survey Menu, it makes alot of stuff so much easier (like calculating amount/hour).
My question: Is it intended to break Single Planet Robotics Production chains (or any Single t3 Planet Production Chains for that matter)?
Single Planet Robotics Production Example: 4x Extractor Control Unit (Noble, Heavy, Base + Non-CS) = 4x 2800 MW = 11.200 MW + at least 4x Extractor Head Units Total (Noble, Heavy, Base + Non-CS) = 4x 552 MW = 2.208 MW 4x Basic Industry Facility (Precious, Toxic, Reactive + Chiral) = 4x 800 MW = 3.200 MW 3x Advanced Industry Facility (Consumer Electronics, Mechanical Parts, Robotics) = 3x 700 MW = 2.100 MW ----------------------- 18.708 MW + Launchpad 700 MW ======================= 19.408 MW
Command Center Maximum Upgrade Level 19.000 MW
It was a very tight squeeze before the changes, but now even without the Launchpad it only leaves 292 MW for links. So in reality it makes it impossible to run 23/h cycles with this Setup in Empire (maybe it's still theoretically possible to do it in 0.0 where all the resources sit on top of each other in vast amounts).
Am I missing something where you can extract 2 types of materials with the same Extractor Control Unit (for example Base+Heavy Metals as those are often available close to each other) at the same time or did you intend to break it?
Amy Frost --
Originally by: t20 WE AER GIOGN FRO MROE BREE
|
Amelie Cassi
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 17:41:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford Probably something failed. Can you guys run the logServer and submit a bug report.
Done. Hope it helps.
|
Sherksilver
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 22:38:00 -
[7]
I noticed the same as well. Before - even for a P2 item planet, you could potentially run 4 lines (say 4 sets of Mech parts). With the new control heads and power requirements this will no longer be possible. 1 Control + 4 heads ==> 2800 + 2208 = 5008 (times 2) = 10,016 8 Basic Processors = 6,400 power 4 Advanced Processors = 2,800 power
10016 + 6400 + 2800 = 19,216, before you even consider links, etc...
And that kind of mining is the same overall hourly output I was achieving with 5x extractors pre-change, which was possible and could fit.
Is it intentional to slow down / reduce what can be done on a planet as part of these changes?
|
Wezzord
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 22:41:00 -
[8]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford Probably something failed. Can you guys run the logServer and submit a bug report.
Done.
|
Candente
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 22:46:00 -
[9]
Is it just me or whenever I make changes to PI network on a planet and I click "submit", nothing happens. But if I exit the PI interface and re-enter that planet, I can see the actions are done. Anyone else got this problem? ------------- rawr~ |
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 22:53:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Amy Frost First off I love the new Extractor Survey Menu, it makes alot of stuff so much easier (like calculating amount/hour).
My question: Is it intended to break Single Planet Robotics Production chains (or any Single t3 Planet Production Chains for that matter)?
Single Planet Robotics Production Example: 4x Extractor Control Unit (Noble, Heavy, Base + Non-CS) = 4x 2800 MW = 11.200 MW + at least 4x Extractor Head Units Total (Noble, Heavy, Base + Non-CS) = 4x 552 MW = 2.208 MW 4x Basic Industry Facility (Precious, Toxic, Reactive + Chiral) = 4x 800 MW = 3.200 MW 3x Advanced Industry Facility (Consumer Electronics, Mechanical Parts, Robotics) = 3x 700 MW = 2.100 MW ----------------------- 18.708 MW + Launchpad 700 MW ======================= 19.408 MW
Command Center Maximum Upgrade Level 19.000 MW
It was a very tight squeeze before the changes, but now even without the Launchpad it only leaves 292 MW for links. So in reality it makes it impossible to run 23/h cycles with this Setup in Empire (maybe it's still theoretically possible to do it in 0.0 where all the resources sit on top of each other in vast amounts).
Am I missing something where you can extract 2 types of materials with the same Extractor Control Unit (for example Base+Heavy Metals as those are often available close to each other) at the same time or did you intend to break it?
Amy Frost
I can¦t really answer for game design about their intent but afaik we didn't want to muck about with the production chains. Of course ECUs are different than extractors so some changes were inevitable and network that used to work might not have the powergrid or cpu anymore.
I'll forward your concerns to the team. _______________ |
|
|
Amelie Cassi
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 23:05:00 -
[11]
I have two more questions.
1) When I start a program, the total output changes. I presume that it's the real total output, and before the program starts, it's a skill based total output. Am I right or is it something else ? Sometimes I have a little more, often I have lower.
2) How work the routes ? There's always a predefined amount of materials to be routed, changing with the total ouput, but it's often lower than my first two or three cycles output. How is this amount calculated ? Can I route all the materials at the end of each cycle ?
Thanks in advance.
|
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 23:16:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Amelie Cassi I have two more questions.
1) When I start a program, the total output changes. I presume that it's the real total output, and before the program starts, it's a skill based total output. Am I right or is it something else ? Sometimes I have a little more, often I have lower.
The resource harmonic is cached and you might not get the full harmonic based on your skills. So when moving heads around you're working on your best estimate, but when you install the program you get the actual numbers. Those numbers will then be used when you actually submit your network changes.
Originally by: Amelie Cassi
2) How work the routes ? There's always a predefined amount of materials to be routed, changing with the total ouput, but it's often lower than my first two or three cycles output. How is this amount calculated ? Can I route all the materials at the end of each cycle ?
The variance is basically a decay and some oscillations of different frequencies. If you move a head around you can see them change a bit drastically. There is however a theoretical maximum we can route and thats the number we tell you to route. To account for the varying output we made the actual routing a bit smarter. It routes first to process pins. Of those it can route to it prioritizes process pins that have more material in first.
_______________ |
|
Naradak
Minmatar Cube Zombie Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 23:57:00 -
[13]
Are the current output rates pretty much what they will be when this is implemented?
|
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 12:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Naradak Are the current output rates pretty much what they will be when this is implemented?
I belief they are unless we ****ed up copying some static data. It's should be more than last iteration of the new ECUs but should be almost equivalent to current TQ iirc. _______________ |
|
Amy Frost
Einmal mit Profis arbeiten
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:27:00 -
[15]
Oh and could somebody make it possible to move the Command Centers location around on the Planet without the need to destroy it, now half of my CC are on the other side of the Planet where I actually do all the extraction these days.
Amy Frost --
Originally by: t20 WE AER GIOGN FRO MROE BREE
|
Dej Asekur
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 17:54:00 -
[16]
My first impression of the new extraction interface is very positive as it adds much needed flexibility while reducing repetition for working with planetary interaction. However, the proposed implementation means increased fitting requirements for high end extraction operations. As an example I currently run 5 planets with the following setup. Current Setup 4x Extractor & Processor for each resource type 4 T2 Processor and LaunchPad 1 Storage Buffer for each resource type
Each planet is required to produce 20 T2 components per hour meaning that I need to harvest 24000 units of each R0 per hour. Currently on TQ I average roughly 38000 units per hour during a 5 hour cycle (null sec).
However the proposed changes would not allow me to achieve these sorts of volumes (even less if I want some storage facilities for buffer) The best I could come up with on sisi was this: SISI - 1, SISI - 2 - not even close to what I am currently able to do, which makes the new feature rather annoying for me rather than an improvement.
Perhaps if the grid requirements for the Extractor Control Unit were reduced, and the cost of each extraction head was slightly increased - then complex T3 and high volume T2 production schemes would continue to be workable post incursion.
|
Dark Striped
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 19:33:00 -
[17]
teh last time thsi was on sisi there were refund for old command centres and also for extracters that have to be removed. is that just an omission from this or will there me no refunds?
|
Mike deVoid
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 20:51:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Candente Is it just me or whenever I make changes to PI network on a planet and I click "submit", nothing happens. But if I exit the PI interface and re-enter that planet, I can see the actions are done. Anyone else got this problem?
Getting the same problem here too -------- Is this a rhetorical question? |
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 13:20:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Mike deVoid
Originally by: Candente Is it just me or whenever I make changes to PI network on a planet and I click "submit", nothing happens. But if I exit the PI interface and re-enter that planet, I can see the actions are done. Anyone else got this problem?
Getting the same problem here too
I've found the issue and fixed it. It should be ported to sisi this week. Thanks for the bug reports _______________ |
|
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 16:40:00 -
[20]
Please create an icon or link in the planetary view mode that allows you to click and view the next planet in the list or whatever that planet that you've clicked on. Having to run back to Science & Industry window to change planet (to manage) is ridiculous for obvious reasons. If it's not a priority (or out of scope), make it a priority. |
|
J'J'J'Jita
Ch'Ch'Ch'Chia Corp
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 23:36:00 -
[21]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
I can¦t really answer for game design about their intent but afaik we didn't want to muck about with the production chains. Of course ECUs are different than extractors so some changes were inevitable and network that used to work might not have the powergrid or cpu anymore.
I'll forward your concerns to the team.
On a common nullsec extraction-->p2 setup, you'll have 3-4 extractors at each hotspot (for a total of about 5600 powergrid, 7x800). With the new ECUs, you're using 5600pg just to place two ECUs before any heads at all. The new ECUs absolutely hurt the ability to produce straight to p2 (or p3) on a single planet.
|
Kalle Demos
Amarr Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 00:52:00 -
[22]
Originally by: J'J'J'Jita
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
I can¦t really answer for game design about their intent but afaik we didn't want to muck about with the production chains. Of course ECUs are different than extractors so some changes were inevitable and network that used to work might not have the powergrid or cpu anymore.
I'll forward your concerns to the team.
On a common nullsec extraction-->p2 setup, you'll have 3-4 extractors at each hotspot (for a total of about 5600 powergrid, 7x800). With the new ECUs, you're using 5600pg just to place two ECUs before any heads at all. The new ECUs absolutely hurt the ability to produce straight to p2 (or p3) on a single planet.
There is a nice way to work around this but tbh with sisi being a bit buggy I think CCP will change this.
On an unrelated note, there is 4 Ch then Chia not 3, just saying
Originally by: Kool StoryBro <---
Originally by: CCP Spitfire Spam post removed.
Random forum moments ftw |
Sherksilver
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 03:55:00 -
[23]
Any info on the amounts, etc? This is a big change if the ECU is going to cost this much power wise.
Essentially almost every P3 chain or a planet will no longer be viable on a single planet. Most systems / planets will HAVE to down-scale on production amounts to maintain function.
Realistically - right now for a planet to produce say: Mech Parts: I use 10 Extractors, 8 P1 Processors, and 4 P2 Processors. The command Center and a Launch Pad. This is NO longer possible with current ECU and Head costs. Period.
Sure, I can do the Processors, LP and CC - but the extractors (10 == 8000, which equals barely 2 ECU's, with 2 heads each) there is No way that those 2 heads will equal 5 of the current extractors for amount harvested - not even close (on same exact planet).
So, I would really like to hear more on the intentions, etc...
(I can live with it, but just want to know what is intended).
|
J'J'J'Jita
Ch'Ch'Ch'Chia Corp
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 06:25:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Kalle Demos
Originally by: J'J'J'Jita
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
I can¦t really answer for game design about their intent but afaik we didn't want to muck about with the production chains. Of course ECUs are different than extractors so some changes were inevitable and network that used to work might not have the powergrid or cpu anymore.
I'll forward your concerns to the team.
On a common nullsec extraction-->p2 setup, you'll have 3-4 extractors at each hotspot (for a total of about 5600 powergrid, 7x800). With the new ECUs, you're using 5600pg just to place two ECUs before any heads at all. The new ECUs absolutely hurt the ability to produce straight to p2 (or p3) on a single planet.
There is a nice way to work around this but tbh with sisi being a bit buggy I think CCP will change this.
On an unrelated note, there is 4 Ch then Chia not 3, just saying
No, you are incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_Pet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzY7qQFij_M
|
Jaranis
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 09:42:00 -
[25]
Love the new extractors, but can we balance them somewhat to bring it back in line with the previous setups? Where I was once able to put down 6 extractors, 4 P0-P1 and 2 P1-P2, extracting two different items in equal amounts, I can now extract either of them at increased net efficiency, but not both at even equal efficiency. I wouldn't mind if it wasn't such a horrible clickfest to set up a factory, but that's what factories are still. Clickfests.
Is it possible to change the routing to apply to structures rather than products? Instead of saying 'route your aqueous liquids from this to this and then put your water to this' you could say 'request for products here, take them, send the finished goods back when done'. This would remove 80% of the clickfest of factories and allow you to just switch the schematic to match your extraction, as you can no longer do the dual-extraction setup.
|
Schanah
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 12:55:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Schanah on 21/12/2010 12:55:38 Something chocked me about the new extracting program system
-With the current PI system, perma-running 5h programs is ~2.4* more efficient than perma-running 23h programs.
Maths : 42000 P0 with a 5h cycle so 8400 P0/hr perma-runned , 80000 P0 with a 23h cycle so 3480P0 /hr perma-runned. 8400/3480 = 2.4 (calculus made on a single base metal extractor on a barren planet)
-With the singularity PI system, it is only ~1.5* more efficient.
Maths : 120000 P0 with a 5h cycle so 24000 P0/hr perma-runned , 368000 P0 with a 23h cycle so 16000P0 /hr perma-runned. 8400/3480 = 1.5 (calculus made on an base metal CU with 3 heads)
Nowaday, I perma run 4 mechanical parts chains on every barren planete I use with 3-4 5h cycles a day, with the current PG requirments and the new extracting rates it won't be possible. (Or there is something I didn't figure out)
|
Tortarga
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:04:00 -
[27]
I haven't played with PI on TQ, but the way it is on Sisi is pretty cool, will defiantly train up my PI skills before the January release.
One question, I noticed that factories will store the resources needed for their next cycle. But if there's 2 factories both being fed out of a Launchpad, both have 50% input products stored but one is halfway through a cycle and the others idle there should be a priority to supply the idle factory. I think I've seen it where one factory gets filled to the brim first while the other does nothing. Is there any heirachy coded into where products go where, or I have I neglected an aspect of setting up my planet?
|
Margatroid Alice
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 17:29:00 -
[28]
I tried since hours and, PI will be nerfed, that's all i saw.
If i adapt my current production line to the new PI, i lose 25% of the total amount, and i need to haul each panete five time more than on TQ.
the clickfest is going to be a haulfest.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 17:51:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Schanah -With the current PI system, perma-running 5h programs is ~2.4* more efficient than perma-running 23h programs.
Have you taken into account that with the new system, you don't want to set short programs?
You want as long programs as possible, but you never let them run to completion ù instead, you want to abort them to create the optimal cycle length for your purposes.
By your description, it sounds like you're setting the program to run 5h and 23h, respectively. That's not how to make the most of the new system, since this would mean including a lot of long-tail/low-efficiency extraction. It's far better to run long programs and just cut of the juicy short-term/high-efficiency head of the extraction curve. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Schanah
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 18:35:00 -
[30]
I DO use short programs since they grant me a better efficiency than one-day-long programs (2 5h cycles give more than 1 23h cycle). It isn't possible for everyone to do so, neither is it for everyone to spend hours farming or mining.
everything seems to be calibrated on the current 23h cycle.
I'm glad I can set longer cycles and abort them, but I'd rather not be able to and still have the ultra-efficient 5h cycles ...
Originally by: Tippia
It's far better to run long programs and just cut of the juicy short-term/high-efficiency head of the extraction curve.
Yeah ... except the spike isn't always on the begining of the extraction curve.
Originally by: Margatroid Alice
If i adapt my current production line to the new PI, i lose 25% of the total amount, and i need to haul each panete five time more than on TQ.
That's right, POS fuel price is going to rise again ... and so will T2 price ... and so on ...
|
|
Scojo27
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:15:00 -
[31]
I have to agree with what has been said, my concern is that this is not mentioned in a dev blog just the short videos. While the interface is much better and fun the returns and extra time spent will only make people not want to do it! This need to be address and clearly stated to the community as it stands now. I think if this was post as a dev blog you would get a lot more feedback that changes have to happen before launch.
|
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:18:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Margatroid Alice I tried since hours and, PI will be nerfed, that's all i saw.
If i adapt my current production line to the new PI, i lose 25% of the total amount, and i need to haul each panete five time more than on TQ.
the clickfest is going to be a haulfest.
Why do you lose 25% of the total amount? We are no looking into some pgu/cpu issues with the ECUs based on feedback from this thread I belief. _______________ |
|
Sherksilver
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 13:55:00 -
[33]
I believe the 25% comes in as: 1. Under new system as is right now, I can only run 3 lines for a given component - say mechanical parts, yet on TQ I can practically run 4 - the 4th is not 100% dep on planet, but runs most of the time. 2. Under new system, you cannot run a P3 line on a single planet - as you cannot mine 4 separate elements at the same time (and still do anything else).
I am glad to hear that the numbers are being looked at :)
|
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 14:03:00 -
[34]
ah well, like I said the plan wasn't really to **** with the balance of things so lets give the game designers some time to refine the numbers. _______________ |
|
JiJiCle
Gallente Kermit Space Industies
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 14:07:00 -
[35]
I also noticed a decrease in configuration layouts possibilities. While it's obviously more efficient for simple harvesting installations, the more complex your installation is the less number of configuration types/layout are possible or even impossible for some single planet P3 (or at greatly decreased rate). The cost of a single ECU (even without any extraction pins) is so high you can't afford to have like 4 differents AND the processors/storage/launchpad. Why haven't you kept the original PWG usage of extractors for each new extraction pins and added a few PWG for the ECU ? (or even 0 )
A little feature request while I'm here Could you please make each planet nameable, and show this name in Science&Industry windows (new column) and in the Planet view mode ? This would make deeply easier to know what planet I want/have to visit instead of uselessly visit each one and just skip it because everything runs fine.
random examples: "Jita IV Rocket Fuel /2days" "Perimeter IX Planetary Vehicles /1day" etc...
I also support the idea of previous/next planet button and the scroll view with arrows in planet view mode.
|
Gavi Loken
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 16:01:00 -
[36]
I've been quite successful using PI on TQ, and would love to offer feedback on the new system as it's my primary source of income and I know pretty much all there is to know about it.. However, this message is kicking my butt:
"You cannot add another extraction head on that control frequency as another extraction head is already utilizing it."
What does that mean? What am I doing wrong?
|
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 17:00:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Gavi Loken Edited by: Gavi Loken on 23/12/2010 16:08:04 I've been quite successful using PI on TQ, and would love to offer feedback on the new system as it's my primary source of income and I know pretty much all there is to know about it.. However, this message is kicking my butt:
"You cannot add another extraction head on that control frequency as another extraction head is already utilizing it."
What does that mean? What am I doing wrong?
EDIT: Nevermind, it suddenly began working.
It basically means that you're trying to submit the same head twice,... so it actually means that somehow, somewhere I ****ed up. If you have logs then please bug report it with as detailed repro-steps as you can remember. _______________ |
|
Tsabrock
Gallente Circle of Friends
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 19:53:00 -
[38]
Although I love the new ECU's, as they stand I will need to completely redo almost all of my planets & chains due to their current CPU and Power Grid requirements. One of my planets produces mostly Coolant, with a little Oxygen thrown-in. With the new extractors, rough numbers show that not only would I need to remove the Oxygen line entirely, my Coolant production would be reduced by about 25%-33% of my current numbers.
On a related note, will we see any other tweaks to PI structures? For instance, Standard Storage PIN's are almost completely worthless as they are currently. They use the same powergrid as Launchpads and have half the capacity. Their only advantage is they use less CPU, but on every planet I've run CPU is never a problem. I feel they should have reduced PG requirements and/or much greater storage capacity. --- If you've read something I posted and want to contact me, EVE-Mail me, or contact me via EVE Gate. |
Dreknid Khan
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 02:12:00 -
[39]
Only had limited experience with the first version; just extracting Noble Metals for direct sale. Profitable? Somewhat. Fun? Nope, so I stopped after a few weeks.
Is the new version different? Yes. Better? Nope, not for a casual user like me. I found the new interface much less intuitive, and fairly confusing; but eventually figured it out.
Less clicks? Maybe one less in head setup. But the automated setup never gets it right, because it insists on centering itself, leaving no room for others within the same area. Don't know if this is a bug, or if I'm not using it right, or just poor design. Regardless, I'd rather have the original control over setup.
I've been running a program for a few days and already see the problem; the 14 days is an illusion, since it quickly becomes unprofitable and has to be manually stopped and restarted. So there's actually more babysitting required than before. Granted, this is probably more realistic, and a bit more profitable.
Bottom line: zero fun, zero entertainment value. Still pants.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 23:05:00 -
[40]
To test the new PI I started from scratch on a planet in our wormhole system.
The new extractor, I love it. Instead of having to reset 10 extractors a few times a day I would have do reset just one, awesome.
Question: when the program is finished can I restart the same time program or do I have to set the timer all over again? If so can we have saved programs? Like, I would want to run a 5 hour program every time, instead of resetting the extraction area size bar I could just load a saved program.
One of several things I hoped for would also be in the new PI was some form of copy paste action on factories. Changing factories is still a lot of clicking, I would like to just copy paste a factory multiple times, not having to set the same schematic, link and route to the same storage/launch pad every time.
-Darod- |
|
Amateratsu
Caldari The Pegasus Project
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 11:14:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Amy Frost Oh and could somebody make it possible to move the Command Centers location around on the Planet without the need to destroy it, now half of my CC are on the other side of the Planet where I actually do all the extraction these days.
Amy Frost
This.....
With the need to move extraction heads around to optimise output, being able to move the cc would be a godsend so you don't end up with the cc sitting on 1 side of a planet and having to search for your pins on the other side.
Especially as entering planet view always homes on the cc. á
|
Aidan Patrick
Zero Point Group
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 11:19:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Aidan Patrick on 27/12/2010 11:27:55 Edited by: Aidan Patrick on 27/12/2010 11:24:04 Edited by: Aidan Patrick on 27/12/2010 11:19:08 Thought I'd throw my 2 ISK in as well.
First off, not being able to effect/be effected by other players extractors is a very bad thing. Here are some reasons why:
- 1. Infinite players can take advantage of the same resource pool.
- 2. Players are unable to create colonies with the sole purpose of decreasing the yield of someone else's colonies.
- 3. Scarcity of resources becomes a non-issue, meaning that DUST will be completely useless upon launch as Capsuleers will have no reason to pay a console player to attack a facility for anything less than griefing a target corporation.
- 4. Did I mention multiple players using the same resource pool is a bad thing? I can just imagine rare plasma planets with 1500 command centers and extractors all around the same perfect pocket of resources. Or better yet a single corporation utilizing a "best profit" pool en masse with no penalty.
With that said, I hope CCP rethinks whether or not extractor heads affect other players or not.
Moving on... I'm extremely disappointed to see that storage facilities are still useless. 5k storage space, compared to the 20,000 units on a launch pad and they both still use 700 MW power, the only difference is that the launch pad uses a few times more CPU. As most people know the CPU is a non-issue, especially on larger colonies. This means that instead of storage facilities you have launch pads. Understandable but really? It doesn't make sense to me.
What I would like to see is this:
- 1. Storage Facility changed to use 250 MW, retaining 500 CPU usage & storage space of 5,000 M3
- 2. "Large Storage Facility" Added, uses 500 MW & 2500 CPU, boasts a storage capacity of 40,000 M3
That change would allow for storage facilities to still be used on basic colonies but provide a more elegant option for more advanced colonies and also make up for the fact that you will potentially have more powergrid used in extractors with the new head system.
Now in addition to my storage facility change, I propose a simpler way of producing goods, allow for less micro-management. Heres the idea:
Seperate "Request Resources" Idea
- 1. Retain existing function to route materials to a processor.
- 2. Add a function to the processor to "request resources from" similar to routing from storage to the processor, but reversed.
- 3. Only allow a processor to "request resources from" storage facilities. Why? Because launch pads are meant for getting goods on or off world.
- 4. Retain "request resources from" setting until manually reset so extractor output can be changed at will.
Now with the above suggestion you have the ability for people to retain their current setups that rely entirely on a single launch pad for storage. However what you get with this feature is the ability to remove a lot of pain and suffering. Heres some stuff I think it would enhance:
- 1. Changing the processors output becomes stream lined, allowing for less clicks.
- 2. "Less Clicks" comes about by no longer having to set routes for every single resource required for a processor
- 3. Setting up routes to multiple processors becomes less confusing.
- 4. Allows the use of storage facilities as a "Hopper" centralizing the storage of player goods on the colony.
- 5. Confusion on what routes are set up where becomes alleviated more.
- 6. Once again, you no longer need to set up all your routes again because you changed what your processors are outputting.
[*]7. Allows dedicated production colonies to be set up and more easily managed.
Anyways, I hope both my ideas are implemented, but at the very least I REALLY think the "request resources from" is needed big time. - Aidan Patrick |
electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 16:18:00 -
[43]
The current extractor fitting cost on tranquility is 800MW and 200tf. The current cost on singularity is much higher than this. The minimum cost (the control unit and one head) is 3352MW and 510tf, which is 4.2 times as much MW and 2.5 times as much tf required on tranquility. Even when I have 10 extractor heads and spread the control unit cost to each of them, a head costs 832MW and 150tf. The cpu fitting is now lower than on tranquility, but the powergrid is still higher.
I suggest the powergrid of the control unit be cut 15%, thus putting it at 2380MW. There, when spread across all the heads, makes each head cost 790MW and 150tf, closer to what is currently on tranquility.
When placing a new head, it sometimes gets placed on my other buildings. because of that, I can't select them and move them elsewhere, as the mouse wants to select the building instead of the head.
Originally by: Aidan Patrick
First off, not being able to effect/be effected by other players extractors is a very bad thing. Here are some reasons why:
IsnÆt that whatÆs currently on tranquility? Though, IÆve noticed on the test server that after extracting, the resources do go down on the planet around the heads, so it might be that while the extractors donÆt interfere with other playersÆ extractors, they all suck the spot dry.
― Vexo M > He turned the drives up to 11 |
Tiril Darente
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 16:44:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Aidan Patrick First off, not being able to effect/be effected by other players extractors is a very bad thing. Here are some reasons why:
The "players don't affect each other" statement was regarding the extraction efficiency penalty you get from overlapping heads. I haven't seen Tuxford say anything regarding resource depletion but I'd expect it to work the same as TQ.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 18:16:00 -
[45]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford 2. When you install a program we deplete the resource a bit. It does regenerate but your heads might not be at "optimal position" next time you survey for resources.
How much has this been changed? I noticed quite a big difference on sisi compared to tranq. The orange spot on the sisi planet is gone after a days program but on the same location on the tranq planet i have never seen it disappear.
-Darod- |
Silen Boon
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 20:34:00 -
[46]
I do like the way the new PI works, however all of my current PI networks are no longer feasible. The new extractors require a vast amount of power that means its become uneconomic to extract more than one material from a planet.
Most of my planets extracted at least 2 tier 1 components, that were processed to tier 2 and then exported.
I hope the power requirements of the extractor can be rebalanced or PI will be very dull.
|
Babay 14th
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 07:19:00 -
[47]
1. on 4th level of command center upgrades I was able to run (in 0.0) 6-8 extractors 8 basic processors 3-1 advanced processors 2 spaceports and links for that. so I could use 4 mining planets and 1 finally producing planet to make 24 Organic Mortars a day. the time I spent on it: 3 time a day I had to rerun extractors. once in 3 days I had to fly and transport resources from planet to planet. and now I can't produce two resource types on one planet. I had to set up planets once and then re-run extractors. that's all.
and now... now it's impossible (at 4th level of command center upgrades) to produce matherials in the same ammounts. I'll have to produce only one type of matherials on each planet. so, I can't produce Organic Mortars any more. Is the intent to slow down planetary matherials production?
2. as far as I see, planetary production will take much more time: each time I run etractor, I'll have to move extractor heads. that's takes plenty of time. hi-productive spot drifts and fades. I guess that I'll have to move processors and spaceport each week, folowing that spot.
3. strange situation: I plan extraction (place extractor heads) and is says 'average speed is 62.000 m3 in an hour". but after I "start program" average extraction falls to 20000 m3. Is it intended to be so ?
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 08:11:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Babay 14th 2. as far as I see, planetary production will take much more time: each time I run etractor, I'll have to move extractor heads. that's takes plenty of time. hi-productive spot drifts and fades. I guess that I'll have to move processors and spaceport each week, folowing that spot.
This is going to be real annoying. Having to set up all the processors every few days
CCP can't we have some form of copy/paste or select all structures and move them around the planet? Instead of having to rebuild stuff every few days following the spots around?
-Darod- |
Babay 14th
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 13:11:00 -
[49]
in this case they should do "travelling" of buildings: they should be able to move with some speed, following deposits.
also, it is bad, that deposits degrades on production start: do it several times: start-stop extraction as fast as possible (approx 30 secs) on the same place - and you'll see, that production drastically decreased.
|
Ludacrys
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 18:50:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Ludacrys on 28/12/2010 18:51:21 The extractor control unit cost is ******ed, with the system the way it is on SISI right now it only favors those who PRODUCE P1 only, like oxygen, or those who haul everything to one factory planet
IF You want to make something complex on one planet, like robotics on a plasma planet, you are ****ed since the cost of 4 ECUs + heads make it impossible
i have a suggestion: why not make the extractor control unit PG requirements much lower and the actual heads something like the old single extractors used to require? 1 ECU unit + 5 extractors should not be that much easier to install than 3 ECUS + 3 extractors, its really unbalanced to people who want to produce stuff like POS fuel on as few planets as possible
|
|
tradierd
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 18:55:00 -
[51]
I have a suggestion: Bring back POS FUEL NPC ORDERS and get rid of this crime against gameplay called PI, seriously it was the worst unnecessary feature ever implemented
|
May Waifu
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 19:28:00 -
[52]
I dont understand the New extractor rate... The surveying program before being installed said: 12650 units/hour The surveying program after being installed said: 11282 units/hours The surveying program said THE CURRENT CYCLE OF ONE HOUR WOULD GIVE ME: 27651 units
It actually produced: 8575 units in the first hour
what am i missing here?
|
May Waifu
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 19:42:00 -
[53]
Edited by: May Waifu on 28/12/2010 19:43:51 Can i just leave my extractors the way they are or am i going to be forced to switch to the new, completely ******ed system? I was just making POS fuel for my own 2 poses but if nothing changes from SISI right now to TQ release im going to just stop, you made it so i dont have to 2 click each extractor each day, BUT INSTEAD I PRODUCE MUCH MUCH LESS AND HAVE TO MOVE MY EXTRACTORS AROUND? I RATHER CLICK THANK YOU VERY MUCH THis change only benefits people who make ONE type of P0 or P1 per planet, anyone else has been ****ed in the as.s |
Saju Somtaaw
Gallente Department of Defence Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 21:56:00 -
[54]
Originally by: May Waifu Edited by: May Waifu on 28/12/2010 19:43:51 Can i just leave my extractors the way they are or am i going to be forced to switch to the new, completely ******ed system? I was just making POS fuel for my own 2 poses but if nothing changes from SISI right now to TQ release im going to just stop, you made it so i dont have to 2 click each extractor each day, BUT INSTEAD I PRODUCE MUCH MUCH LESS AND HAVE TO MOVE MY EXTRACTORS AROUND? I RATHER CLICK THANK YOU VERY MUCH THis change only benefits people who make ONE type of P0 or P1 per planet, anyone else has been ****ed in the as.s
First avoiding the filter is not allowed, but on the topic no it is bennificial I run several planets makeing P2 goods, and I plan to move one up to P3 in January when I can upgrade the command center w/o having to destroy all my factorys, launchpads and storage facilities. The main bennefit is that it gets rid of a lot of tedious clicking making it a simpler, easier process to maintain your extractors. ---- --- ---
|
Babay 14th
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 22:09:00 -
[55]
May Waifu, you are wrong. producing single P1 is harmed too. I've installed a 10-head extractor on the best deposit on the planet. (water on temperate planet, 0.0). it had white paint in it. initial 'planned production' was 57 000 m3 in an hour. and now it dropped to 6 600 m3 in an hour.
yes, I've 'cheated': I've started and stopped extraction jobs as fast as possible. but.. you see.
as far as I've see, the 'planned extraction speed' shows an ideal case when the deposit that haven't been extracted (it's fully regenerated). but when you install extraction program - you see actual numbers based on deposit state (some amount was extracted, some was regenerated).
so, it is a question to CCP: how fast does planetary raw materials regenerate? is I have virgin deposit, install 10 extractor heads and planned productivity is 60 000 m3 in an hour, when what productivity will be in 30 days, after extraction and regeneration processes are balanced?
and why does all the planned for extraction material (but not extracted) get lost if I stop extraction manually ?
|
Babay 14th
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 22:16:00 -
[56]
Saju Somtaaw you're wrong. ) 1. you'll need much more powergrid to extract the same amounts of P0 patherials if you extract more then one on a planet. 2. you won't have 'clickfest'. but... deposits do degrade when you extract from them. And sometimes it looks like they move out. So, you'll might have to move all your infrastructure to a new deposit. 3. you might need to move extractor heads each time you start your extraction. that's much more job, then clicking and rerunning extraction jobs.
|
Apsidia
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 11:18:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Apsidia on 29/12/2010 11:21:55 After test new PI on sisi:
1. The amount of framing of resources for a cycle not in cubic meters/hours is inconvenient to look. I permanently don't know, whether throughput of a link between spaceport and an extractor will suffice. Can be, add number of meters cubic pre hour in brackets after units/hour number? 2. Whether players can move extraction head points independently and setup extraction area size manually for each head point?
|
Alexander Lion
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 13:45:00 -
[58]
i did PI from the first minute.
so now my questions:
why can¦t the ecu handle to extract 2 different types of recource? 2 seperate programms on one ecu should be possible because if someone want to build coolant on one planet he has to put up 2 ecu with only 5 ehu used each and maybe both resource hot spots are in extraction range.
|
Midnight Hope
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 21:00:00 -
[59]
I noticed that I can place an extractor, arrange the heads and forget to route the extracted product and I do not get any warning at all after submitting it.
It would be nice if the extractor/processor turned red (as extractors turn yellow before submitting) if any of the required incoming or outgoing links are not satisfied.
|
Miyau
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 01:17:00 -
[60]
Originally by: electrostatus The current extractor fitting cost on tranquility is 800MW and 200tf. The current cost on singularity is much higher than this. The minimum cost (the control unit and one head) is 3352MW and 510tf, which is 4.2 times as much MW and 2.5 times as much tf required on tranquility. Even when I have 10 extractor heads and spread the control unit cost to each of them, a head costs 832MW and 150tf.
Yeah these new powergrid numbers really encourage fewer extractors (i.e. fewer different types of resources harvested).
|
|
Fenix Inferni
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 08:46:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Amy Frost
Am I missing something where you can extract 2 types of materials with the same Extractor Control Unit (for example Base+Heavy Metals as those are often available close to each other) at the same time or did you intend to break it? Amy Frost
Was going to make a post to ask same thing :)
Instead of double extraction capability for each ECU think would be a nice compromise between your "we don't want afk PI" and the actual system multi-extraction capability to link power/cpu usage only to extractor heads and not to ECUs: if someone wants to extract 3 or more resource on same planet he must double-click each ECU (no afk) and should be able to feed the processor cycles rougly like the "old tq PI system" (elite CCs call 3x resource extraction quite hard)
What do u think?
|
Rupicolous
Higher Ground
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 17:11:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Rupicolous on 30/12/2010 17:13:12
TBH, I invested lvl 5 PI skilling across the board on 9 characters and really got into the production side of it all.
Yes, it was a "clickfest" but that is what I feel seperated the casual user from the dedicated ISK generating producers.
I got used to the clicking and would spend about 1 hour between the chars, 3-4 times a day, for 5 hr cycle resets.
If I wasn't into it or needed a break, the option to set em for the 23hr cycle was always there.
I believe the original PI was thought out well enough to remain viable and see little reason to change it as a whole.
The only players seeming to want widespread change are the ones not dedicated to it's potential, the ones looking for an easy out.
Ironically, the easy out has been there all along with the option for longer cycle times.
The only changes needed are the smaller adjustments: Larger customs hangers with corporate access
As much as I'd like to see the newer PI as an improvement ......... I don't, I really don't at all.
and many of us that have already spent countless hours and ISK (destroy / rebuild) setting up our productions chains are going to be very dissapointed with the new release.
|
Ma'kal
The Imperial Commonwealth E.Y
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 21:27:00 -
[63]
The part I found fun about PI at first was the set up. I spent a lot of time trying to find the optimized way to set up my extractors and factories. The problem I had with the original system was that once you set up the game-play was gone. It just be came a routine of clicking there was no though anymore.
I think this new set up has a similar problem. There is no game-play once you set up. It is a lot like mining is atm. Where once you set up there is nothing else to do but wait. I think PI needs some kind of variable factor to keep someone thinking or planing.
I think the fact that the resource veins deplete is a step in the right direction but there still needs to be something more.
|
Ze'ev Sinraali
Ataraxia Pharmacies
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 22:31:00 -
[64]
If every ECU came with one head for free, it would go a long way towards mitigating the issues mentioned in this thread.
|
Rupicolous
Higher Ground
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 03:20:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Ma'kal The part I found fun about PI at first was the set up. I spent a lot of time trying to find the optimized way to set up my extractors and factories. The problem I had with the original system was that once you set up the game-play was gone. It just be came a routine of clicking there was no though anymore.
I think this new set up has a similar problem. There is no game-play once you set up. It is a lot like mining is atm. Where once you set up there is nothing else to do but wait. I think PI needs some kind of variable factor to keep someone thinking or planing.
I think the fact that the resource veins deplete is a step in the right direction but there still needs to be something more.
Production lacks game play period, it's production for christ' sake not game play.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 04:25:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Rupicolous *me likes the clickfest*
Sorry that you didn't got the memo buddy.. but PI in it's current inception was scheduled for change since it went first live on Sisi months ago! So in reality you were playing with an already outdated UI and only because of the larger expansion cycle of 6 months the last version of PI made it to TQ at all. If CCP then had been delayed the patch-roll-out like they did this time, TQ would never had seen this version. support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 04:51:00 -
[67]
I've noticed something strange with the resources on the planet while I extract them. While they go down where I'm extracting, they go up elsewhere, and on the whole. Here is me setting up on the hottest spot of autotrophs: Before I placed 20 extractor heads on it for 14 hours. Here is the planet roughly in the middle of the extraction: During And here is it after the extraction finished: After So two hotspots hotter than what was on the planet appeared, and I found a third one on the other side. Also the amount of autotrophs and complex organisms on the whole planet went up. Compare the amount of them in the scan window in the before and after pictures.
Secondly, after further testing, the powergrid and cpu requirements of the extractor control unit is too much. Either cut the powergrid and cpu on the control unit by at least 30% or the heads by 20%. If that is ignored, at least have the heads be able to extract different resources. The storage facility also could use some work. I'd find it far more useful if it could hold as much or more than a spaceport.
― Vexo M > He turned the drives up to 11 |
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 09:00:00 -
[68]
TUX, any word(s) from the team working on PI, on the issues/concerns people have mentioned here?
-Darod- |
Tysliss
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 11:07:00 -
[69]
Any way to get factories that are waiting for resources to get preference before cycling factories start filling their reserve supplies?
|
Rupicolous
Higher Ground
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 16:09:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Originally by: Rupicolous *me likes the clickfest*
Sorry that you didn't got the memo buddy.. but PI in it's current inception was scheduled for change since it went first live on Sisi months ago! So in reality you were playing with an already outdated UI and only because of the larger expansion cycle of 6 months the last version of PI made it to TQ at all. If CCP then had been delayed the patch-roll-out like they did this time, TQ would never had seen this version.
First off, to address your misquote - it's not that I like the clickfest, it's that I don't mind it much. Secondly, you're not my buddy and Thirdly, Your input does absolutly nothing to change my opinion of PI .........
|
|
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 19:00:00 -
[71]
My turn to chime in on the new Extractor & their control units.
They use way too much power grid. Here's my take on it: Have the Control Units use only CPU, and the individual extractor heads use Power Grid.
Also, will each ECU be able to handle only a single resource, or is it planned for them to be able to handle multiple resources (up to 1 resource per head)?
I also want to see storage PINs more usable. I like the idea for small/big storage PINs, but for the easy fix, at least lower the fitting requirements and boost the capacity of the current one?
And what ever happened to being able to link our networks to another player? I haven't heard anything on that for months now.
|
Mikal Bishop
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 14:12:00 -
[72]
I have a couple of questions or points 1) I can no longer user multiple storage PINs when extracting the same amount of material I always ran my extractors a little ahead of my processors. The multiple storage PINs gave me a buffer if I couldn't get back before the cycle ended
2) I have advanced planetology to IV and soon 5. I found the highest concentration on the planet. When I came back and scanned the next day the highest concentration was outside the range of my extractor control unit. Am I going to have to move ECU to continuously get the highest yields. If that is so that is going to do couple of things. Length my links to the my processors which could very well put me over the limits, move the processors if I am over the limits and cost me isk every time I have to pickup and put down a new PIN
|
Minamel
Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 15:47:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Minamel on 02/01/2011 15:49:58 The new Pi is nice but my big concern is the high base cost of ECU. This force you to use the maximum number of heads. Result is that planets that extract two or more materials and therfore need 2 or more ECU with fewer heads have problems with powergrid. Result are "P1only Planets" including a hauling nightmare.
For my opinion Base Cost (Cpu and Power) for ECU could be lower as compensation Cpu and Powercost for the Heads could be a bit higher.
|
Mikal Bishop
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 19:46:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Mikal Bishop on 02/01/2011 19:46:50 I think someone mentioned this earlier. Why not just assign the Power and CPU requirements to the extractor heads and nothing to the ECU. That way you would get exactly the same power and CPU use as you do now.
|
Wyke Mossari
Gallente Staner Industries
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 22:21:00 -
[75]
The development focus seems to be focused on the micro management of PI. However there is a macro-management issue that needs to be looked at. The current market only values resource extraction, and devalues production.
If you run a spreadsheet on the profitability of PI production practically every step extra loses money except POS fuels.
Spreadsheet Proof.
The big problem is there is only demand for POS fuels, there is next to no demand for any other PI production. The Advanced end products of PI need their demand increasing.
The obvious first choice would be new BPO for Planetary Command Centres, but the new mother-ship and other Capitals could have a few included in their production materials list.
Consideration should also be given to reprocessing PI intermediates sold below cost by idiots selling below cost.
|
Jairen Armana
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 23:18:00 -
[76]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
I can¦t really answer for game design about their intent but afaik we didn't want to muck about with the production chains. Of course ECUs are different than extractors so some changes were inevitable and network that used to work might not have the powergrid or cpu anymore.
I'll forward your concerns to the team.
well, is there any changes planned now? cause if the changes will go live like it's now on Sisi, it will destroy the production on one planet with 4 production lines, because the Extractor Control Units need way too much Energy Grid, if the Extractor Head Units need also Energy Grid. If you lower the Energy Grid need for the Extractor Control Units form 2800 MW per Unit to 1400 MW , it should be OK.
|
Amy Garzan
Gallente The Warp Rats Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 00:07:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Amy Garzan on 03/01/2011 00:09:00 Is it just me or is the color scheme when scanning for where to put extractors messed up? I know it has the "base" amount, and I see how it is showing vs time, but also the graph needs to scale vs the base amount. Its really confusing as it looks like Im getting better rates from the graph when Im really not.
I also second that the extractors use wayyy to much resources(grid/cpu).
Also, what will happen with existing setups on patch day? Will they be converted, or will they be destroyed? With the second, will we be reimbursed? -------------------------------------------------- 101010 The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything |
Mikal Bishop
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 00:33:00 -
[78]
I would liked some explanation of the numbers control unit. The numbers on the left - No idea. The higher the number the better yield but what is the range of number so they have some meaning. The graph seems to indicate the yield for each hour of the plan but it doesn't match with the current cylce output numbers on the window when you first select the ecu. ex: That firts window shows 21341 for the current cycle which is a half hour cycle. Now when I open the survey program the amount where the while line is 51625 per hour shouldn't that be twice what the half hour cycle is.
The Output per hour in the bottom right of the survey program screen I believe is Avg hourly yield over the program cycle it should say that.
So basically you have three numbers indicating hourly yields and none of them agree with the other.
I think you are going to have alot of frustrated people when they try to use this.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 13:26:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Darod Zyree TUX, any word(s) from the team working on PI, on the issues/concerns people have mentioned here?
-Darod- |
Erik Legant
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 14:57:00 -
[80]
I tried the new PI.
I fear that now the colonies will all look like a cell mass, with all the PINs grouped together as close as possible. It's ugly. And with the links between an ECU and its extraction heads being free, anyone will be able to set up a colony without any thinking about it.
CCP wanted to make us spend more time on the planets after the initial set-up. But now the set-up is a piece of cake and moving the extraction heads in not that different from restarting the extractors. That, I'm not happy with.
Otherwise I like being able to set up the duration of the extraction cycle. |
|
Tsabrock
Gallente Circle of Friends
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 23:04:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Tsabrock on 04/01/2011 23:04:55 There indeed is very little demand for the higher-tier planetary products, and I honestly don't know what they can do to increase their demand without overhauling the entire industry system, or tacking-on yet another new manufacturing system to give the products some value.
I would personally prefer a total industry overhaul as opposed to yet another patch on the system we have now. --- If you've read something I posted and want to contact me, EVE-Mail me, or contact me via EVE Gate. |
Kal XL
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 02:45:00 -
[82]
Opinions of a PI addict incoming. tl;dr I don't like these changes. Keep the current PI setup and just improve usability. Or make this PI change optional
I have 12 characters with PI 4 skills trained. 60 planets with 10 extractors each is indeed a gigantic clickfest, but I had total control over every step of it.
I dislike that the new PI version automates some of the monotony for you and at the same time requires more uncreative input. Oh great, I don't have to click as much, but I have to move my extractors every few days and second-guess everything the UI is telling me? Not sure how this is supposed to simplify things or make it more fun.
I see one main complaint is that setting up factories is a pain, but that doesn't make much sense to me because I only set up my factories once. 10 mins or whatever it takes you to initially set up your planet is trivial compared to the time spent refreshing cycles if you actually stick with PI for a while. Someone care to elaborate on why this is such a major downfall of PI?
My main frustration with PI as it is now is that there SERIOUSLY needs to be an 'Undo last request' button. It is very annoying to be clicking through dozens of extractors, setting them to 5 hour cycles and then misclick one to a 30 min cycle that botches the routing and have to cancel all of them just to fix it. I typically set cycles in batches of 5, but misclicking is still a pain (who decided that extractor UI had to be in size 8 font, with the options only a few pixels apart?). Also, the ability to unbind the 'double-click centers camera on CC' function is a must.
Someone said this patch was to reduce 'afk PI', I take it they are thinking of some sort of PI macro? Here is my response to that: CCP designed a game where time dictates almost everything, rather than 'user skill/interaction.' Obviously there are exceptions, but I'm referring to the tasks of mining, production, ratting, missioning, PI, etc. These tasks are all fairly mundane and yet important aspects of the game. Unfortunately, they are also simple enough to allow an unscrupulous few to cheat. If a goal of this patch or any others is to reduce or eliminate 'afk anything' they should make tasks like these more interactive and also consider implementing a Warden-like system. I don't see how any of these changes to PI will make the whole process more interactive or afk-proof.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 07:49:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree TUX, any word(s) from the team working on PI, on the issues/concerns people have mentioned here?
Don't leave us in the dark man :(
-Darod- |
Siyk
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 12:56:00 -
[84]
Personally I prefer the TQ PI, the new format cuts my profits and makes PI that one bit more actively annoying... Here was me thinking that the new changes would benefit both my wallet and time ;)
|
Arosth Katsbalger
DISSPACHERS
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 03:56:00 -
[85]
maybe people were making wayyyy too much isk and the ones who aren't innovative enough to figure out how to make isk complained about how there were so many toons richer than they were. so they had to "balance" it all in such a way as to make it "fair". i agree with some others why fix what is not broken? just optimize it. the UI in test atm is alot more efficient and intuitive. that is what people wanted, not the possibility of a complete nerf job. i like the whole concept of PI as it sets up for a deeper story and the eventuality of Dust becoming a reality. i mean hell, what have you got to fight for if there isn't land to fight over right?
|
Bloodpetal
The Black Company TBC
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 05:23:00 -
[86]
Trying to make a complete process from start to finish isnt' working for me anymore.
I don't think it's possible to get a complete extractor process on one planet, making it pointless to have planets that you can produce single items at from start to finish.
I think that has to be rebalanced with the new extractor PG and CPU so that you can set some extractors and factories to produce a whole system.
____________________________________________________
Bastet :: First Sergeant |
mechtech
SRS Industries SRS.
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 05:49:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Bloodpetal
Trying to make a complete process from start to finish isnt' working for me anymore.
I don't think it's possible to get a complete extractor process on one planet, making it pointless to have planets that you can produce single items at from start to finish.
I think that has to be rebalanced with the new extractor PG and CPU so that you can set some extractors and factories to produce a whole system.
Well to be fair the whole idea was to have interdependence between the products in order to create a rich PI material market. Whether or not importing/exporting creates too much overhead work is debatable, but in general I think it's healthier if people can't easily skip from P1 to P3 on a single planet.
|
Siyk
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 08:20:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Arosth Katsbalger maybe people were making wayyyy too much isk and the ones who aren't innovative enough to figure out how to make isk complained about how there were so many toons richer than they were. so they had to "balance" it all in such a way as to make it "fair". i agree with some others why fix what is not broken? just optimize it. the UI in test atm is alot more efficient and intuitive. that is what people wanted, not the possibility of a complete nerf job. i like the whole concept of PI as it sets up for a deeper story and the eventuality of Dust becoming a reality. i mean hell, what have you got to fight for if there isn't land to fight over right?
Way too much isk? If someone is using 5+ characters, I'd damned expect good return on my time... It really isnt hard to figure out how to make good isk...
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 08:29:00 -
[89]
IMHO the biggest issue is(was?) the variation in the 'harmonic' between the initial view and after the confirmation, which always seemed to drop my yields by up to 20%. It makes positioning for resource hotspots pointless as you're pretty much guaranteed to miss when you try
as for the increase in grid for the ECUs + extractor heads over just the plain extractors i don't really mind it, it encourages specialization and a healthier market in lower tier PI goods _____________________ Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on a forum, with the alt your alt could post like. |
Black Fred
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 10:22:00 -
[90]
Objective: Player satisfaction, smooth transition from the actual PI, don't rock a stabilizating market. (i hope all this are objectives of a Caring Dev(TM) )
On the way of implementation: ECU are a good solution, because opens the PI to the "i have a life" player, has less clickfest, and generally permits to custom the PI time to the real life time.
Proposed solution: -modify cpu/pg to ECU and mining heads to match the actual profile. The actual levels of production canÆt be reduced so much. (Coding time for implementation: very small, needs just change some parameters, or not? -modify the rate of resources regeneration. Much more planetary total, less regeneration. Moving the mining heads on a daily basis to follow the resources is unrealistic and a chore worst that the actual clickfest, moving the entire colony on a month basis instead is an acceptable and more realistic solution. (Coding time for implementation: very small, needs just change some parameters, or not?) -eliminate the difference between survey and effective raw material mined, with the ôharmonic diagramö whatÆs the point in making so random/useless the searching of hot spots, itÆs using cpu cycles and maybe database accesses for useless numbers, forgotten after confirmation. (Coding time: ?) -The ECU needs an m3/h output. (Coding time: ?)
Pros: The above mentioned objectives. Cons: none?
If for game balancing, the devs think that P3 planets are a market distortion, up the cpu/pg needs of mining heads, but the cpu/pg of ECUs needs to be sufficiently low to permit at least the extraction of 3 raw materials on the same planet.
2¦ part will follow.
|
|
Black Fred
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 10:36:00 -
[91]
Objective: discouraging AFK PI Proposed solution: make it a PVP affair. (On mid term, too much coding for a short term solution, or not? ) Make the areas of the mining heads interfere, but the rate of interference needs to be related to the program installed in the ECU. Lets create program "efficiency" (less time, less area = more efficiency). The rate of interference (max 50% absolutely, the only way for the mining heads to not mine anything is that they are blow up by someone...) is a rapport between the overlapping areas and the efficiency of the two antagonistic programs installed. Example: Player A runs 5H cycles, let's put his efficiency = 1. Player B on the same spot place a mining head with a 20H cycle, so it's efficiency is 0,25. For Player A, the area is totally overlapping so, it has -25% of the ideal production, Player B has -75% for the different efficiency, but his area is only overlapped for the 50%, so it has 50% of -75% = -37,5% of the ideal production. In the case of Player A with more heads in the area of Player B, the production of Player B will be reduced until it attains the maximum -50% of ideal production.
2¦ example: Player A runs 5H cycles, let's put his efficiency = 1. Player B, an alt on a trial account that place a colony just for griefing, puts a mining head with a 150H cycle, his efficiency is 0,03 (1/30). Player A has -3% of production, player B production: who cares to calculate, it's only for griefing.
To be a good griefer/concurrent one needs to match the cycle, and the area = matching the effort of the target player. To be very productive one needs to outsmart or outtime or bribe or convince the neighbours = no more passive PI. The sum of all this -> no AFK IP and (after space, and market) a new way to confront other players.
All the numbers have to be balanced and thinked again, but the "gameplay idea" for me is good, and i am a PI player.
Just because we are in the wetdreams section of "minimum six month for implement this, IF..." i add: For balancing, can be created a new pin called Logistic Efficiency Unit (LEU) that needs a new planetary ability, something like "Advanced Planetary Support" (1 support building for level, not for trial accounts). The LEU applies a multiplicator (1.1 for example) on the efficiency of all mining programs. So one can "sacrifice" pg/cpu to outmine the adversaries.
And the LEU can't be alone, to justificate a new skill, so will follow buildings for more pg, for more cpu, automated defences, etc... and on this road, colonies will become a bit configurable like ships. Mission accomplished.
Pros: the above mentioned objective. PI becomes more like an enjoyable minigame a bit chess-like. More targets for DUST514? Cons: coding time.
|
Allison A'vani
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 10:38:00 -
[92]
FYI no one really cares about you the "I have a life player." Casual gamers **** up every already balanced MMO, bla bla I cant get his gear/ship or his money because I don't have the time to put in, dev team make it so I the player with considerable less time can get the same rewards as those who actually put in the time. Again and again this has ****ed over many good mmos. RS back in the day, Knight Online, WoW, three examples of games that were good before devs listened to the casual gamer. Now their all filled with little kids and gold farmers.
/end rant
Now for constructive feedback:
Their really does need to be a way to move the Command Centers with out decommissioning them, it is needed in the current live build and with the moving resource hot spots, it is needed even more so.
|
Gallen Tetits
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 16:03:00 -
[93]
Lol, very balanced and costructive response, just for trolling?
You don't need to move the Command Center, as you don't need to link them, you just need a pin where the camera center automatically, or not?
Just a question: exactly where in my response i proposed a dumbification of the PI? I have said that is more player friendy. Ah, and sorry for asking more gameplay (this is a game, remember?) and less mouse work with random results. Sorry for the rant.
|
Arosth Katsbalger
DISSPACHERS
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 00:05:00 -
[94]
Siyk: Thats my point you take the time to try and figure out the best way to make loads of isk while others want to take the time to just gripe about how they don't have isk and want to force so called "balancing". And just so you know Allison, i have been a loyal/casual(casual in that Eve ain't my life) gamer for 7 years(one account) and to say that is to me an inaccurate generalization. I play the game now for the soul purpose of being entertained, not like in the beginning when managing a big corp would give me stomach aches from stress LOL. Everything I have, I have worked my butt off for. PI has the potential for making a lot of isk and to see the nerf bat slowly being revealed bothers me as it always has when they take it out. I play this game because it is fun and it is in my opinion the most stunningly rendered online game in existence and its potential knows no bounds. Keep the UI changes and if you have to move the drill heads, move them upon depletion of a site until it recycles or something of that nature. Don't alter the cpu and pg requirements unless you are going to offer a skill optimizer for time taken to learn how to run a site more efficiently.
|
Gartelion
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 02:37:00 -
[95]
I love the upgradeable CCs. I love the movable extractors that can extract different resources. I love the new adjustable extraction programs.
But the ECU powergrid cost negates everything.
It removes all the fun from building a colony and points towards 1-product factory colonies. The old system was flexible. You could be creative. You could play. Now you can't do almost anything.
Anyway, I suppose since you're looking at it that you will make some changes. So, I believe that you should do one of the following (both already mentioned by others):
a. Reduce ECU PW cost to 0 and set each head's cost to the old value. That way the two systems will be equivalent. b. Make the ECU able to run more than one program simultaneously. (Meaning, each ECU can have heads that extract different resources.)
I also noticed that the best (estimated) position for each head does not always fall within the highest-concentration area, as it appears on the scanner. It's like they are using completely different ways to estimate the maximum ammount. Why is that?
|
Rinah Vaurelin
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 06:47:00 -
[96]
I noticed that the grid amounts for ECUs has been lowered somewhat. Down to 2600 base + 550/head.
It is now possible lay down a planet with solo P3 production, but only if you need less than 400 powergrid in links. I have found that it still is impossible to set up Gas planets for P3 production because of the grid cost of links.
The flexibility of the system currently on Tranquility is quite nice. It does suck having to click so much to get it to keep going, but at least you can have it set up any way you want. I have been trying it out in High Sec mostly, and I know that even there I could get a P3 planet set up, and not even need the elite cc. Sure, the time it takes to get anything finished would be laughable compared to 0.0, but it is possible.
It the purpose of this update is to get rid of a clickfest and to improve the interface for PI, then what Gartelion proposed with making the ECU use no grid and the heads are back up to 800 is probably the best, and use cpu to put some sort of cap on the number of ECU's in play (I can't imagine needing more than 4 or so).
If the purpose of this update is to force a certain play style, then this is certainly the right track. I don't know though, narrowing playstyles seems to be contrary to how EVE tends to portray itself.
The other option is of course to add skills that reduce powergrid usage from installations or links or both. And maybe reduce taxes! |
tpwh21
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 15:28:00 -
[97]
Some response from CCP, please? Played with PI on the test server(v6164 i think). Much worse on nearly every level. especially annoying is the misreporting of actual amount you will get over an extraction cycle - why not apply the discount before the program is started??? (this can only be crappy coding) Also extractor control unit --> storage link maths is all wrong. If you run a 23hr cycle you now have to upgrade multiple times - whereas you wouldn't have to upgrade at all before. ECU use way too much powergrid. depleting resources/moving them around - is not fair - until you can pick up your whole colony and move it. simplest way to make pi less of clickfest - make ECU 0% resource load - with each extractor having the same as old system and having same extraction mechanics..... leave the rest of it alone until you don't make a whole load of changes that will **** everyone off. IMHO.... If you are going to change PI other fix it properly - completely change how it works - don't tinker with it to make it even more hard to use. If you are going to introduce game mechanics that make it only feasible to extract single PI products from planets - sort out the volume of all the pi products... giving everything 1/10 of the volume would be a sensible start.
|
electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 15:59:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Gartelion
I also noticed that the best (estimated) position for each head does not always fall within the highest-concentration area, as it appears on the scanner. It's like they are using completely different ways to estimate the maximum ammount. Why is that?
I've seen that the numbers that appear in the scanner are the numbers I get (though I haven't studied this intently, and I no longer can get on the server to verify). However, I also have planetology and advanced planetology skills at V. Perhaps a warning on the scanner saying "These numbers may be inaccurate due to your skill at scanning" or something similar to that effect. ― Vexo M > He turned the drives up to 11 |
Venix
An Eye For An Eye AN EYE F0R AN EYE
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 21:15:00 -
[99]
Ok, so what I am getting out of all of this seems very simple.
1)Less clicking for the basic mining of raw products. 2)Much much more time just to get the raw products because every time you cycle, you have to move the extractor heads.
So what is the point? All this did was nerf the process so that you have to spend large amounts of time and in the end, 3-4x the clicking because you have to remake your whole planet after each cycle. Now people with many characters doing this to fuel POS towers are going to have to dedicate hours, instead of just a few minutes, daily to setup their planets so they can keep fuel in towers.
Can we opt out of this change? Ni4Ni
Public Channel: Ni4Ni
|
Gartelion
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 23:25:00 -
[100]
Originally by: electrostatus
Originally by: Gartelion
I also noticed that the best (estimated) position for each head does not always fall within the highest-concentration area, as it appears on the scanner. It's like they are using completely different ways to estimate the maximum ammount. Why is that?
I've seen that the numbers that appear in the scanner are the numbers I get (though I haven't studied this intently, and I no longer can get on the server to verify). However, I also have planetology and advanced planetology skills at V. Perhaps a warning on the scanner saying "These numbers may be inaccurate due to your skill at scanning" or something similar to that effect.
I was actually referring to a difference between the ECU scanner and the entire planet scanning system. In some of my planets the ECU estimates highest extraction amount in the yellow area instead of the red/white area. (And I was viewing the correct resource.) I understand that what they estimate can be wrong, but shouldn't be both wrong by the same way?
Since we are on the subject, the ECU estimated extraction cycles (amount/15min) is totally different from the actual cycles. I have Planetology 4 and Advanced Planetology 4. In my opinion the difference shouldn't be that great for that skill level.
|
|
Gartelion
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 00:06:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Gartelion on 08/01/2011 00:16:06 I just discovered a serious issue:
In planet Raneilles VII which has a radius of 69,990km, when I try to put a head in my ECU I get the message: "You cannot place an extraction head farther than 5,000 km from its parent Extraction Control Unit." I tried to put the head as close to the ECU as it gets, but I always get the same message. (see linked image) This doesn¦t happen to my other planets, which have significantly smaller radius.
Raneilles VII image
|
Lain Umi
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 11:26:00 -
[102]
if these changes go live, im gonna have to drop PI completely. as is on tranq, PI requires a short amount of time for a small payoff, which makes sense. i will not be spending all this time to move my colonies around only to earn much less than i currently am. i like PI as it is on tranq; i dont know what this sisi business is.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 13:57:00 -
[103]
Make us PvP over resources somehow , otherwise it is still just crap.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 17:53:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree TUX, any word(s) from the team working on PI, on the issues/concerns people have mentioned here?
Don't leave us in the dark man :(
Originally by: Venix Also, no Dev Replies since Dec 23rd.... are we just stuck with this mistake now?
-Darod- |
Salpun
Gallente Paramount Commerce
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 21:02:00 -
[105]
CCP is waiting till the minutes of the summit come out. Then we will start to get feed back again. Should be Monday.
|
STONED OPERATOR
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 00:38:00 -
[106]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Make us PvP over resources somehow , otherwise it is still just crap.
Actually the new features in this upcoming patch will permit a form of PVP and even greifing, i'll just not divulge it. What would truly be awesome is to have control over planet colonies a la "Civilization" games, and sure DUST could fit in nicely as well if not even better ...
|
Eleanor Arroway
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 00:40:00 -
[107]
Notice thing when played to PI on SiSi :
- Sometimes when you had an EHU it appears on other structure, and you cannot move it, it shoulds avoid place where something is already here.
- With planetology @ 4 and adv planetology @ 4 when you place EHU you have the survey displaying a total output, when you install the program, the window closed (that's annoying) and when you return in you see that the total outpout is 20% less, that's quite a huge difference !!! Currently in TQ when you place an extractor, the value displayed when you submit the construction don't change if you launch the extraction.
-About powergrid : in TQ if you extract two ressources to make a P2 on certains planets you need 10 extractors so 800 MW * 10 = 8000 MW, on Sisi to reach the same amout of units extracts you need 2 ECU and 6 EHU and often you extract less in fact, but let's say 3 EHU, so 2* 2600 + 6 * 550 = 8500 MW but on planet where it runs very well on TQ with that, on Sisi you have to add 2 more EHU so + 1100 MW. And in this calcul i'm not counting the link that you need to upgrade on sisi.
-About fonts : in the survey window te number Per hour and Total are in bold, the 8 and the 9 are quite the same, you need to increase size or to remove bold.
Thanks for your work.
|
Black Fred
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 13:37:00 -
[108]
Made some experiments with 2 chars on the same planet:
1-The results of the surveys made before confirmation seems to depends on Planetology/Adv Pl. skill. Nice idea, but bad implementation: or you have 5/5 skills or the searching for hot spot is pointless, because now the surveys actually lie to you. Anyone with less than 5/5 skills can be on a white spot (spotted by a 5/5 character), but the results of the mining heads surveys will tell otherwiseà Make the skill apply a positive bonus to the production, or a reduction of planetary materials utilization (=less head movement), and simply leave a true survey as it is on Tranquillity.
2- The form of PVP that Stoned Operator hinted, I hope is some form of bug, because AS IT IS NOW, it simply permits to anyone with medium planetology skills to transform any red hotspot in a blue well with a basic CC, a ECU, and 10-15 minutes of spare time. Cheap Planetary Pirates: ARRR! Pay ransom or your defenceless hot spot will vanish! ARRRR!
Is probably a bug, because the planetary resources simply vanish from the area, without any real extraction. The technique seems not to influence extraction programs already running, so if after confirmation you were promised 100000 units of resources, at the end of the program you will have 100000 units, but I havenÆt double checked it. I repeat that for me itÆs a bug, because the resources for every program are reserved, but if the program is cancelled the resources are gone and donÆt return to the spot.
If the PI goes live as it this (less bug, of course) probably will make PI only feasible for high resources planets, where a decent production can be achieved not only on hotspots, dedicated PI characters with Planetology/Adv. 5/5 and very patience players.
|
Ethixz
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 13:39:00 -
[109]
I appreciate the time and effort you guys have put into the new PI and any improvements in general but here's my 2 cents worth after looking at the new PI on Singularity.
I don't like it because it messes with everything people have setup so far it seems and ppl have reported the loss of output. What I think you guys should have done was keep it simple and done the following:
1) Allow the selection of multiple extractors at the same time ----> ability to run a survey and set a cycle for them all at the same time. 2) Add a few more options to the cycle time list ---> 1 hr cycle, 3 hr cycle, 12 hr cycle etc. you get the point.
This way people wouldn't have to change their setups and also it would probably have been less programming work for you guys. Keep it simple and less hassle :)
Cheers!
|
Siyk
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 14:53:00 -
[110]
Don't worry, they will probably fix this already flimsy expansion on PI. next year, since they only had like... what... 3 weeks to actually read test server feedback and make changes.
|
|
mattoid
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 20:24:00 -
[111]
No need to rehash everything, but I think everybody is in agreement that ECU's take up waaaay too much powergrid.
I do like the lessening of the click-fest of the current system. But here is where the problem lies in my mind...
If the monthly cost of running a POS is already "high", then what is the effect of each PI planet not being able to produce as many resources going to cause on the market? Prices just get even HIGHER. Then more people decide to shut down their POS...and changes spiral from there.
In the current system, I don't mind the current prices of running one or more POS at all. Yes, it increased after the fuel went to 100% player generated, but if you can't figure out how to make money with the current state of a POS then you're doing it wrong.
I'm tolerating of the fact that PI will take longer than the current ten minutes per alt to click through the extractors on each planet and move on to the next alt. I don't expect making money in EVE to be mindless/easy. I do however expect to make modest profit for the amount of work I put in and with the new powergrid "restrictions", it has significantly changed that. I will just have to change up my balance of where I generate my income in EVE after this goes live to lessen my PI projects.
However, changing the process of gathering an entire source of certain resources (in this case PI), is a hard line to walk in how it effects the market.
Dev's, please give us an update!
|
Wardo21
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 20:45:00 -
[112]
I haven't logged into test server to check for myself, but I'm not happy with the reports I've read in this thread.
Having to move extractors (heads/collectors whatver) reminds me too much of SWG. Hunt the wumpus isn't my idea of spending quality game time in Eve.
I spent a couple weeks skilling up my three main toons (one each account), to do PI so I could produce fuel for a POS in high-sec. Other than robotics and coolant (damn gas planets), the fuel bits are one planet each. Probably some room for improvement/optimization but I haven't really done the math yet.
My only suggestions would be to keep what you have now, and add the following: 1. move/upgrade CCs. (One post mentioned upgrades, so this might be there already). It sucked when my main account finally could use the uber CCs and had to start over where the production was.
2. CCs are "Command Centers", let them issue commands to collectors/factories en-masse. "Hey, you lot! Boss says start a 5 hour harvesting run." I would even be happy if it required a skill to do so.
3. Storage. Two requests here, make the plain warehouse worthwhile. You want me to use some dinky 5000m3 warehouse planetside when the launchpad is the same pg and 10km3? And allow routes between warehouses and launchpads/CCs, if only to make for one launchpad setups. (I hate sending the wrong stuff down to an empty launchpad.)
3. Names/notes for facilities. This would alleviate the issues with sending the wrong stuff to a launchpad, but it would also be nice to see from the S&I window, as well as on the customs window.
Nice features to have, skill dependent of course: 1. Additional power supplies/computer centers. Self explanatory, who wouldn't want these??? These might be "improvements" to the CC, like upgrading a link. 2. Auto-run (probably going too far), with a "maintenance period" between runs, that decreases with skill levels. Restarts the existing schedule after the maintenance period. Alternatively the number of repeats before needing human interaction might be connected to the skill. (or yet another skill...) Third option/skill is which duration runs you can utilize.
Really, I've got a hangar full of out-of-work dancers, militants, tourists, etc. Why can't I put one of them to work managing my planetside activities?
|
Talani Fynolds
Clan Fynolds
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 00:46:00 -
[113]
There is a way to extract more than 1 raw material with 1 ECU. If you have hotspots for 2 raw materials close enough to reach them with the ECU, you can reprogram the ECU after every cycle to extract the other material. You need some storage for that, but it should work out: If you set 24h cycles, you need to store 1440m¦ raw materials per basic factory, so they don't idle while you extract the other material. If you do it this way, the hotspots regenerate pretty well, too.
Even T3 production is possible again with this: Spaceport, 2 ECU, 14 extractors, 4 base factory, 2+1 advanced (800 left for links). Or if you have good close hotspots: Spaceport, 1 ECU, 10 extract, 8 base, 4+1 advanced (1000 left for links and/or additional storage).
If you don't want to extract more then 1 raw material, I feel that you don't need to move your extractors much. You just need to spread them out a bit and set long cycles. E.g. if you have 1 white hotspot, 2 red and 1 orange within reach of you ECU, don't put all 10 extractors around the white one. Maybe put 5 near the white one and spread them out a bit so you cover the orange parts around it too. Then put each 2 extractors at the red hotspots and 1 at the orange.
And I think depleting everything after cancelling the extraction is intentional, so the you cannot make a testrun to see if you've hit the hotspot right with low planetology skills.
|
AstarothPrime
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 10:41:00 -
[114]
Hmm does that mean planetology and adv planetology will make more sense now?
I know I trained only basic one to III and then surveyed planets by probing with extractors till i found juicy spots...
I.
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Malevolence. Imperial 0rder
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 14:21:00 -
[115]
I read the whole thread and I guess/hope we won't be making the deadline. ----- Malevolence. is recruiting. Dive into the world of 0.0 !
|
Black Dahliala
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 00:58:00 -
[116]
If I understand what I'm reading right, (and I may not be) instead of clicking each extractor to survey it and restart the extraction process we are going to have to go in and move each one around anyways to keep production up.
Hmmm, clickfest vs. drag and drop fest. Doesn't seem much better to me especially with the reported decrease in production. Also, what's the point in having high scanning skills if the specified 'hot' spot isn't all that hot?
I agree with others, They should have fixed the old system instead of reinventing the wheel. This is NOT a game within a game to me, just more time and maintenance.
My two cents.. now I'm done.
|
Polgara
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 01:59:00 -
[117]
I too have found i may not be able to produce what i used to with the new PI, i how ever have a suggestion. A most of you know and have seen you have plenty of CPU from the CC, How about we add another building : A Power Plant, uses CPU and adds Power grid, must be linked to the CC. Even make it you have to have command center upgrades 4 to use.
|
Sherksilver
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 15:46:00 -
[118]
1. Even with slightly cheaper ECU - any attempt to extract 4 mineral types on a single planet (see P3 production) is no longer possible, Unless you want the Extra click fest of being required to re-start extractors multiple times per day.
2. Overall p0 extraction, on same planet, with more Power cost is DOWN.
3. As others, replacing a click fest, with Click + Drag, + having to move CC/Processors to stay with the minerals? WTH? <-- This is NOT an improvement, I would rather keep things as they are right now than play whack-a-mole all of the time.
4. Seems strange that the same or even less hourly mineral extracted, is actually taking significantly more Link capacity.
5. Would Really, Really like to see at least Some Dev response to our concerns, or even to our comments...
|
d'Arma Edd
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 16:28:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Polgara I too have found i may not be able to produce what i used to with the new PI
/signed If current version from SiSi goes live, all my planet setups (or even planet set) must be re-calculated and changed, most likely to "one t1 per planet and assembly planet". 4 Extractors may be replaced with 1 Controller and 2 heads with current PG usage values, but 3 or 4 heads required to mine same amount of resource.
Originally by: Polgara How about we add another building : A Power Plant, uses CPU and adds Power grid, must be linked to the CC.
Already suggested something like this here.
PS Resource regenerating at the other end of the planet is awful joke.
|
Lain Umi
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 17:37:00 -
[120]
please leave PI alone. just add upgradeable CC's and freakin leave it.
|
|
Heimer
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 20:30:00 -
[121]
Still no dev reply. Excellence in the making.
( ) <- planet (not to scale) áááááá --EhonVonnre |
mechtech
SRS Industries SRS.
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 22:06:00 -
[122]
Some of the concerns are warranted, but I think the expectation that extraction rates and setups would perfectly match the old system is unreasonable.
It's a new system, you're going to have to adapt. As for "leaving it alone", players basically demanded a PI revision and we should be happy CCP is following through.
As for PI prices, lower extraction rates should be a good thing to you PI players, it means more demand and more profit ;) Also, only POS fuel has risen due to certain bottlenecks, all POSs and POS parts are 50% lower than the NPC days. Maybe POS fuels should be made an easier to produce commodity, but talking P4s even more is not the way to go.
|
Rupicolous
Higher Ground
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 22:47:00 -
[123]
Originally by: mechtech Some of the concerns are warranted, but I think the expectation that extraction rates and setups would perfectly match the old system is unreasonable.
It's a new system, you're going to have to adapt. As for "leaving it alone", players basically demanded a PI revision and we should be happy CCP is following through.
As for PI prices, lower extraction rates should be a good thing to you PI players, it means more demand and more profit ;) Also, only POS fuel has risen due to certain bottlenecks, all POSs and POS parts are 50% lower than the NPC days. Maybe POS fuels should be made an easier to produce commodity, but talking P4s even more is not the way to go.
- Considering the old system has been in place for several months now, extraction rates and setups should come close to what we are accustomed to. - I never heard anyone say "throw the original PI out". What I did hear is "make improvements" - more demand is more profit until the time invested becomes longer than time invested in other ISK generating ventures.
At this point, i'm very dissapointed to have taken the time to train all the PI skills to lvl 5. As it looks, the new PI system will either become too much a burden or simply not worth the time invested.
|
Lain Umi
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 01:56:00 -
[124]
if changes go live, i see most people completely dropping it. even on tranq currently it's hardly worth the time, but easy enough for noobs to get into. decreasing profit and adding more mundane tasks does not improvement make.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 07:46:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Lain Umi if changes go live, i see most people completely dropping it. even on tranq currently it's hardly worth the time, but easy enough for noobs to get into. decreasing profit and adding more mundane tasks does not improvement make.
This, most people just wanted a one click button to restart all extractors.
-Darod- |
Tergiminius
Binary Star
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 10:09:00 -
[126]
I have to agree with Darod, the current system but with a one-button set for all would have worked for me. The aim should be to make it as simple as possible, after all when DUST hits we want 1000s of PI planets for them to attack, with a more complicated system and less people interested in it then the DUSTIES will have less to play with.
I wonder if the DEVS have considered how the ECU head free movement interacts with DUST...someone attacking your planet ? Simply move the head a few hundred miles and let the DUSTIES have to run it again, you could keep it up all day, make em run round the entire planet |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 10:48:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Tergiminius I have to agree with Darod, the current system but with a one-button set for all would have worked for me. The aim should be to make it as simple as possible, after all when DUST hits we want 1000s of PI planets for them to attack, with a more complicated system and less people interested in it then the DUSTIES will have less to play with.
If less people make PI products the prices will rise.. now guess what happens to the value of a planet. support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Slide Quetor
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 11:40:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Slide Quetor on 12/01/2011 11:46:13 Put some new buildings in already that introduces some daily strategy. Something akin to a daily game of chess (or RISK) played out on the planet when we can fight over the ever depleting resources with other players and npcs on the planet. A finite amount of moves per day (based on what buildings u have).
Attack the other players units, order the DUST crew into attack their other buildings and cripple their turns.
Setup defencesive perimeters; flank, intel units etc.
Population management and importing of food and water to the workers, supply lines that can be distruped on the planet.
You've played SIMCITY, chess, C&C, even those turn based hexagonal board games. I do not understand why the product does not have this depth or some of it; the better the product is the more subscribers there are. PI could be so good, players login mainly just to play that portion of it.
Please ccp, make it a game and not a chore.
|
Minamel
Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 12:12:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Minamel on 12/01/2011 12:12:52
Quote: if changes go live, i see most people completely dropping it
I dont mind the more money for me :) And to be honest Pi gives damn much (too much?) money for the time invested compared to ratting or mining.
After all i like the changes, adapt or die like every time. The only thing for me is the high base ecu cost forcing people to use a lot of heads making planet setups inflexible.
Lower base costs for ecu and higher costs for the head and everything is fine..
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 14:23:00 -
[130]
At least we helped CCP on testing the new PI, invested time in setting up PI on the test server, posted about it one these forums only to get no feedback what so ever for a long time now :)
-Darod- |
|
Sherksilver
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 15:26:00 -
[131]
For my part: 1. As stated, I definitely do not like some of the changes - it is going to make PI even more tedious than it can currently be.
But, this last couple of weeks the most frustrating this is: We take alot of time to test it, give our opinions, and yet get zero response or explanation. It does not really take that long for a Dev to pop in, at least say thank you for the comments, and we are looking into them.
As a tester and a Software Dev, the worst thing you can do for customers, and testers, is not respond in any way to their comments or concerns.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 16:02:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Darod Zyree At least we helped CCP on testing the new PI, invested time in setting up PI on the test server, posted about it one these forums only to get no feedback what so ever for a long time now :)
Hey, welcome to the club. Is nice to get no feedback on your feedback, no?
Please drop me a line as soon as you run a proposal that covers this topic and I'll support it. support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Kal XL
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 23:25:00 -
[133]
Bump.
Would appreciate a dev response, considering the proposed release date is less than a week away.
|
mechtech
SRS Industries SRS.
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 23:58:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Sherksilver For my part: 1. As stated, I definitely do not like some of the changes - it is going to make PI even more tedious than it can currently be.
But, this last couple of weeks the most frustrating this is: We take alot of time to test it, give our opinions, and yet get zero response or explanation. It does not really take that long for a Dev to pop in, at least say thank you for the comments, and we are looking into them.
As a tester and a Software Dev, the worst thing you can do for customers, and testers, is not respond in any way to their comments or concerns.
They did lower powergrid use so that you can do start to finish P3 production (at least on some P3) in response to feedback.
They probably don't want to lower PG use any more in order to create some interdependence. The other feedback I'm seeing is a general dislike for the new design of the system, and it's obviously too late to do anything about that. They probably don't want to rile anyone up, that's why I think we don't have a response.
|
Durnin Stormbrow
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 00:43:00 -
[135]
Originally by: mechtech The other feedback I'm seeing is a general dislike for the new design of the system
Say what you want about the new design, but at least it involves some amount of thought. The complaints about the new system are comming from people that just want to press a re-do button every cycle rather than actually having something to do. If that's all they want it to be, they should be asking CCP to just get rid of the cycles and make the extractors set-it & forget it.
If there's going to be a mechanic that involves zero though once it's set up, it has little or no gameplay value and should be 100% automated to keep the bots from out doing humans by running 30 minute cycles 23/7.
|
Ma'kal
The Imperial Commonwealth E.Y
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 01:07:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 13/01/2011 00:54:50
Originally by: mechtech The other feedback I'm seeing is a general dislike for the new design of the system
People can say what they want about the new design, but at least it involves some amount of thought. The complaints about the new system are comming from people that just want to press a re-do button every cycle rather than actually having something to do. If that's all they want it to be, they should be asking CCP to just get rid of the cycles and make the extractors set-it & forget it.
If there's going to be a mechanic that involves zero though once it's set up, it has little or no gameplay value and should be 100% automated to keep the bots from out doing humans by running 30 minute cycles 23/7.
Truer words were never typed.
|
Transfer point
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 03:11:00 -
[137]
As far as those people who did all the complaining how they weren't going to do PI because of the clickfest, I'd bet $50 they won't do it now because of the drag/drop/program fest. And I'd really like to know why makers of MMO's are dumbing down their games, I wonder if there is some running bet between MMO's to see who can be the first to get their game down to where monkey's can start subscribing. As far as the idea to make it so bots can't do it, one more area with bots in isn't going to break the game anymore than it is now. /rant
And on a serious note:
So what is happening with existing CC's ? Are they going to be changed to the new style or are they all getting wiped and everyone starts over ?
|
Transfer point
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 03:23:00 -
[138]
Originally by: mechtech
As for PI prices, lower extraction rates should be a good thing to you PI players, it means more demand and more profit
It's only more profit if the price increases substantially enough to cover the fact you're making significantly less product. I'm not sure how many are in the same boat but I'm making POS fuels and a bit extra which I sell off. After the change I'll still be making POS fuel but the question becomes "can I even make enogh to cover the POS requirements, let alone make some extra as personal income.
|
Steve Thomas
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 05:46:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 13/01/2011 05:49:56 (scratches head about the lack of feedback that some people are wondering about)
ok first off the have almost always been a bit "eratic" at best on feedback at the best of times, this is not realy anything unusual from them. Some of the developers have always been more willing to engage in back and forth with us than others, others sit back and read the player coments because they dont want there input "fowling the waters" so to speak. the problem is that when one group is not working on something that they can show us live on sisi, they feel that them "Butting in" is more counterproductive than helpfull. Especialy when the topic is not something that they are working on.
Second the Impression I got way back was that they realy did not expect us to do what we did with layouts,(minimal lenght routes for one thing, extractors stacked on top of eachother and turning them all on at the same time and so on) and they also ran into problems with the original design that made what they wanted to do (Semi dynamic heatmaps that respond in real time to how were extracting resources for one thing) literaly imposible, what they gave us was more or less a "made to work" alfa build that oversimplified things while they went back and fixed the problems on the backend.
What we have now is actualy closer to what they originaly intended back then.
|
Durnin Stormbrow
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 06:16:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 13/01/2011 06:19:26
Originally by: Steve Thomas The Impression I got way back was that they realy did not expect us to do what we did with layouts. What we have now is actualy closer to what they originaly intended back then.
Having spent several days playing with the new PI, there's no doubt what we've been doing is gaming a system that too... limited? to keep us from doing it, or to even suggest that were not doing it right.
The new PI is a much better system, but there's gonna be a load of players that choke when they realize that business as usuall isn't going to work. I havn't been able to nail down what my my output is going to be on Sisi vs TQ, but trying to keep things running smoothly has been an interesting dance.
|
|
Kaori Mushuri
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 09:58:00 -
[141]
From what i saw for now they actually removed every parts where thinking could bring you something in PI.
1/ Using your brain to find good spots without to have character with planetology and advanced planetology at V was possible. With the actual changes, it's over you can park you brain, even tough you find a good spot, your output is driven by your skill level, so go and skill up 3 weeks.
2/ The design of your Pi was really important and i really enjoyed optimizing my planets one by one until to reach the best compromise between having x extractors in the middle of the white zone and a crazy long link or having y extractor in the border but with a shorter link. It's actually the same now except that you can park you brain too, the new ecu system gives you the oportunity to put everything at the same place without nearly any chance of optimising anything.
The click fest was just changed to a drag and drop fest. I'm happy to learn it will help you have some thinking in the game, for me it will not.
I can understand that there was some flaw in the previous PI design, but honestly what was changed here has nothing to see with a better gameplay, it has just become a "PI for the dumb".
Note : actually, with the storage they left us a possibility to think, i you do, you don't use it. Thanks for that.
|
Zebs Clone
Minmatar Zebra Corp United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 10:24:00 -
[142]
was doing pi until the click fest got to me. and i was going to take it back up after the changes, but tbh its even worse now. like the new chart and i liek the longer cycle times dont like taht i set it to extract say 56k /hour and then i get 53k/h so i have to go back reset and reset it to a shorter time just to get teh 56k i need and then im not even getting taht some times so back to rescan and reset. a scan is a scan, the skills have no effect on the ecu's in either lowering cpu or grid requirment so why make it so they effect output amount. all i see is my pos fuel costs rising and pi sucking more. knock on effects are that anything t2 is gonna cost way more to offset this. ccp want peopel and alliances to pay dusties to fight over pi sites, you are very much mistaken if you think anyone will bother fighting over them in there current state. im hoping in 6 months you redesign this system again. Sig removed for ranting. Zymurgist |
Durnin Stormbrow
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 12:29:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Kaori Mushuri The design of your Pi was really important and i really enjoyed optimizing my planets one by one until to reach the best compromise between having x extractors in the middle of the white zone and a crazy long link or having y extractor in the border but with a shorter link. It's actually the same now except that you can park you brain too, the new ecu system gives you the oportunity to put everything at the same place...
I'm going to give WH's a crack tonight to see how that works out, but after running low-sec planets for several days, I won't be leaving my ECU pins from day to day.
|
Mike deVoid
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 00:17:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Mike deVoid on 14/01/2011 00:17:55
Quote: Single Planet Robotics Production Example: 4x Extractor Control Unit (Noble, Heavy, Base + Non-CS) = 4x 2800 MW = 11.200 MW + at least 4x Extractor Head Units Total (Noble, Heavy, Base + Non-CS) = 4x 552 MW = 2.208 MW 4x Basic Industry Facility (Precious, Toxic, Reactive + Chiral) = 4x 800 MW = 3.200 MW 3x Advanced Industry Facility (Consumer Electronics, Mechanical Parts, Robotics) = 3x 700 MW = 2.100 MW ----------------------- 18.708 MW + Launchpad 700 MW ======================= 19.408 MW Sad
Command Center Maximum Upgrade Level 19.000 MW
just updated Sisi client, they've changed the PG usage, may well have fixed this problem?
Extractor Control Unit PG usage changed from 2800 > 2600 Extractor Head Unit PG usage changed from 552 > 550
|
Kaori Mushuri
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 01:25:00 -
[145]
How could it fix anything to the actual problem ?
In the actual PI, running 4 extractors cost you 4x 800 Mw = 3200. To this you can add a nice link in the middle and you get a potential P2 planet.
Now with the new system, i want to run the same P2 production, i dont have to pay a central link because the ecu gives me the opportunity to "centralise" somehow the extractors. The cost is the following : 2x ecu = 5200 + 4 heads = 2200 for a grand total of 7400 mw ....the cost in powergrid doubled for the exact same setup.
This is a big flaw for players that were extracting more than 1 ressource perplanet, but it's still a raise for player that were extracting a single ressource too.
If you have a setup of let's say 8 extractors in 0.0, it cost you 8 x 800 mw = 6400 mw. With the new setup, you end up at 2600 + 8 x 550 = 7000 mw.
You just lost 600 mw with the new planetary interface gameplay for just no advantage ! (note that you were extracting only 1 ressource, so you didn't have any issue of big link between extractors, so the advantage of having mobile heads is just irrelevant in this case)
What i wonder, i just why the game design team can't state clearly that there was some kind of overproduction with the planetary interraction and that they want to change the rates / balance of it ?
|
Sherksilver
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 03:13:00 -
[146]
That would be nice (some sort of DEV response) - heaven forbid if you are someone actually trying to do P3 on a single planet... 4 ECU's will break the bank.
|
TriadSte
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 10:42:00 -
[147]
Id like to know why my extraction has been pretty much cut in half from 1 million p0 every 5 hours down to 450k per planet on Sisi every 5 hours.
I have very high PI skills on all chars/alts.
This means my product amount will be halved, will the price increase x2? I cannot see it as they're high already and cannot see people paying 120,000 ISK for 1 robotic.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 13:03:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree TUX, any word(s) from the team working on PI, on the issues/concerns people have mentioned here?
Don't leave us in the dark man :(
Originally by: Venix Also, no Dev Replies since Dec 23rd.... are we just stuck with this mistake now?
-Darod- |
TriadSte
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 13:52:00 -
[149]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
Originally by: Naradak Are the current output rates pretty much what they will be when this is implemented?
I belief they are unless we ****ed up copying some static data. It's should be more than last iteration of the new ECUs but should be almost equivalent to current TQ iirc.
Then you have indeed ****ed up, my output rates are 50% LESS of that on TQ right now and It cannot be due to skills as I have near perfect extraction skills MINIMUM of lvl4 skills :
Planetology Adv Planetology
|
Cergorach
Amarr The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 14:41:00 -
[150]
Originally by: TriadSte
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
Originally by: Naradak Are the current output rates pretty much what they will be when this is implemented?
I belief they are unless we ****ed up copying some static data. It's should be more than last iteration of the new ECUs but should be almost equivalent to current TQ iirc.
Then you have indeed ****ed up, my output rates are 50% LESS of that on TQ right now and It cannot be due to skills as I have near perfect extraction skills MINIMUM of lvl4 skills :
Planetology Adv Planetology
Are you extracting at the same planet with the same product? Could you provide us with the setup details on Tranquility and Sisi? I didn't have that much of a loss of products.
|
|
Shinna Bladesinger
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:09:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Cergorach
Originally by: TriadSte
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
Originally by: Naradak Are the current output rates pretty much what they will be when this is implemented?
I belief they are unless we ****ed up copying some static data. It's should be more than last iteration of the new ECUs but should be almost equivalent to current TQ iirc.
Then you have indeed ****ed up, my output rates are 50% LESS of that on TQ right now and It cannot be due to skills as I have near perfect extraction skills MINIMUM of lvl4 skills :
Planetology Adv Planetology
Are you extracting at the same planet with the same product? Could you provide us with the setup details on Tranquility and Sisi? I didn't have that much of a loss of products.
alright. i don't know what your all crying about. and heres mine. mind you i took the time to get lvl 5 in CCU skill.
system: sacren sec:0.5 planet:plasma production: p3 robotics ecu's: 4 heads: 4 basic industry: 4 advanced industry: 3 recourses draw: units/hour base: 4149/hour heavy: 2673/hour noble: 1368/hour non-cs: 2345/hour
and this is strait off the test server with 1 ecu and head per resource. if i was in w-space or a lower sec place it would be higher. but as it stands, you can perma-run any p3 pos fuel item you need too. as such,you need less extractors to get the same amount, even though you have to have that skill at lvl 5 to do so. i think that they are trying to encoruage other poeple to get that 5th lvl of the skill and make it worth while to use instead of a waste. thats my 2 isk worth.
|
TriadSte
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:32:00 -
[152]
Its easy to tell you what Im crying about....
I do not make single planet robotics I do it on a larger scale..
To make 20k robotics weekly I need 12 million p0 per day
I have 3 chars extracting with 4 planets each, all on a 5 hourly cycle.
Each cycle brings me 1 million p0 per planet.
On TQ I can extract 1 million p0 per planet per cycle with ease on all 4 needed p0 items
On SiSi the extraction has been halved I am now only reaching 500,000.
Simple.
|
Shinna Bladesinger
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:54:00 -
[153]
thats called farming and is not supose to happen in eve. thanks for telling me this. and thats the main reason too that they are doing this too. is to cut down on the farmers.
|
Cergorach
Amarr The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:58:00 -
[154]
Originally by: TriadSte Its easy to tell you what Im crying about....
I do not make single planet robotics I do it on a larger scale..
To make 20k robotics weekly I need 12 million p0 per day
I have 3 chars extracting with 4 planets each, all on a 5 hourly cycle.
Each cycle brings me 1 million p0 per planet.
On TQ I can extract 1 million p0 per planet per cycle with ease on all 4 needed p0 items
On SiSi the extraction has been halved I am now only reaching 500,000.
Simple.
Not so simple it seems, as your not able to actually answer any basic questions.
1.) Are you extracting on the same planets on Tranquility as on Singularity?
2.) When you scan on both servers, are you mining at the same density (same color code at the same scan settings)?
3.) What is your actual setup on the planet? Number of extractors vs. Extractor heads for example.
Try fiddling with the length of the extraction process, some shorter/longer settings got me significantly higher yields.
|
Cergorach
Amarr The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 16:01:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Shinna Bladesinger thats called farming and is not supose to happen in eve. thanks for telling me this. and thats the main reason too that they are doing this too. is to cut down on the farmers.
BS! CCP is making it's money from what you call 'farmers' the folks that have multiple accounts to do production, resource gathering, research, etc. The actual amount of individuals playing EVE is far lower then the active subscriptions.
Also, if there were no folks 'farming' you wouldn't be able to afford your Internet spaceships. Imagine the supply only being 10% of what it is now while demand staying about the same.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 16:10:00 -
[156]
Edited by: Darod Zyree on 14/01/2011 16:10:06
Originally by: Cergorach
Originally by: Shinna Bladesinger thats called farming and is not supose to happen in eve. thanks for telling me this. and thatÆs the main reason too that they are doing this too. is to cut down on the farmers.
BS! CCP is making it's money from what you call 'farmers' the folks that have multiple accounts to do production, resource gathering, research, etc. The actual amount of individuals playing EVE is far lower then the active subscriptions.
Also, if there were no folks 'farming' you wouldn't be able to afford your Internet spaceships. Imagine the supply only being 10% of what it is now while demand staying about the same.
Don't feed a troll lol.
Having multiple characters, be it on one account or several accounts, all doing PI is not a bad thing.
instead of 3 actual persons doing PI you have one person with 3 characters, no real big difference.
At t20/PI dev team, why have you forsaken us? Please provide feedback on our feedback
-Darod- |
TriadSte
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 16:13:00 -
[157]
I take great offense in being called a farmer.
I do not farm PI at all I do it on a larger scale than some but not as large as others.
I choose to make PI my main income.
I protect a POS and WH to keep this going and is not an easy task.
|
Kaori Mushuri
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 16:26:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Shinna Bladesinger
alright. i don't know what your all crying about. and heres mine. mind you i took the time to get lvl 5 in CCU skill.
system: sacren sec:0.5 planet:plasma production: p3 robotics ecu's: 4 heads: 4 basic industry: 4 advanced industry: 3 recourses draw: units/hour base: 4149/hour heavy: 2673/hour noble: 1368/hour non-cs: 2345/hour
and this is strait off the test server with 1 ecu and head per resource. if i was in w-space or a lower sec place it would be higher. but as it stands, you can perma-run any p3 pos fuel item you need too. as such,you need less extractors to get the same amount, even though you have to have that skill at lvl 5 to do so. i think that they are trying to encoruage other poeple to get that 5th lvl of the skill and make it worth while to use instead of a waste. thats my 2 isk worth.
Your setup is just flawed ... You are using 4 ecu + 4 heads who is 12600 powergrid for an average of 2600 P0 material per HOUR, not even enought to run a full basic processor cycle !!!!!!!
With the non patched PI, 12600 powergrid means 15,75 extractors without any link, and more porbably something like 10 extractors with some good links between them ... I let you guess how many P0 material you could extract per hour with an average of two extractors (i'd say 50% more who in this setup mean 50% more production).
The best of the best in your example, is that you could actually run this kind of setups before with command center at 3, but now you need to have invested skillpoints up to level 5 to reach such an amazing output !
|
StoneRhino
Ramm's RDI Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 17:23:00 -
[159]
Edited by: StoneRhino on 14/01/2011 17:25:27 With a basic, I was always out of cpu. With a standard, I was struggling with both. Improved got better, but still out of cpu. Advanced, not enough power. Elite, you guessed it, power. Hell, Im using only 20% of the cpu of the command centers.
I'm already struggling to assemble many of these components simultaniously on different planets.
You awe us with bling-bling and new stuff, all the while you are gun-butting us in the back of the head with some nerf.
|
Sverige Pahis
Caldari Random Selection. Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 18:12:00 -
[160]
My feedback CCP:
a.) keep the ability to upgrade command centre on planet - this is very good b.) keep the fact it takes less clicks to reset extractors - this too is good c.) please god don't make it so we have to move our extractors around constantly d.) please god don't make the extractors require more power
Just have the extractors the same as they are now, just have it so we can reset all extractors of the same type simultaneously on a planet.
|
|
Starfall Nation
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 19:03:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Sverige Pahis My feedback CCP:
a.) keep the ability to upgrade command centre on planet - this is very good b.) keep the fact it takes less clicks to reset extractors - this too is good c.) please god don't make it so we have to move our extractors around constantly d.) please god don't make the extractors require more power
Just have the extractors the same as they are now, just have it so we can reset all extractors of the same type simultaneously on a planet.
*bump*
the dev time spent changing the PI interface is a small fraction of the combined sum of all the player's time spent setting up their PI, please respect that, keep it simple, and (please god) don't reduce the flexibility of a installtion.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 20:30:00 -
[162]
I suggest scrap PI alltogether and implement something fun ?
|
BolsterBomb
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 21:54:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Rupicolous Edited by: Rupicolous on 30/12/2010 17:13:12
TBH, I invested lvl 5 PI skilling across the board on 9 characters and really got into the production side of it all.
Yes, it was a "clickfest" but that is what I feel seperated the casual user from the dedicated ISK generating producers.
I got used to the clicking and would spend about 1 hour between the chars, 3-4 times a day, for 5 hr cycle resets.
If I wasn't into it or needed a break, the option to set em for the 23hr cycle was always there.
I believe the original PI was thought out well enough to remain viable and see little reason to change it as a whole.
The only players seeming to want widespread change are the ones not dedicated to it's potential, the ones looking for an easy out.
Ironically, the easy out has been there all along with the option for longer cycle times.
The only changes needed are the smaller adjustments: Larger customs hangers with corporate access
As much as I'd like to see the newer PI as an improvement ......... I don't, I really don't at all.
and many of us that have already spent countless hours and ISK (destroy / rebuild) setting up our productions chains are going to be very dissapointed with the new release.
THis ^^ I do not see any changes need to the current system as it is. It works well. I wholeheartly agree with him. PI has to involve some work. The longer cycles are there for the more casual player. I do not like any of these new changes.
|
Jolen Maddax
Maddax Mercantile
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 22:11:00 -
[164]
Hi, all.
Not sure how close to the final numbers my experience will be, but last night I installed the test client to see how my single-planet P2 production setups would hold up.
After some rethinking and a bit of time getting used to the new extraction system, I was able to match my current TQ production levels and came out with roughly the same grid used as is used now. They appear to have, at least in my case, matched and balanced the overall production chain almost perfectly.
The first mistake I made was matching my TQ extractor count with Sisi extractor heads. They don't match, you need less heads in the new system. Once I realized this, I was off to the races.
My first attempts broke my link capacity and I ran out of grid. But with the far reach of the new ECU's, you can shorten those links significantly and this allowed me to claw back enough grid to make the minor link upgrades. You can also infinitely tune your total extraction amount, so I was able to get my numbers under link limits and still produce enough total raw materials (really, the only number that matters) to keep my chain buffered and upper production at 100%.
I came, honestly, expecting to be disappointed from what I'd read in this thread but left quite pleased and I'm looking forward to the patch if the numbers I saw last night are pushed into production.
It requires more thinking now, it's definitely less daily clicks and the whole thing seems more intelligent.
If I had any suggestions from what I saw, it would be to have a direct entry box for the number of hours/days you want to run for. I found they crammed a lot of time in that tiny slider and it was mildly annoying finding my preset (23h; I wanted to match my current production exactly).
|
TriadSte
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 22:17:00 -
[165]
Id also love to match my production but i fear it is impossible.
I cannot get 19 extractors and 2 launchpads and 2 ECUs per planet.
I no longer can extract 1 million p0 with a 5 hour cycle.
CCP has now forced me to lower my production numbers.
Thanks
|
Shinna Bladesinger
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 02:09:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Kaori Mushuri
Originally by: Shinna Bladesinger
alright. i don't know what your all crying about. and heres mine. mind you i took the time to get lvl 5 in CCU skill.
system: sacren sec:0.5 planet:plasma production: p3 robotics ecu's: 4 heads: 4 basic industry: 4 advanced industry: 3 recourses draw: units/hour base: 4149/hour heavy: 2673/hour noble: 1368/hour non-cs: 2345/hour
and this is strait off the test server with 1 ecu and head per resource. if i was in w-space or a lower sec place it would be higher. but as it stands, you can perma-run any p3 pos fuel item you need too. as such,you need less extractors to get the same amount, even though you have to have that skill at lvl 5 to do so. i think that they are trying to encoruage other poeple to get that 5th lvl of the skill and make it worth while to use instead of a waste. thats my 2 isk worth.
Your setup is just flawed ... You are using 4 ecu + 4 heads who is 12600 powergrid for an average of 2600 P0 material per HOUR, not even enought to run a full basic processor cycle !!!!!!!
With the non patched PI, 12600 powergrid means 15,75 extractors without any link, and more porbably something like 10 extractors with some good links between them ... I let you guess how many P0 material you could extract per hour with an average of two extractors (i'd say 50% more who in this setup mean 50% more production).
The best of the best in your example, is that you could actually run this kind of setups before with command center at 3, but now you need to have invested skillpoints up to level 5 to reach such an amazing output !
Well, since i am able and the factories are still running on sisi, i am able to run it full time. its not my fault that im extracting more with lower skills then most. the only skills i have is CCU at lvl 5.all the rest are at 2 and 2 and 3. going down the list in that order.
|
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 02:29:00 -
[167]
Originally by: mechtech
They did lower powergrid use so that you can do start to finish P3 production (at least on some P3) in response to feedback.
They probably don't want to lower PG use any more in order to create some interdependence. The other feedback I'm seeing is a general dislike for the new design of the system, and it's obviously too late to do anything about that. They probably don't want to rile anyone up, that's why I think we don't have a response.
If they lowered PG requirements over the last few weeks, it's such a small decrease it doesn't change the fact that I'll have to entirely redo most or all of my planets.
And I loved somebody else's idea, of giving us the equivalent of a Reactor Control Unit for our colonies. If we had something like that (so we could put to use all of that wasted CPU capacity on our planets) it would help alleviate some of the problem.
But I know that's just a pipe dream. 99% of what we were promised for PI was never delivered. With only days until Incarna 1.1 and no Devs commenting for weeks now on PI, any hope I had I had for an improved system has been completely shattered.
With how I feel now, I'd almost prefer if the entirety of PI was removed and taken back to the drawing board, and just let the NPC's resupply us with our POS fuels until such a time that we can get a new PI system that resembles what was originally promised - even if it takes a couple of years.
|
Heimer
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 12:54:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Heimer on 15/01/2011 12:55:09 There was a dev blog about this round of PI changes. In that dev blog, there was a link to the CSM input about PI containing many (many tens of) points. How many of those points are being given to the players? Very few. [and now i'll go look for the links because I'd feel guilty not making it easy to find.... done.]
So, slap together some changes, ignore most of the CSM input, and as crappy as the systems looks to be.... at least if the dev communication on this thread was maintained, we could fool ourselves into believing PI was really being improved.
Instead, weeks have passed with no response.
Excellence? HA!
( ) <- planet (not to scale) áááááá --EhonVonnre |
Gold Monkey
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 14:27:00 -
[169]
I just logged on SISI to check out the new PI. All I needed to do was decommission the old extractors and put down 2 new heads then 2 extractor pins each side of the heads. I didnt run out of resources or anything. From running 8 extractors to now running 4 im actually producing more than I was. All that I needed to change was the link from the extractor to my storage pin needed upgrading as I was producing more. I never needed to do this before with the current PI on TQ.
|
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 18:44:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Gold Monkey I just logged on SISI to check out the new PI. All I needed to do was decommission the old extractors and put down 2 new heads then 2 extractor pins each side of the heads. I didnt run out of resources or anything. From running 8 extractors to now running 4 im actually producing more than I was. All that I needed to change was the link from the extractor to my storage pin needed upgrading as I was producing more. I never needed to do this before with the current PI on TQ.
Interesting observations Gold Monkey. I'll have to compare my PI numbers a little closer on my planets to see if they've changed some numbers I'm not aware of.
However, as of last night anyway, at least two of my planets will have serious issues since they demand 3 different resource types, and with the current Power Grid requirements of the ECU's, it'll be almost impossible to deploy the 3rd ECU and still keep all of the manufacturing on that planet.
|
|
Mistress Agneta
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 19:56:00 -
[171]
Just tried out the new PI system on my WH Planets.
With the old system, I ran 3 Advanced Factories (Coolant) resource-stable on a 23h-cycle. I used 3 Launchpads - 1 for the Mechparts, and 1 as a buffer for each resource extractor cluster. Using the new system, I'd need to place 3 Heads per ECU, but the PG only allows for 2.
So in the end, I'll have to upgrade from L4-CCs to L5s to maintain the same productivity.
Wish I could keep my clickfest-setup ... the few benefits it brings are no match for the disadvantages (might as well say nerfs) involved.
|
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 20:58:00 -
[172]
Edited by: Lirinas on 15/01/2011 21:00:49 I just did some new SiSi <> TQ comparisons, and my original comparisons from nearly a month ago sadly still hold true. There is a drastic loss in material output as compared to the old system. In some configurations, I'm seeing as much as a 50% loss in production, and a best-case scenario shows about a 25% to 33% loss. I've only done a little comparison of the 4+ day cycles, and they don't seem much better. In fact, the "new" extractors are so brutally punishing and inefficient for long-duration cycles, I can't see any practical reason to run them.
It all goes back to the simple fact that the current ECU's+Heads use way too much power. On a given planet, I'm lucky if I can drop half the number of extractors I had previously, and forget about trying to extract three resources at a time and still do any serious production on a planet. Even upgrading to Elite CC's, I'm going to have to completely redo all of my setups.
As much as I hate the clicky-clickfest of the current TQ extractors, I think I actually prefer it to what we have on SiSi. I rather like the mechanics of the new extractors, but they're so poorly tuned it's depressing.
|
Arosth Katsbalger
DISSPACHERS
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 21:45:00 -
[173]
It is unfortunate but they are prob going to leave it as it is now. If they change it I will be surprised. It never ceases to amaze me that you, the few in in this thread, are trying to tell the makers that this PG change is not acceptable. We like the UI leave that don't change the PG CPU reqs. This is how we want it. If there are those out there that do want to change this stuff then they need to be in here giving a valid explanation as to why it is necessary. But alas, they aren't in here telling us this but we are here telling you the makers what we want and it seems to be falling on deaf ears. I guess I should not be surprised, it has been happening this way for the 7 years I have been playing. I guess the nanny ideology is what holds true. The makers know what is best for us.....
|
Mia Aires
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 22:24:00 -
[174]
Edited by: Mia Aires on 15/01/2011 22:34:43
Originally by: Arosth Katsbalger It is unfortunate but they are prob going to leave it as it is now. If they change it I will be surprised. [...]
So true, unfortunately
Originally by: Starfall Nation
Originally by: Sverige Pahis My feedback CCP:
a.) keep the ability to upgrade command centre on planet - this is very good b.) keep the fact it takes less clicks to reset extractors - this too is good c.) please god don't make it so we have to move our extractors around constantly d.) please god don't make the extractors require more power
Just have the extractors the same as they are now, just have it so we can reset all extractors of the same type simultaneously on a planet.
*bump*
the dev time spent changing the PI interface is a small fraction of the combined sum of all the player's time spent setting up their PI, please respect that, keep it simple, and (please god) don't reduce the flexibility of a installtion.
+1
bye bye clickfest welcome haul- & slidefestÖ
I'd love to have a statement from CCP regarding their thoughts and intention to change PI this way.
|
electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 23:10:00 -
[175]
has anyone else seen the bug I mentioned back at post 67? A bug that somehow increased the amount of resources and made hotter hotspots? Hopefully ccp fixed that since then, but lack of response makes me think they have no idea.
Also, they're really resistant to changing the powergrid of the control units. They lowered the powergrid by 7.1% to 2600 mw and the heads a mere 0.3% to 550 mw. That's not nearly enough! I've seem them ignore player feedback entirely before, I don't want to see them do it here. ― Vexo M > He turned the drives up to 11 |
Steve Thomas
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 01:00:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 16/01/2011 01:06:18 Edited by: Steve Thomas on 16/01/2011 01:04:59
Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 13/01/2011 06:19:26
Originally by: Steve Thomas The Impression I got way back was that they realy did not expect us to do what we did with layouts. What we have now is actualy closer to what they originaly intended back then.
Having spent several days playing with the new PI, there's no doubt what we've been doing is gaming a system that too... limited? to keep us from doing it, or to even suggest that were not doing it right.
The new PI is a much better system, but there's gonna be a load of players that choke when they realize that business as usuall isn't going to work. I havn't been able to nail down what my my output is going to be on Sisi vs TQ, but trying to keep things running smoothly has been an interesting dance.
ok let me try to reexplain.
first off look at the screenshot here
http://www.eveonline.com/tyrannis/pi_screenshots.asp
the layouts they had originlay invisioned would have had a fraction of the extractor heads and processors on any given Characters single planet setup than you have currently due to factors like polution. Literaly if the original polution modle they were going to use had been made workable, then then average planets output would have been about half what it is currently.
The tight layouts that you see now, if they had made the original pultion modle work without it facking up the backend serverside, well frakly at the elete level the extractors would have been putting out 1-9 units per hour or less each.
No I am not kidding.
the current modle now works as intended with all three modifying factors fully in force and working as intended. you now have three modifyers (that you cant actualy see right now) Polution, Labor fluctiations, and Resource depetion and renewal) woking to modify whats going on with a given planet.
on top of all of this, with a working complex modle they are able to modify what goes on in the backgroun and at the same time reserve the ability to later add in features that let you modify thoes issues directly (entertainment centers, Resouce managment structures, toxic waste reprocessing, , and so on.
|
Mistress Agneta
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 01:39:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Steve Thomas
(...) ok let me try to reexplain.
first off look at the screenshot here
http://www.eveonline.com/tyrannis/pi_screenshots.asp
the layouts they had originlay invisioned would have had a fraction of the extractor heads and processors on any given Characters single planet setup than you have currently due to factors like polution. Literaly if the original polution modle they were going to use had been made workable, then then average planets output would have been about half what it is currently. (...)
You miss a crucial point - they released a system that, wether or not being what they "originally envisioned", worked. It had a few edges that could use some smoothing, but in the big picture, it was OK. What they did now is trying to smooth out one of the edges - which would be a good thing, normally. However, the flaw to it is that they didn't keep the balance they had in the 1st release. For most planet setups the new system resembles a nerf - plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it is closer to whatever they had in mind when they planned it. It has to be measured against what was released. You can't give the players a feature, and a few weeks later rework it in a way that ruins most running setups because you just realized you had somethinbg different in mind earlier, and expect the affected players to just accept it without being upset.
Looking at the new PI I doubt that the devs really ever bothered to use it - or at least use it in a way that would be logical and eve-ish, meaning maximizing profits. Seriously, what good is a 14-day-cycle if it barely yields anything ?! For one of my planets for example, the 1h-cycle is the only setting that can take on my current 23h-model. I have to tune down my production to mere crumbs to benefit at least a bit from the longer cycles - which makes them pretty much worthless.
Let me put it this way .. your way to work is 1h, and you have to switch trains twice. Would you consider it an improvement if you could just stay on the 1st train ? Yes, ofc. But if the ride would take 2h on that one, I bet my pants you'd wish your old train schedule back.
|
Watcher Femke
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 12:05:00 -
[178]
Actually I think the PI thing is in keeping with what I was watching yesterday, and also explains perhaps why devs are not interested in replying here. In the words of a slightly overweight bearded Dev, in a red T shirt speaking on a youtube interview, about the up coming Sanchas Incursions changes, "I like to **** off someones day."
Quite something from a game developer of Eve-Online who should be more interested in developing the game and encouraging people in, but instead, fulfilling what the devs are doing here in thread, "****ing off peoples day."
I don't pirate, or run in 00 although our Alliance is making advances to do that. I do mine and build and carry out PI. I am not a total carebear though either, as when we are war decced, I don't hide. I like to get out with the guys and try to take down the deccers so I do a little PVP. Not very good but I try and I have fun.
However I have always felt that the game always seems to want to allow griefing, especially of players that by their ships design cannot defend themselves, and even though the games own rules seem to state otherwise.
But if you have a dev being interviewed in a public forum about the new developments about to be released and he comes out with such comments it just confirms what I have always felt about Eve, that the ganking and griefing is not so much a player led mechanic but a Dev led one.
So if the devs care so little that they want to "**** peoples day off", why should we be suprised that they are doing just that in both the changes in PI and their attitude to ignoring all recent requests here in this thread.
|
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:43:00 -
[179]
Could ye post a link for that interview, you've got me rather interested in seeing that now.
And although I've suspected as much sometimes, it would go and explain a few things.
|
JAG Fox
GunStars
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 19:42:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Lirinas Could ye post a link for that interview, you've got me rather interested in seeing that now.
And although I've suspected as much sometimes, it would go and explain a few things.
I think s/he is referring to the dev interview with CCP Soundwave who was talking about the idea behind incursions being taken from an old mmo called "ultima online" in which players would go to cetain areas to do PvE, but Soundwave used to go to these places to do PvP, and basically **** PvErs off. Yah... bit of a stretch there to connect that to the PI changes....
|
|
Azvix
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 21:32:00 -
[181]
http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/article/169/ccp-soundwave-the-origin-of-incursions
Well, the fact that at least one of the devs is a griefer explains some of my doubts about game mechanics.
As for the PI - until the deployemt nothing is written in stone so I'll reserve my judgement. As of now the PI is only worthwhile if you do it on a big scale (as in: have at least three-five characters doing it) compared to missions/ratting, so if the patch breaks it any further there will be completely no reason for doing it, aside for POS fuel maybe.
|
Starfall Nation
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 02:23:00 -
[182]
I think this is the general mind of the forum, but i don't know if it has been explicitly stated:
1) Use the current PI system (basically, scrap the patch) 1) Keep the ability to upgrade centers, CCP def has that right 2) Add a button that says "Do what i did last time"
amirite?
I think that would make most of the people on this thread very happy from what i read (it would make me jump for friggin joy if i woke up to this).
Plus, it wouldn't mess with "the numbers" as the dev post in this thread has stated was a concern for CCP. (On that note, I still do not understand the underlying motivation for creating this new extractor system in the first place. ?)
In fact, doing this would not give ANY additional benefit or penalty, minus saving players time (and saving left mouse buttons around the world).
|
SiliconWolf
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 05:19:00 -
[183]
Edited by: SiliconWolf on 17/01/2011 05:27:58 Edited by: SiliconWolf on 17/01/2011 05:25:07 Considering the problem this thread has been experiencing for the last couple weeks, I'd like to add a feature to Eve: flame-mail to devs. It would have the following features to encourage dev participation: 1. We would have to pick a forum thread (like this one) 2. Once sent, the dev would recieve a link to the selected forum and a painful jolt of electricity.
Minor apologies to any dev who reads this, but HOW HARD IS IT TO TYPE US A QUICK NOTE!?!?
Starfall, I actually like the ECUs, but definitely want them fixed before having them added. I need my P3 colonies for my POS fuel. And yes, I'd be thrilled if your #2 was used!
|
Turzyx
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:18:00 -
[184]
Hi guys,
I haven't played on the test server yet, but I'm going to do it tonight. There seems to be equal parts of people hating it vs. people loving it; a lot of that can be people not willing to change their playstyle, I get that, or conversely people fanboi'ing up to CCP.
With that in mind, I'd like some thoughts on how my current set up would work...
I run 5 planets with Advanced CCs all with the following configuration:
8 extractors 6 BIFs 3 AIFs 2 Launchpads 1 CC (obviously!)
That's 20 installations per planet. With links that takes me pretty close to max grid on every planet.
Extraction rates I get are around 720k total P0 per day with two 5 hr cycles. I produce approximately 15 P2s per hour, per planet.
How is this going to change? Is it possible to still achieve the same level of production if I use the new system correctly?
Any tips would be appreciated.
Turzyx
|
Argonaught
Minmatar Cabbage Tea
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:54:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Argonaught on 17/01/2011 16:58:34 Edited by: Argonaught on 17/01/2011 16:57:00 To give all those unsure as to what CCP has done I give you my test setup as compared to what I have using old system.
Using same single planet as is on SISI and Main eve,
End product is Mechanical Parts a P2 product:
Old setup: 0.1 system low sec Barren planet
1 x Elite command centre
Base metals = 4 extractors Noble Metals = 4 extractors
Basic Processors x 4 turn Base metals into reactive metals Basic Processors x 4 turn noble metals into Precious metals
Advanced Processors x 4 turn base and Reactive metals into Mechanical Parts
launch Pads x 3, 2 LP's used as buffer storage units and 1 LP to hold end product
Total structures = 24
note: Links in old setup didn't need upgrading.
---------------------------------------------------
New setup: 0.1 system low sec Barren planet
1 x Elite command centre
Base metals = 1 ECU + 3 heads Noble Metals = 1 ECU + 3 heads
Basic Processors x 3 turn Base metals into reactive metals Basic Processors x 3 turn noble metals into Precious metals
Advanced Processors x 2 turn base and Reactive metals into Mechanical Parts
launch Pads x 1.
Total Structures = 12
Links in new setup need upgrading if using more than one head on an ECU
total Loss of 50% of my colony
-------------------------------------------------------
Extraction rates are a tad higher but in all honesty it is in no way anywhere near to what I was extracting before.
It's been nerfed, and the Devs fear to say it is so.
Graphically I really like the look and the less clicking is excellent but I'd rather do the clicks and have the same setup than loose half my colony.
Just my 2p on it
Argonaught
------------------------------------------------ Coming soom or never.sig |
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 17:21:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Darod Zyree on 17/01/2011 17:23:07 Edited by: Darod Zyree on 17/01/2011 17:22:58 1 day before launch, nothing is going to change this close to deployment. 2.4 mil SPs in planet management i may never use again
People just wanted ONE button to restart all extractors
-Darod- |
Ruairi Maguidhir
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:38:00 -
[187]
Originally by: BolsterBomb
Originally by: Rupicolous Edited by: Rupicolous on 30/12/2010 17:13:12
TBH, I invested lvl 5 PI skilling across the board on 9 characters and really got into the production side of it all.
Yes, it was a "clickfest" but that is what I feel seperated the casual user from the dedicated ISK generating producers.
I got used to the clicking and would spend about 1 hour between the chars, 3-4 times a day, for 5 hr cycle resets.
If I wasn't into it or needed a break, the option to set em for the 23hr cycle was always there.
I believe the original PI was thought out well enough to remain viable and see little reason to change it as a whole.
The only players seeming to want widespread change are the ones not dedicated to it's potential, the ones looking for an easy out.
Ironically, the easy out has been there all along with the option for longer cycle times.
The only changes needed are the smaller adjustments: Larger customs hangers with corporate access
As much as I'd like to see the newer PI as an improvement ......... I don't, I really don't at all.
and many of us that have already spent countless hours and ISK (destroy / rebuild) setting up our productions chains are going to be very dissapointed with the new release.
THis ^^ I do not see any changes need to the current system as it is. It works well. I wholeheartly agree with him. PI has to involve some work. The longer cycles are there for the more casual player. I do not like any of these new changes.
I couldn't agree more. In addition, I agree with a previous poster that said that pandering to the casual (i.e. lazy and uncommitted) player ruins every MMO eventually
|
Dirk Smacker
United Space Marine Corp
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 22:15:00 -
[188]
I have tried the new system on multiple occasions and I have one MAJOR issue with it:
It isn't nearly user-friendly enough to be getting the nonchalant treatment by CCP. We are talking about something that will impact supply chains players depend on, as well as to make the new cap parts from the CONCORD LP store.
In my opinion, this is a major deal. With no dev blog detailing the changes, we may be seeing serious shortages when there needed have been any.
It's one thing when Tyrannis came out and you had to try out PI first before you decided whether or not you would invest serious time and energy into it while learning the ins and outs. It's a whole other thing if you made the decision to do just that and not have the change instructions well in advance.
I don't like it.
Don't get me wrong, I've long accepted the fact that those of us doing 3-4 cycles a day would be getting our output cut a bit and I'm fine with it. The changes seem like a nice step forward, but it is the day before this goes live and it severely lacked the love it needed.
Am I wrong here?
|
Kaori Mushuri
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 00:33:00 -
[189]
I invested some PI training on 6 characters, i used to restart my extractors 3 times a day for a good production in 0.0 and in addition of this i had 1 more hour per day to transfert all the suff from planets to planets. This setup used to give me incomes that prevented me from having to farm stupid anomalies like a zombi. All my test for now gives me a minimum of 30 % loss of incomes and when i take in account the "rarity" of the ressources when 3-4 cycles have finished (more you extract, less there is ...) i'm nearly at -50% income.
I can't understand why such a change from ccp, the average income of the PI was not ( for me ) higher than what people can get with 2 characters that are farming anomalies / mining or even trading for 2 hours in a day, so why nerfing the income of the PI to make it one of the less attractive activity in the game ?
|
mechtech
SRS Industries SRS.
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 00:51:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Kaori Mushuri
This setup used to give me incomes that prevented me from having to farm stupid anomalies like a zombi. All my test for now gives me a minimum of 30 % loss of incomes and when i take in account the "rarity" of the ressources when 3-4 cycles have finished (more you extract, less there is ...) i'm nearly at -50% income.
CCP is not going to change extraction rates. 90% of this 7 page thread is complaining about extraction rate, it would have been changed if it was open for discussion.
POS products, and POSs themselves, have almost dropped to 1/2 of their NPC price to produce. POS fuel is the problem (particularly the fact that robotics is a hard P3 to produce), not extraction rates as a whole.
Also, realize that a 30% lower extraction rate isn't 30% lower income. Prices will compensate, and probably settle slightly higher overall because the overall demand for people doing PI will now be greater.
Between the extraction rate reduction and cap ship modules using P4, it's obvious CCP wants to boost PI prices and consumption. We should be giving feedback on particular issues, annoyances, and bugs, not just the extraction rates.
|
|
Donn Quixote
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 02:08:00 -
[191]
From what I've seen, it appears that the ECU powergrid use isn't the only major issue.
1. On TQ, I can run the extractors on a 1 day cycle constantly and not suffer any resource depletion. On Sisi with the same planet and location, I set a 1 day extraction with less extractors that are also more spread out and canceled it after about 12 hours and the resource was showing up as depleted (adv. planetology 4). Now, 2 days later and the resources are still depleted. At this rate, after 2 days of PI, I will extract all the resources within range of my ECU. Then I need to decommission my ECU and setup a new one. Unfortunately, I'm setup on some gas giants and therefore need to decommission all my structures, build new ones, build new links and setup all the routes all over again. This is way more time consuming and frustrating than the current PI.
2. Logarithmic extracting sucks. You have to figure out how many factories to build based on your total mining over the program cycle, which is then skewed if you cancel a program early. Otherwise, you're not going to have enough factories to deal with all the resources or you'll have idle factories wasting powergrid.
3. We're forced to upgrade links because of the peak production from the ECU. For the most part these links won't even be used to their maximum...more wasted powergrid.
Why isn't the ECU sophisticated enough to idle for cycles when it has mined enough resources for a cycle? These things should be able to average out the minerals they send over a link during the time a given program runs. These are the days of spaceships and here we have a control unit that doesn't even know what a sleep command is?
|
Dr Moxy
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 03:24:00 -
[192]
I am really not looking forward to the issues tonight. Simple questions in this thread have been IGNORED by CCP. Honestly guys I try to throw you a bone and always support the great things that you do. But ignoring the player feedback on your major change in a patch?! wtf!
/me waits to join the great PI ragequit |
Mortisha Drake
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 05:03:00 -
[193]
I for one have already spent a Billion on buying up PI POS fuel products in anticipation of the prices spiking when this goes live
|
Rupicolous
Higher Ground
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 02:12:00 -
[194]
The patch is out and PI suks ......... no other way to describe it really.
When before you had nice looking and efficient geometric layouts - now the extractor heads overlap everything making a visual puddle of mud.
Wish I could get reimbursed for my processors and command units so I could move them without paying a second time.
Sure I can work around them but why should I have to after using them where they are for over 3 months already.
Now I scan planets with the same lvl 5 skills and see that better hot spots are over there now, oh no problem huh I just need to put the extractor comtrol units over there or somewhere inbetween ......... looks and feels like $h1t !!!
PI suks and you know it ......... should've just added a button for restart all units and made the recource scan relate to skills.
Instead you thought you'd reinvent the wheel with what ? ......... half of a square and half of a triangle - good job.
'waiting for the next PI patch, hopefully soon as your new idea suks a$$
|
Mikal Bishop
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 04:18:00 -
[195]
I agree this is a cluster you know what. Why make things complicated for the sake of being complicated. I most ****ed off about the lack of precision AP5 gives me. You take the time to scan down the damn gradients and what happens you end doing the stupid extractor crawl to figure out that it doesn't make one god damn difference where outside the center of the hot spot you are. I moved my extractor head from highest to lowest and watched my yields go up and down and end with a yield just as high in the lowest band. You have all sorts of number and charts and none of it makes this any easier. I would rather have the click fest back then this fiasco. And I am not sure that this isn't going to be a click fest when the cycles run out and you have to reposition your heads. If the intention was to send the price of POS fuels through the roof consider the job well done. But I guess we shouldn't expect any better since no Devs have bothered to respond for the last several pages.
|
Zircalla
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 19:01:00 -
[196]
I like the new PI so far...no idea if it will make me more money or not, but it is more fun to play with and I suspect prices will go up somewhat. P3 on a single planet is hell to make in volume now...so be it.
|
Arosth Katsbalger
DISSPACHERS
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 01:52:00 -
[197]
Is it just me or has lag increased and fps dropped after placing extractor heads?
|
ArtemisAgrotera
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 08:08:00 -
[198]
test
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 10:54:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree
Originally by: Darod Zyree TUX, any word(s) from the team working on PI, on the issues/concerns people have mentioned here?
Don't leave us in the dark man :(
Originally by: Venix Also, no Dev Replies since Dec 23rd.... are we just stuck with this now?
COME ON
-Darod- |
Umbriele
Gallente Etoilles Mortant Ltd. Solyaris Chtonium
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 12:59:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Arosth Katsbalger Is it just me or has lag increased and fps dropped after placing extractor heads?
Yes it lags compared to the past.
|
|
Shirow Masamune
Gallente Red is Dead Mech Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 13:06:00 -
[201]
"Of course ECUs are different than extractors so some changes were inevitable and network that used to work might not have the powergrid or cpu anymore." CCP Tuxford
Will CCP be offering a refund for Skill Points spent on Planetary Interaction now that they have screwed with everyones lives?
The purpose of life is to end ... learn, prepare, accept this inevitability.
All things end. |
Mistress Agneta
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 19:48:00 -
[202]
I have monitored the resource depletion and redistribution of hotspots for the past few days now. So far, to maintain a constant production flow, I will have to scrap and rebuild my ECU every 2 days - in some cases the distance will bring me into PG trouble from the link-length alone. It's also a lot more tedious adjusting work to be done.
While PI earned me quite a stack of ISK in the past, I can't really stand the annoyance of the new system. Too unpredictable, way too much micromanagement. Back to earning my ISK the old fashioned way I guess.
Rest in PIce, PI
|
Beastofburden
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 19:55:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Mistress Agneta
Rest in PIce, PI
Amen.
|
Darod Zyree
Gallente Zyree Holding
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:28:00 -
[204]
Anyone else having this problem?
Some times (after 6 hours) when i check my ECU i find out it hasnt been routing any extracted stuff to my launchpad. The route had disappeared... Worked fine the cycles before.
Had this problem on multiple characters and different planets :(
-Darod- |
TamiyaCowboy
Caldari KRAKEN FLEET
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 18:17:00 -
[205]
Edited by: TamiyaCowboy on 26/01/2011 18:19:08 Mr Tuxford.
as devs will not answer question in the science section i will bring it to you !!.
old PI
noble metals to presious metals i used to get about 1800 units over 5-10hrs
new PI
noble metals to presious metals, i now get about 300 units in 5-10hrs
it is broken, we have been asking in science section and no dev replys.
i would rather go back to my click fest, i knew what i was getting back then, 1 new mouse a year and a PI system tat worked abit with many clicks.
yes the new gfx looks nice, the ecu are borked, infact PI is borked.
i sent a petition about problem. i cannot post logs but basicly the answer was meh who cares.
so where do we stand now, i am a lone account 1 pilot with 5 planets and you cut my mineral extraction by nearly 100% +. give me back the click fest i purchased some spare micro switches for mah mouse.
oh and it would be nice if your dev's read the science section and explain in full the changes and why and what thought went into it
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |