Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 13:12:00 -
[91] - Quote
Qoi wrote:The Decryptors who previously gave a + X TE bonus now give a "+ X % Time Efficiency" bonus, so with decryptors you can now also have odd numbers for the TE stat? (With researching you can only get even numbers)
Is this a bug?
Not a bug. |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
563
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 13:40:00 -
[92] - Quote
Atlanti IV wrote:I keep getting this facility error when attempting to do an invention job at a Design Laboratory Facility Error
Interesting that the Outcome/put icon is the BPO icon, not the BPC icon.
|
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
36
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 13:44:00 -
[93] - Quote
I have encountered the same issue for 200mm autocannons and 10 MN afterburners. I believe on the ui thread that someone posted that 150mm autocannons had the same issue. |
DoToo Foo
Weaponised FuGu
23
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 13:59:00 -
[94] - Quote
Incorrect? Misleading? 'inventory location'
I am researching a blueprint that starts it's life off in Div 2, but on the jobs screen it shows up with an inventory location of the name of div 1.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/drrpahctlp0g98v/IncorrectInventoryLocation.png
Very fast job incorrectly claims it has no time.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6yqheilkm2f85d5/NoTimeJob.png The antimatter Charge S blueprints show 00:00:00:00 time for it's duration, even though the job run 3 job takes several minutes they to research.
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
234
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 14:14:00 -
[95] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:yes cos that makes sense
What do you mean?
I read the thread here and got concerned about decryptors because they didn't mention them in the devblogs and it seemed that the folks here didn't consider them.
So just to be thorough I asked about them. Better safe than sorry. signature |
Vesan Terakol
Sad Face Enterprises
72
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 14:19:00 -
[96] - Quote
An issue i have with the research window is the output section - all this space for just E.G. 7% ? Why not give the actual numbers of resources that are altered in the process? I mean, the data is available in the game, why not show it? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4259327 - more suff in the Zero.Zero collection |
Careby
Careby Exploration Create Alliance
176
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 16:52:00 -
[97] - Quote
A minor quibble about the layout of the invention UI.
Depending on what's being invented, sometimes the interface is at the top, and the decryptors are at the bottom. Other times vice versa. It threw me for a bit because I couldn't figure out why I couldn't select the decryptor, until I realized I was trying to change the interface.
Sarcasm is OP |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
708
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 17:04:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:I'll ask this here again since it's primarily a research issue and maybe a UI thing.
Why is a reduction of something indicated with a plus sign and an increase of something indicated with a minus sign? Surely it should be the other way around? I'm trying to come up with a logical train of thought to end up at the current system but I'm having a really really hard time. Which bits specifically are you referring to here? Basically the indicators that show level of research on a blueprint. But specifically the way they are displayed in the industry window. http://imgur.com/DzOvJyPThe two research indicators to the right of the blueprint. The first one indicates a reduction in production time. But this reduction is shown to be +20%. How does +20% become something positive? Same thing for the material efficiency. The way anyone random player would read this is that it ADDS to the production time and materials instead of reduces. It's very confusing. From the related dev blog: Quote:Blueprint research will then be moved to a ten-step system. Each step of ME research will reduce material requirements on that blueprint by 1%, and each step of TE research will reduce manufacturing time on that blueprint by 2%. These values will be displayed as their actual percentages, rather than their step numbers, so a blueprint that has been researched six times in each will show as ME 6% and TE 12%. So a blueprint researched to level 10 has a 10% reduction in material. Why is this reduction not simply shown as a blue -10% in the industry window, and a red +4% in the case of T2 BPC's? Also I agree with a comment made a few posts back, switch around the TE and ME indicators so that ME is on top. It's the most important value out of the two. Passed this on to UI people, thanks for the input :)
I think he has a good point. The Teams have negative sign modifiers to show reductions in materials and time required. At the very least, they should match each other. And I think a negative sign to show a reduction is more intuitive. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Thenin
Rough Chillbar Autopilot-Engaged
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 17:55:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:Does that mean that, exempting decryptor effects, it is no longer possible to get multi-run T2 BPCs from invention? Currently (Kronos) max-run T1 module BPCs yield 10-run T2 BPCs. If invention only yields 1-run T2 BPCs then there will be *many* more invention jobs in Crius. Am I misunderstanding something?
MDD All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)
Tried to invent some cap recharger II today. I used the old max run copies, they have 300 runs but max runs is only 100... After the Invention there are only 1 run T2 bpcs coming out. is that intended or a bug with old BPCs? |
Qoi
Exert Force
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 18:11:00 -
[100] - Quote
I can't invent Hobgoblin Blueprints in a Design Lab (FACILITY_ACTIVITY error)
When i invent Antimatter Charge S -> Null S, I get out a single run T2 BPC, I was expecting a 10 run copy. |
|
Chic Botany
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
85
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 19:38:00 -
[101] - Quote
ok, after a quick play tonight.
All station research from my personal hangar.
I tried copy Optimal Range Disruptor Script BPO 1 copy 2 runs per copy, although on the window it doesn't show any progress in status, just 00:00:00:00 even though there were 6 minutes to run. When I click on the job in the main window where it says Time Left it shows 00:00:00:00
Tried to copy a Capital Cargo Bay BPO Unable to install job due to the following reasons: Insuficcient funds to pay job cost
Error. ACCOUNT_FUNDS (0.0, 410)
Job should cost 410 isk to run, I've got 147mil in wallet
I've just noticed after a bit more digging, the Optimal range disruptor script copy job didn't cost me anything, not a single isk
It looks like any job I have to pay for, it doesn't think I've got enough isk. |
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 19:51:00 -
[102] - Quote
Personal jobs doesn't seem to work atm., or at least cannot be started. Corporation jobs at least can be now started, but there are few bugs with the timer staying on 00:00:00:00. |
peroxide chase
Mayer Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 19:59:00 -
[103] - Quote
T2 BPO's are still really strange.
IE my ishtar bp now has tons of mineral requirements that never existed on TQ, as well as all other material requirements are roughly 35% higher than TQ currently is. Berserker II BP also showing new additional minerals along with 425mm rail II bp. Ammo BP's dont seem to show new mineral requirements but all t2 BP's are showing a 35% mineral/component increase across the board(drone, ship, module, ammo), This is down from the 50% they were showing on 6/10.
SS from 6/10 SS from 6/12
Copying of T2 cruiser hulls is still limited to 1 run per copy with modules & drones being limited to 10 runs per copy, is this intended ? being limited to making 1 run copies is a big enough nerf to stop people from copying them, however the Copy time is above current TQ production time as well. |
Calara
Skilled Refugees Carthaginian Naval Supply Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 20:55:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:Does that mean that, exempting decryptor effects, it is no longer possible to get multi-run T2 BPCs from invention? Currently (Kronos) max-run T1 module BPCs yield 10-run T2 BPCs. If invention only yields 1-run T2 BPCs then there will be *many* more invention jobs in Crius. Am I misunderstanding something?
MDD All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)
This doesn't seem to be working right now. I was able to run an invention job for a Nanofiber Internal Structure, but the NIS 2 BPC that was produced has 1 run out of a max of 10.
Is that a bug, or has the max-run T2 blueprints from invention been changed?
Paying more attention to the invention job creation process, I see that the T2 NIS BPC pictured to the right says "RUNS: 1" under it. I can't find any way to change that value. |
Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
89
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 21:07:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:Does that mean that, exempting decryptor effects, it is no longer possible to get multi-run T2 BPCs from invention? Currently (Kronos) max-run T1 module BPCs yield 10-run T2 BPCs. If invention only yields 1-run T2 BPCs then there will be *many* more invention jobs in Crius. Am I misunderstanding something?
MDD All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)
Do you mean this as in T2 BPO info for max runs or the current max outputs (10% of T2 BPO's). Eg, would an Anshar BPC be 10 runs? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 23:24:00 -
[106] - Quote
Kenneth Skybound wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:Does that mean that, exempting decryptor effects, it is no longer possible to get multi-run T2 BPCs from invention? Currently (Kronos) max-run T1 module BPCs yield 10-run T2 BPCs. If invention only yields 1-run T2 BPCs then there will be *many* more invention jobs in Crius. Am I misunderstanding something?
MDD All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :) Do you mean this as in T2 BPO info for max runs or the current max outputs (10% of T2 BPO's). Eg, would an Anshar BPC be 10 runs?
We are still looking at this but I can confirm the output runs on invented blueprints is not correct. Will get this fixed next week. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
76
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 23:57:00 -
[107] - Quote
EMT Holding wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:EMT Holding wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: -- Invention now removes one run from the input copy -- Some special-casing and fuzzing has been done in certain places to make numbers more interesting
For your first point, can I assume that to get a 1 run T2 ship BPC, I now need to use a T1 BPC with 2 runs? Or to get a 9 run T2 BPC, I use a 10 run T1 BPC? If so, what are decryptors for? Is there any point in them? - No, invention literally just removes exactly one run from the copy during the invention job. All invention jobs now need one run. This is happening as we want to normalize copy time at 80% of build time; we've adjusted invention and build times so that end-to-end copy-invent-build times remain roughly constant. 1. If that works how I'm thinking it does, that sounds good. So if I invent off a 10 run T1 BPC, when the invention finishes, I get the T1 BPC back but with 9 runs? That sounds like an excellent midstep towards being able to do batched invention or an invention job for more than 1 run :D 2. Also good. I can understand the need to slightly bend material requirements for smaller/larger things. So, without reading further....does this mean that if i want to continue inventing from the same copy (since you are apparently doing this to keep the overall time constant) that i'll just end up with (on modules) inventing from the 299 run copy which would yield a 9 run T2 bpc? Why would i continue to do this as now that invention has extra costs based on the end product (which is also tacked on again when one builds said end product, per run)...why pay for an inferior invention job?
Am i understanding this correctly? Current TQ method requires a 300 run T1 copy to get a 10 run T2 BPC. (which gets destroyed in the process) How i understand what you are saying is that now we will have the option to continue to invent with diminishing returns on the already used copies? Unless the cost of invention is reduced, if i'm going to invent something, i'll do it with as many runs as i can. |
Greybuilt
Galt Innovations The Unknown Ideal
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 00:16:00 -
[108] - Quote
I must be doing something wrong: I'm trying to do TE research on a Charon BPO that's already at 16% and i'm being told it will take 102:23:46:53 and cost 9,814,311,019. That's 9 Billion ISK....
Is this by design, a mistake, do I need to go to POS or ?? |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
76
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 00:46:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Research time has some confirmed math kinks, looking into them.
Better error messages will ofc be forthcoming!
Quote:We are still looking at this but I can confirm the output runs on invented blueprints is not correct. Will get this fixed next week.
Sooo.....hows that inbeded QA working for you guys? Did nobody even think to attempt a research job before they called this thing ready? How does this stuff get past QA anyways?
|
Scarlett LaBlanc
Midnight Savran Industries
115
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 02:12:00 -
[110] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Research time has some confirmed math kinks, looking into them.
Better error messages will ofc be forthcoming! Quote:We are still looking at this but I can confirm the output runs on invented blueprints is not correct. Will get this fixed next week. Sooo.....hows that inbeded QA working for you guys? Did nobody even think to attempt a research job before they called this thing ready? How does this stuff get past QA anyways?
Hey dude, check the attitude. TEST SERVER!
No one said it was ready. If you don't want to play with the beta wait for it to go live on TQ. |
|
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
76
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 02:47:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: We are still looking at this but I can confirm the output runs on invented blueprints is not correct. Will get this fixed next week.
Forgive the bluntness...but this (after all the previous "Yeah that is broken, we'll look into it" replies) begs the question...
What of the research portion of this new mess IS correct? What is the point of putting something on the test server that hasn't even been partially tested by the teams involved. Research times are wrong, copy costs are wrong, invention stuffs are wrong..ect...
I understand it is a "test server"....but is that really supposed to mean that nothing has been tested at all prior to it being thrown onto SiSi? Because when this happens...we have to wait yet another week, in the already short time left, to find the actual bugs related to this massive change.
That is my point. In most workplaces these type of deployments would be worthy of disciplinary action. (maybe that is what part of the housecleaning was?)
And no, Beta testing CCP's products is not related to SiSi....TQ gets more than its fair share of fail deployments that are the beta versions of the concepts CCP is trying for. (really amazed and thankful they actually thought about deploying this two weeks ago) |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
719
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 09:24:00 -
[112] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: We are still looking at this but I can confirm the output runs on invented blueprints is not correct. Will get this fixed next week.
Forgive the bluntness...but this (after all the previous "Yeah that is broken, we'll look into it" replies) begs the question... What of the research portion of this new mess IS correct? What is the point of putting something on the test server that hasn't even been partially tested by the teams involved. Research times are wrong, copy costs are wrong, invention stuffs are wrong..ect... I understand it is a "test server"....but is that really supposed to mean that nothing has been tested at all prior to it being thrown onto SiSi? Because when this happens...we have to wait yet another week, in the already short time left, to find the actual bugs related to this massive change. That is my point. In most workplaces these type of deployments would be worthy of disciplinary action. (maybe that is what part of the housecleaning was?) And no, Beta testing CCP's products is not related to SiSi....TQ gets more than its fair share of fail deployments that are the beta versions of the concepts CCP is trying for. (really amazed and thankful they actually thought about deploying this two weeks ago)
We actually had most of the defects already reported internally but just hadn't got around to fixing them yet. Now we could have kept it all internal for another few weeks while we fix it up, but SiSi was made available after Kronos and the build was stable enough to safely deploy so we put it up to get some early impressions.
Feedback so far has been fantastic and we are rethinking some of our original assumptions. It is simply not worth waiting longer before getting this feedback IMO.
If this still doesn't agree with you however, then we'll just see you on TQ on the 22nd July CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
715
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 09:59:00 -
[113] - Quote
I actually think it's pretty worrying that you initially planned to release this, in its grand buggyness state, with Kronos. You know, almost 2 weeks ago. I mean, if not even the values of things are correct on SiSi NOW, how did you guys ever expect to get this working properly in time for Kronos? It kinda baffles my mind, really. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
DoToo Foo
Weaponised FuGu
23
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 10:08:00 -
[114] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:I actually think it's pretty worrying that you initially planned to release this, in its grand buggyness state, with Kronos. You know, almost 2 weeks ago. I mean, if not even the values of things are correct on SiSi NOW, how did you guys ever expect to get this working properly in time for Kronos? It kinda baffles my mind, really.
Parkinson's Law : Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
Keep these two laws in mind, then consider : How should as a project manager attempt to get anything released?
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
719
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 10:26:00 -
[115] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:I actually think it's pretty worrying that you initially planned to release this, in its grand buggyness state, with Kronos. You know, almost 2 weeks ago. I mean, if not even the values of things are correct on SiSi NOW, how did you guys ever expect to get this working properly in time for Kronos? It kinda baffles my mind, really.
We originally planned to release this with Kronos about 6 months ago. It wasn't ready so our plans changed.
The scope of this release makes it an almost impossible task to predict how long it will actually take with any accuracy, hence the recent change in release model which allows us to work on something and choose the release date when we are much closer to finishing. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Neo Hutt
3
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 11:06:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:I actually think it's pretty worrying that you initially planned to release this, in its grand buggyness state, with Kronos. You know, almost 2 weeks ago. I mean, if not even the values of things are correct on SiSi NOW, how did you guys ever expect to get this working properly in time for Kronos? It kinda baffles my mind, really. We originally planned to release this with Kronos about 6 months ago. It wasn't ready so our plans changed. The scope of this release makes it an almost impossible task to predict how long it will actually take with any accuracy, hence the recent change in release model which allows us to work on something and choose the release date when we are much closer to finishing. I have serious doubt that you guys will manage to pull out a working version until Crius is planed to be released. What we have on sisi now is not even a pre alpha release, there is almost nothing to test yet. |
Selaria Unbertable
POS Mortem Renegades Of Silence
37
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 13:03:00 -
[117] - Quote
Just finished some invention jobs, and I seem to have been quite unlucky, none of them was a success. I never liked the way invention results were presented in the old system, but no feedback at all whether an invention was successful or not is just as bad. So, a way to see the result of an invention would be good, either visually on the delivery button or the job window, even if it's just a "success"/"failure". |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
722
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 13:29:00 -
[118] - Quote
Selaria Unbertable wrote:Just finished some invention jobs, and I seem to have been quite unlucky, none of them was a success. I never liked the way invention results were presented in the old system, but no feedback at all whether an invention was successful or not is just as bad. So, a way to see the result of an invention would be good, either visually on the delivery button or the job window, even if it's just a "success"/"failure".
Yes we are about to add some indication of success / fail when you click deliver and will include that in the job history too. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Claymore
C C P C C P Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 13:31:00 -
[119] - Quote
Selaria Unbertable wrote:Just finished some invention jobs, and I seem to have been quite unlucky, none of them was a success. I never liked the way invention results were presented in the old system, but no feedback at all whether an invention was successful or not is just as bad. So, a way to see the result of an invention would be good, either visually on the delivery button or the job window, even if it's just a "success"/"failure".
Fear not, this is something we are working on at the moment. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2366
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 13:47:00 -
[120] - Quote
Regarding the state of the build: - This is the earliest something this large has been on SiSi in a very long time. As Nullabor said, SiSi was made available almost immediately after Kronos, and we wanted to start collecting public feedback as fast as possible - The code running on SiSi is our nightly development build. It's not a sanitized, polished setup, it's literally "what we did yesterday". Internal testing is happening in parallel to stuff being deployed onto SiSi - We are (I believe!) still comfortably confident that everything will be ready in time for the scheduled Crius release; a lot of things are broken right now but they are in general superficially broken and comparatively easy to fix. We don't have any big, risky features to implement or fixes to work on. - The proof will of course be in the pudding, but given the current situation we do not feel it is productive to spend time discussing whether or not we will be ready in five weeks in these threads, so we ask that you focus your feedback on the specifics of what features are working how on SiSi right now rather than expressing your professional judgements as to the likely state of our codebase in five weeks' time. Thanks :) |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |