Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:07:00 -
[151] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
a) Run a script to melt all fuel already added to towers. This will require a bare minimum of QA as it cannot cause towers to go offline, the worst that can happen is that they become overfilled for a few hours until the fuel burns off. This means that there is no manual correction needed by players in time or ISK b) Spend the remaining time you have before Jan 24th either sorting a final handover script, or pushing in an extra fuel-block-only bay to towers to cover the switch over. Voila, fixed with a minimal amount of player intervention. Can I have your job? That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare. An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above.
At least you have a reality grip on it if all POSes offline and dont imeadiatlely re-online with new fuel just keep EVE pilots offline till they are all up and running they're in your hands not ours.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
338
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:08:00 -
[152] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare. Is it worth me explaining how to add one number to another in an UPDATE statement, or does your SQL server only do INSERT and DELETE? CCP Greyscale wrote:An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above. Stront bays were added years after the original starbase code was written. Although it's not as though those bays need to do anything but exist before the end of January of course.
You're going from one stack of x items to 8 different stacks of items of size between x/40 and 10x.
WRT bays, I'm not saying additional bays are impossible in principle, I'm saying they're risky in practice, and we don't want more risk right now.
Skeith Oumis wrote:Here's some ideas.
1) If a pos is out of fuel but has a fuel block, burn the block and add the add the fuel. Cases to test: - Ensure enough room is in the tower to add the fuel - Ensure each block provides the right amount of fuel - Ensure the correct block is being burnt if multiple are present for some reason Implementation: You can write a simple function to do this that hooks into the code that checks a pos tower for fuel. Add it as a last case check before going into the pos offlining code. Should have basically no impact on the starbase code and be fairly reliable in practice as long as the tower isn't full of cubes.
2) Write a script to convert blocks to fuel Cases to test: - Handle towers that will overfull Considerations: - What to do with excess fuel. Can the EVE code handle overfull bays? If not, this can be jetcanned outside the pos. Implementation: Simple run-once script. This should be fairly easy to code on a core level, as you're just removing items and adding new ones. I saw you mentioned "things can go wrong" but I don't see how some towers could magically fail beyond overfilling (can it, dump it, I'm sure you can figure this out) and basic error logging will tell you if something breaks long before it actually does (add items, check bay, if there's less fuel than you added something probably went wrong!)
Neither of these are hard to write. The first one should just be a few lines of code, and the second is maybe a few hours plus a day or two of testing with sisi if you take your time. I understand you guys are busy and want to take vacation and all, but consider this is literally going to take days for some larger alliances; and we're not getting paid... quite the opposite really.
On the first, if the starbase code was that robust, reliable and extensible they wouldn't break so often.
On the second, "I don't see how it could go wrong" is how all the really big disasters happen. |
|
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:08:00 -
[153] - Quote
Skeith Oumis wrote:Here's some ideas.
1) If a pos is out of fuel but has a fuel block, burn the block and add the add the fuel. Cases to test: - Ensure enough room is in the tower to add the fuel - Ensure each block provides the right amount of fuel - Ensure the correct block is being burnt if multiple are present for some reason Implementation: You can write a simple function to do this that hooks into the code that checks a pos tower for fuel. Add it as a last case check before going into the pos offlining code. Should have basically no impact on the starbase code and be fairly reliable in practice as long as the tower isn't full of cubes.
2) Write a script to convert blocks to fuel Cases to test: - Handle towers that will overfull Considerations: - What to do with excess fuel. Can the EVE code handle overfull bays? If not, this can be jetcanned outside the pos. Implementation: Simple run-once script. This should be fairly easy to code on a core level, as you're just removing items and adding new ones. I saw you mentioned "things can go wrong" but I don't see how some towers could magically fail beyond overfilling (can it, dump it, I'm sure you can figure this out) and basic error logging will tell you if something breaks long before it actually does (add items, check bay, if there's less fuel than you added something probably went wrong!)
Neither of these are hard to write. The first one should just be a few lines of code, and the second is maybe a few hours plus a day or two of testing with sisi if you take your time. I understand you guys are busy and want to take vacation and all, but consider this is literally going to take days for some larger alliances; and we're not getting paid... quite the opposite really.
See how easy it can be? This seems to have come from some one who actually knows what they are talking about.
DOOOO EEEEEEEEET |
Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:09:00 -
[154] - Quote
There really is a disconnect here between the actions of CCP and their consequences for us. Just try for a minute the old back of the cig. packet calculation of the number of man.months of our real lives YOU have just wasted through failing to invest a few man.DAYS in getting this right or rushing in a technical fix.
If we were talking about some unnecessary pretty explosions we would shrug it off, but pos logistics is the aspect EVE ONLINE that makes a mid spectrum aspergers sufferer with a spreadsheet fixation snort in derision as being too extreme even for them.
This is a bad show and I'd like you to go reflect on exactly what you have done.
Think for a second about YOU logging in on an alt and handling the fallout for this even for a mid level POS holder with 75 POS.
The **** jokes are inappropriate and frankly irritating. Get a clue about your own game and your impact on it.
/ragelogsoff |
spooky turbonigger
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:10:00 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though. Update on this: I'd rate this at about a 50-50 chance of happening at this time, depending mainly on whether we run into any kinks. I pulled a bunch of people out of the christmas party and managed to get preliminary approval. Checking right now what happens if you over-fill a tower bay...
Hearing you pulled people out of a christmas party to DO THEIR JOBS made this thread worthwhile.
P.S; you still haven't said if I can have your job or not. |
Ivanova Denisovich
Hobbit Enterprises Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:11:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though. Update on this: I'd rate this at about a 50-50 chance of happening at this time, depending mainly on whether we run into any kinks. I pulled a bunch of people out of the christmas party and managed to get preliminary approval. Checking right now what happens if you over-fill a tower bay...
Excellent. Oops, let me post on my main not my market alt!
If it does prove problematic, perhaps you could do something like this -
On fuel cube patch day, leave the bays double size.
Tell everyone that on patch day+x days you will nuke both any non-fuel cube materials in the fuel bay and any fuel cubes over excess capacity.
Give people time to empty the bays, then do just that. (or, if it's simpler to implement codewise, offline the towers until they're no longer over capacity - could be as simple as if(volume_of_materials_in_bay > capacity_of_bay) offline() and do this check every downtime)
|
SmartBird
Fish Curtains
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:11:00 -
[157] - Quote
Crias Taylor wrote:spookydonut wrote:Solution: Remove the need for fuel until the changeover.
Can I have your job now CCP Greyscale? Bad idea, free production. Alliances like us could drop towers and react a ton of goo, produce a ton of ships, etc for free.-á
Ah didn't think of that.
Is there anyway CCP can fix players who have followed the route to fuel blocks and convert them back without needing to train skills etc?
i.e fast track method fuel blocks back > normal fuel at no cost or training.
Then just the hours of moving stuff about has been endured. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:13:00 -
[158] - Quote
I'm pretty much done QQ'ing about this. We'll get this stuff done regardless. Doing work in a game is apparently par for the course, I wonder why more people don't play.
But just be aware that poor communication is once again a problem for you guys. If you've slipped a week, and you say nothing, this is more of a problem than this particular **** up.
And once again, all your forums need to be read once and awhile. I raised this question yesterday for instance: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=43786 |
Desparo
Roid Ravagers Unitary Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:14:00 -
[159] - Quote
Okay what I don't understand is why you think you need to convert all the fuel.
I'm assuming you already have the code ready to allow fuel blocks to be loaded into towers. If you havn't already patch that into the client. Just that code part.
DT each night run a script that converts upto 24 hrs of fuel blocks into standard pos fuel. Yes it may take a few mins more but as your 30 min dt runs in 8-10 mins no one will mind. This is a SQL script so there shouldn't be any code to break.
Once you have the thing working stop running the script
If you've so intergrated the fuel cube code that it can't be split and done separately or you can't run a 24hr cube conversion script then your code has much bigger problems.
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
a) Run a script to melt all fuel already added to towers. This will require a bare minimum of QA as it cannot cause towers to go offline, the worst that can happen is that they become overfilled for a few hours until the fuel burns off. This means that there is no manual correction needed by players in time or ISK b) Spend the remaining time you have before Jan 24th either sorting a final handover script, or pushing in an extra fuel-block-only bay to towers to cover the switch over. Voila, fixed with a minimal amount of player intervention. Can I have your job? That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare. An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above.
|
Harris
Aura. Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:14:00 -
[160] - Quote
Props to you Greyscale for staying to man the forums while others are partying!
I have visions of you waving a flaming torch at the baying wolves, what with the mood the forums are in at the moment! I can appreciate the angst for the mass-POS managers but understand how you got the place you're in.
The expanded POS fuel hangars lets people put their blocks somewhere but still doesn't give them a way out of hauling the other POS fuel products to their locations, the operations for which they'd have scaled back.
The timing combined with the PI tax debacle (the tax increases should have been phased in after the POCOs were released by the way) is what is making the hurt particularly expensive. I hope you guys have a think about that the next time you plan your big game changes - try to look at the impact from every angle possible, instead of the changes on their own or only in relation to other changes on a code level. This mistake has been made before and You are making it again.
Good luck with the change over whenever it comes around and I hope you can address some of the concerns with a patch in the meantime. |
|
whaynethepain
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:16:00 -
[161] - Quote
While you are in there CCP, may I have the fuel bay size increased three fold please.
My Vacations can last quite long in the spring time, and the ice miners would appreciate the business I believe. Getting you on your feet.
So you've further to fall. |
Bring Stabity
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:16:00 -
[162] - Quote
Really this is a bad thread for you guys, because you've basically shown again that you're trying to completely change another facet of the game that you have no actual understanding of. Go fuel 500 towers for a couple months and come back to us. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:17:00 -
[163] - Quote
Most of these suggestions are completely beyond a SQL script. This is why they a resisting as they would have to write a whole new piece of program and test it.
Now, I you agree to let them just divide all the fuel types in a tower by a static value based on tower size, take lowest time, vaporize, and add blocks on the time not taking anything like sov into account you could do it with a stored proc and SQL script.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=494090#post494090 |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:21:00 -
[164] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though. Update on this: I'd rate this at about a 50-50 chance of happening at this time, depending mainly on whether we run into any kinks. I pulled a bunch of people out of the christmas party and managed to get preliminary approval. Checking right now what happens if you over-fill a tower bay... To be fair, you could just increase the sizes of the bays permanently; I'm not imagining anyone complaining or any horrific game imbalance being caused by it. Maybe that's just me.
Quote:Ampoliros wrote:Are they reprocessable at POS refineries with 0% waste, like ice blocks? Is that a quick fix you could manage to put in?
and just to say, i'm more comfortable with the delay till january than i am with the risk in everything going offline, i'm simply irritated that you guys couldn't have communicated better with us about the status of this. Probably not viable, sorry. Starbase refining is arcane to say the least (remember the "you can only have one type of ore in there at a time" rule?).
fair enough, i suppose. Is there any bone you can throw to us w-space residents? I mean, if we can't break the blocks in w-space, we might as well go buy more fuel as the hauling blocks out, refining, and hauling fuel back in is going to be even more effort than just buying replacement fuel...
oh well. I appreciate the responses at least, greyscale. |
Skeith Oumis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:22:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:On the first, if the starbase code was that robust, reliable and extensible they wouldn't break so often.
On the second, "I don't see how it could go wrong" is how all the really big disasters happen.
As someone who works with code that isn't remotely robust, reliable, or extensible on a daily basis, I feel your pain. However adding a simple hook where I mentioned is pretty safe in any programming structure, no matter how poorly it's written.
As for your comment on "how can this go wrong", this is why i mentioned testing, logging, and error handling. I realize things can go wrong, but testing is a pretty cool way to weed out those cases. You can even do cool things like test runs where you iterate though everything and do all the processing but don't run the final DB changes, allowing you to do neat things like sanity checks on live data without breaking anything. And running it on a DB copy (especially a second run with randomly filled bays) lets you work out weird edge cases that might crop up.
If manpower is such a problem set me up with the DB structure and some sample data (You can just pull out all the goon towers if you're paranoid, or random fill ****) and I'll gladly write this for you. You don't even have to pay me! |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
338
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:23:00 -
[166] - Quote
Harris wrote:The expanded POS fuel hangars lets people put their blocks somewhere but still doesn't give them a way out of hauling the other POS fuel products to their locations, the operations for which they'd have scaled back.
I'd be inclined to be philosophical and look at it this way (assuming we get the double bays in, see above for approximate probabilities): it just means that you're doing next month's logistics this month as well as this month's. Sucks more now, sucks less later. |
|
ogletorp
Surrender Dorothy Bipolar Stability
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:25:00 -
[167] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Starbase structures begin consuming fuel blocks exclusively on January 24th. Hopefully this timeline will allow you to build up a sizable stock of blocks, without ruining your Christmas. IGÇÖm sure your family will appreciate you not bringing your laptop to the Christmas dinner to start production jobs. Please keep in mind that on the day of the switch, POSs will ONLY consume fuel blocks and all the old items will no longer keep the starbase going.
On a slightly related note, here is a quick piece of wildlife advice that could save you or a loved one: If bitten by a snake, avoid attempting to suck out the poison from the wound, like seen in movies. YouGÇÖll remove insignificant quantities of poison, while transferring bacteria to the wound and subjecting yourself to the risk of getting poisoned. Instead, call for help and arrange transport to the nearest hospital emergency room. Like with bears, the safest bet is staying away from poisonous snakes in the first place.
We might be able to sneak a few more changes in, but for now, this is the timeframe for fuel blocks. Enjoy.
Nice knowing since I've spent the last week getting ready for the switchover now have to go back and pull blocks/pellets back out and haul them back, oh yeah and go buy more fuel and haul it to the POS' since i used all excess was used to build blocks. Well since the launch for this has changed you obviously have time to write a script to convert existing fuel in towers to blocks on the launch date rather than using this moronic half and half plan. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:28:00 -
[168] - Quote
Towers usually need to fueled every 25 days. We have more than that time now. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:31:00 -
[169] - Quote
@CCP Greyscale - here's another suggestion for a temporary code fix:
Can you change the current fuel consumption rate from N units per hour to N units per every 6-8 hours?
This would effectively stretch the existing fuel supplies in all of the towers, to last until the revised changeover date. |
i hatechosingnames
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:32:00 -
[170] - Quote
A little solution that gets CCP to do some of the work to fix this..
Haul all your fuel cubes to the nearest station Contract them to a CCP dev as an item exchange with you receiving back the raw materials and the cost of creating the contract. wait for CCP to accept and turn around those contracts... dump your fuel back in your towers.
or CCP make a script
:CCP: |
|
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
75
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:33:00 -
[171] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Two step wrote:I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th. I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'. Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'.
Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
271
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:37:00 -
[172] - Quote
@CCP Greyscale
I have your solution:
Remove taxes on customs offices until Christmas to help offset the cost of increased fuel prices due to this change and your announcement.
"Concord has had an accounting error, collect $200"
This would assist flooding the market with the fuels, allow for us to adjust to logistics and give POCO's a chance to get stabilized so the market can level out a bit.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
339
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:43:00 -
[173] - Quote
Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Two step wrote:I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th. I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'. Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'. Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary.
Sorry, we're looking at different blogs, my bad. Original blog said "a couple of weeks", follow-up blog said "approximately two weeks". Sorry for the mix-up. |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
373
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:44:00 -
[174] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:@CCP Greyscale - here's another suggestion for a temporary code fix:
Can you change the current fuel consumption rate from N units per hour to N units per every 6-8 hours?
This would effectively stretch the existing fuel supplies in all of the towers, to last until the revised changeover date.
Fuel use is tied to other starbase functions like moon mining. Reducing the rate of one affects the other. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:47:00 -
[175] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Remove taxes on customs offices until Christmas to help offset the cost of increased fuel prices due to this change and your announcement. That is a really ****** idea |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
149
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:49:00 -
[176] - Quote
increasing the fuel bays by 100% and leaving them at that after the switch over would be a very nice way of saying 'hey we know this screwed you all a bit, but we are nice guys honest fuel all your pos's less often from now on'
like an above poster, i wouldnt expect to see anyone bitching about game balance issue, id bet most would be very happy with that CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
271
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:53:00 -
[177] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Two step wrote:I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th. I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'. Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'. Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary. Sorry, we're looking at different blogs, my bad. Original blog said "a couple of weeks", follow-up blog said "approximately two weeks". Sorry for the mix-up.
Thanks for the apology duder.
Don't want to think we're all here to hate on you, many people here are genuinely frustrated and I'm glad you're being involved in the discussions. There's some good suggestions in this thread and I hope that the frustrations of people are understood completely. That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward.
The prices of fuel are going to skyrocket so even if we melt down the fuel to revert our stuff back, the market with how it's been with the POCO's and people now running to Jita to jack prices in anticipation for the spike that's about to happen is about to make a lot of corporations go broke.
Please find a way to compensate this and potentially find ways for more fuel to be injected into the game.
Removing taxes from empire CO's. A special ice crystal that burns out and allows for increased yield. Faster respawns of hotspots on planets.
Something... right now there's a shortage and with the changes so drastic, people's wallets are suffering because of it.
EDIT: The above suggestions would be temporary to provide for a brief injection during the shortage. The market needs a chance to rebuild and breathe.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Dick Jones
Omega Celestial Procurement Omega Consortium Projects
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:55:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:MadMuppet wrote:CCP - recommendation: Make fuel bricks reprocess to their component parts until the 24th to try and offset this mess.
-Mad
Fuel blocks should already reprocess to their component parts, although only in multiples of 40.
How about just making refining arrays reprocess FB at 100% efficiency. This is a simple and relatively painless solution. |
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
75
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:56:00 -
[179] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Sorry, we're looking at different blogs, my bad. Original blog said "a couple of weeks", follow-up blog said "approximately two weeks". Sorry for the mix-up. Apology accepted. But I am under the impresion that a follow-up blog always supercedes the original blog. So in this case, the things stated in the follow-up blog are the ones that count.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:58:00 -
[180] - Quote
CCP had this to your wish list thus Christmas.
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/book.aspx?ID=10329&locale=en-us
:iceburn: |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |