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) |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
348
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 03:20:00 -
[211] - Quote
Innominate wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: There's a huge difference between "effort" and "money and man-hours".
i.e. It's cheaper to make thousands of players work for days than to have one dev implement a proper solution. Please CCP, I thought we were past this ****. funny goon. confuses game with real world. play vs work a new bounty system for eve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Beldeine Scarlet
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 04:08:00 -
[212] - Quote
Wow, thank you CCP for the Christmas F-you.
Hey what the hell I'll keep two extra weeks of old fuel on hand just in case I tell myself ...... then the day after I finish converting all the rest to blocks comes this lovely gift, how sweet. |
Bunny Sweetcheeks
Boundless Hypocrisy
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:11:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes.
That is one way for sure.
What about just turning off consumption for all towers 2 or 3 weeks.
Yes, free towers....
Covers the issue of having to fuel them in a panic mode and covers the issue of "compensation" for the dehidration due to tears of pain for all POS owners.
|
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:34:00 -
[214] - Quote
Rastuasi wrote:Salpun wrote:As a wh dweller who got a bpo into the wh and started makeing blocks in an anticipated switch over in 2 weeks from blue print release your pushing it back for a month just put a big kink in my plans. Will now have to pull in more fuel to carry us over to the new date. Would have been nice to have this news even 24 hours ago Could time left be changed to must be refilled on in anticipation of the change This exactly, kinda put my corp short on isk cause of this change >.>
these things take like no time to manufacture - we made enough for like a week, put them int he tower after that last patch, and then figured it best to wait until the announced date to stop fuelling the normal way.
I'd say this one is your fault guys, not CCP's. |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:43:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Regardless of the complaints, it's appreciated that you're taking the time to do it right and have it ready. People would really be shitting their pants to log on Dec. 14th and find their force field down and someone like me looting the pos pinatas that were exposed. Yeah, it's an inconvenience for some, but better than the worst case scenario could have been by a longshot. Pretty much this. If it was something where the failure case was less destructive, we'd have at least considered crossing our fingers and pushing the button anyway. Where the worst-case scenario is that every starbase in New Eden goes offline, though, we're erring on the side of extreme caution. We know this is horribly inconvenient, and it sucks, and it's wasting a lot of people's time and money, but it's better than the Great Starbase Pinata Bash 2011. Everyone here's a bit miffed that we've got to this point, but we console ourselves with the fact that this is a one-time burst of pain that's paving the way for a much smoother ride for large-scale tower operators everywhere. (Yes, I know it makes your one wormhole tower marginally more difficult to run, and I'm personally very sorry about that, but I ran half a dozen towers for six months and splitting fuel into piles to go into my hauler made me want to lobotomize myself. We shouldn't have that sort of user pain in our game.)
You know, I appreciate the honesty. It goes a long way. Good thing you guys are aware of doing all these testing things and announcing changes in advance. We wouldn't want anything destructive like loosing a null sec alliance because we didn't tell anyone we conveniently forgot to tell you that a checkbox is no longer checked. But seriously, if you knew the target was this exceedingly optimistic, you should have been saying that from the beginning. |
Mekratrig
Open University of Celestial Hardship Art of War Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:53:00 -
[216] - Quote
Firstly, thanks CCP for Incursis. It fixed so many little things that annoyed the crap out of me.
I've noticed that it had a lot of twitches, but the subsequent patches have resolved most of them, and I'm guessing that's where the time has gone for testing that you were expecting to be able to spend on POS testing.
That being said, you did say the crossover would be happening at a specific time, and it's not (due to reasons beyond your control).
In RL I make a lot of money from clients who's previous providers made optimistic promises like that that they couldn't fulfil.
The suggestion from someone back in this thread that POS's can run without fuel until the swap over date isn't a bad idea. It would stuff the economy for a few months and mess up a lot of peoples war plans, but it would be a nice Christmas present, and give a nice warm fuzzy feeling to everyone all the whiners (I'm sorry, but you did stuff up).
Just a thought.
btw: you should also mention that you should also mention that you should never use a tourniquet for snakebite as this causes more damage to the affected limb. Use a pressure bandage, starting above the wound, closest to the heart, and roll down too and over the wound site.
Advantage of being Australian. :) |
Kasulli
Gateway Mining Division
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:55:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:spookydonut wrote: All I'm hearing is excuses about the amount of effort.
Then I'm sorry, because we're having an irreconcilable communication breakdown. From our point of view this decision is concerned pretty much exclusively with risk, not effort. Pricy McPricechecker wrote:Have you considered simply doubling the capacity of fuel bays until the patch, then reverting them afterwards? That way we can all fuel block up our POS and otherwise still fuel them as normal until the patch comes along, and doing this is clearly not a big technical problem because you've already increased their capacity once.
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. Kazanir wrote:You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens." That's not snark, it's resignation. One of the things I've learned over the years is that sometimes there's nothing right now you can do to fix the situation, however much you'd like to. The only practical way to deal with this in the long run is to be able to say "it is what it is" and get on with something that you can make better.
That last bit is most important - look folks, they screwed up bad and really caused a headache. They didn't cause permanent damage. Logistics sux - really really sux - but the decisions IS a sound one to push back. Arguing code and 'quick fixes' is foolish and shouldn't even be approached.
Starbase code is so messy that fooling with it would almost certainly only compound the problem - and we WOULD get a worst-case scenario of offlines on a massive scale.
That being said - the fact is, Greyscale, the team made a poor call on when to inform the players. From the beginning - the idea of a two week release should never have been mentioned. From the beginning transparency should have been made clear and the BPO's should have been released with a clear statement that you were unsure if the change would happen - and that upon reaching the two-week out mark if you still were unsure, the change-over would automatically be pushed back. This would have allowed players to begin production, by choice (as originally intended) but not by force (as was the case due to poor communication). A lot of assets are now sitting, uselessly, taking up space. WH is especially hit hard by this - storage isn't exactly readily available.
Someone has already said it...but THIS RIGHT HERE is an excellent example of effort biting you in the butt. Not communication effort - programming and code. How long has the starbase code needed fixes - or an entirely new code for that matter? It is indeed extremely complex, but this is a project that should have started a long time ago and simply been dealth with so that significant improvement features (like this one) would go over smoother and easily.
Summary - Lesson Learned not just in communication, but realizing that old problems WILL come back to haunt you. On an entirely different subject - FW - what do almost all new players ask about after their first week? Militia. Why? Because your NPE and career agents STEER NEW PLAYERS TO FW by virtue of the final mission. Now figure how many players get turned off when, not knowing how bad FW sux, they join...and quit a week later. Star Base code is fast approaching - and probably passing - that same point. It needs to be revamped, and it needs to be revamped now.
Crucible is a GREAT expansion - lots of fixes and improvements. Players know you can only do so much - but your choice in priorities will determine our attitudes towards EVE Development. CQ vs the dire needs of star base code and FW is just one example of poor prioritization of EVE's needs. This frustration (that is more insult than injury) is an example of that poor prioritization and the end results.
Learn from it - you did from Incarna, now try for doing it for all of New Eden's woes. Take a good game and make it great - not by adding parts, but by fixing what is poor and making it great.
TL;DR Players - Lay Off a little - They made a mistake, could have been a lot worst, their decision however is the right one. Hammer on CCP though for prioritizing what needs to still be fixed - like Star Base Code and FW.
CCP - Learn from poor communication and prioritization. Had you fixed star base code years ago, this change-over probably would have been much simpler. Crucible is great, lots of fixes, keep up the focus on fixing EVE - because it still has broken parts like FW and the Star Base Code. You'd make a lot of people happy, hisec to WH and everything between, if the star base code was revamped such that future improvements like fuel blocks could be easily implemented and adjusted. Everyone agrees fuel blocks are great - you've just managed to totally mess up implementing it and cost a lot of people time and money (one can be recuperated, the other not). |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:57:00 -
[218] - Quote
Boltzy Tsero wrote:So, out of the 180 replies to this post only about 5 are positive!
CCP Greyscale, please ignore all 175 posts by trolls and griefers, and thanks for giving a DATE on when this conversion will take place.
As stated CCP have never given a date and only mention approx two weeks after Crucible regarding the fuel block change over period.
You guys need to give CCP some love for a change! You have just had the best expansion for months!.
Safe! o7
I don't disagree. They've done a phenomenal job with Crucible. The issue here though is the complete lack of information on this and then the shock at the time frame. Kudos to Greyscale for the work he has been doing in explaining, (Which helps a lot, and frankly should be edited into his post on page 1 as well as in the replies) and for trying to get the size of the tower doubled. I have one more recommendation. Drop the PI export tax to 2-3% until the switchover. Then put it to the new levels. This will help drop the price on fuel while this switchover takes place and everyone is "double fueling" without taking any ISK out of the player's hands. Then, starting on the 24th with the new fuel, increase it 3% every week back to what it is now.
That fixes both sides of the issue here. Players get to store the fuel in the tower until the switchover and you get to combat the price increase that comes with the natural market demand going up as a direct result of the switchover as well as put pressure to increase demand when the supply explodes in the first couple of weeks of fuel block operation.
This makes your logistics players happy because the time they've spent already isn't wasted. This makes the corporation bean counter's happy because POS fuel won't spike short term as their logistics players are all of a sudden saying they need twice as much as expected and the PI players should at least see some increased pressure to keep prices consistent as the tax rate rises once all of this is underway. |
Kasulli
Gateway Mining Division
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:02:00 -
[219] - Quote
Artctura wrote:Boltzy Tsero wrote:So, out of the 180 replies to this post only about 5 are positive!
CCP Greyscale, please ignore all 175 posts by trolls and griefers, and thanks for giving a DATE on when this conversion will take place.
As stated CCP have never given a date and only mention approx two weeks after Crucible regarding the fuel block change over period.
You guys need to give CCP some love for a change! You have just had the best expansion for months!.
Safe! o7 I don't disagree. They've done a phenomenal job with Crucible. The issue here though is the complete lack of information on this and then the shock at the time frame. Kudos to Greyscale for the work he has been doing in explaining, (Which helps a lot, and frankly should be edited into his post on page 1 as well as in the replies) and for trying to get the size of the tower doubled. I have one more recommendation. Drop the PI export tax to 2-3% until the switchover. Then put it to the new levels. This will help drop the price on fuel while this switchover takes place and everyone is "double fueling" without taking any ISK out of the player's hands. Then, starting on the 24th with the new fuel, increase it 3% every week back to what it is now. That fixes both sides of the issue here. Players get to store the fuel in the tower until the switchover and you get to combat the price increase that comes with the natural market demand going up as a direct result of the switchover as well as put pressure to increase demand when the supply explodes in the first couple of weeks of fuel block operation.This makes your logistics players happy because the time they've spent already isn't wasted. This makes the corporation bean counter's happy because POS fuel won't spike short term as their logistics players are all of a sudden saying they need twice as much as expected and the PI players should at least see some increased pressure to keep prices consistent as the tax rate rises once all of this is underway.
If you have stations to store in. Worm Holes.
Will WH survive? Yes - they'll be fine. But if they already got the fuel to WH, they now have to take it back to stations (risky as always when transporting) or have valuable space taken up in their WH - possibly and probably too much space so they could be adequately prepared for change-over. Everything in WH is compounded due to the need for redundancy.
Like I said though - bashing CCP doesn't help. They just need to learn from the communication error. Not a lot of dmg done, just time wasted. WH loses out the worst though.
|
supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:06:00 -
[220] - Quote
Thanks fuckin assholes, 2 weeks from the 29th to 2 months...
How fuckin hard can you fail ccp HOW HARD.
Waste idfk how much time getting fuel, bpo done up... and now... a big FU...
I am with the let them run FREE... you assholes were too lazy to code this that while in DT, fuel was turned into blocks you wanted players to worry about 50/50 then you go...
O hey 2 weeks, er, typo, we ment 2 months.
Also 24th is a tuesday... does it not make sense if you are so worried to do this on a MONDAY? or is the backlog of fail from the weekend so great monday is sucked up fixing the **** ups from the weekend? Or do you people take mondays off?
So nice all the fuel wasted turning it into blocks thinkin O 2 weeks... so like monday the 12th no latter than the 19th... now I need to go buy more.
Where is the **** you smile
I also love how I did NOTHING to go around the word filter... all words are plain text, no fancy crap... unfiltered. |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
440
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:07:00 -
[221] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Thanks for letting us know this on December 9th, two weeks after everyone asked you to postpone this change. We've all really enjoyed rushing around half-filling towers with fuel blocks all week only to now have to replace with normal fuel again for another month.
**** you very much What are you all crying for? Soundwave defused the entire situation with humour. Everything should be a-okay now.
Today I lost my common sense, It slipped away between Amamake and Rens, I think it happened in highsec, Using a Brutix to gank a Providence. -- Flunk |
LethalGeek
Sexy Building
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:16:00 -
[222] - Quote
Today I learned people actually converted all of their fuel way ahead of any official announcement of the change over date.
Would it have really been so hard to just make 2-4 days of fuel (depending on your level of downtime paranoia) and then convert the rest AFTER the switch? It takes 2-3 minutes to make 1 hour of fuel at a POS. Not really hard to play catch up with that.
Also LOL at the folks who are too broke to pay for a POS for any real length of time. L2isk fools.
Edit: I can't if everyone here is just really that upset or we're all trolling each other. It's like Poe's Law... |
Kasulli
Gateway Mining Division
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:21:00 -
[223] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:Today I learned people actually converted all of their fuel way ahead of any official announcement of the change over date.
Would it have really been so hard to just make 2-4 days of fuel (depending on your level of downtime paranoia) and then convert the rest AFTER the switch? It takes 2-3 minutes to make 1 hour of fuel at a POS. Not really hard to play catch up with that.
Also LOL at the folks who are too broke to pay for a POS for any real length of time. L2isk fools.
You're right in that hisec really has no right to complain - storage is darn near limitless in stations, so no big deal.
What you fail to realize is that alliances, or even corps, with 50+ POS don't have the option to make only 2-4 days of fuel. Considering logistics in lowsec, nullsec, and WH - and the danger therein - 2 - 4 days of fuel isn't nearly enough to cover your needs, especially when you're talking THAT MANY stations.
So again, hisec can't really complain - time spent sooner rather than later for them. Everyone else though, it's a big bummer and a problem. |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:22:00 -
[224] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:Today I learned people actually converted all of their fuel way ahead of any official announcement of the change over date.
Would it have really been so hard to just make 2-4 days of fuel (depending on your level of downtime paranoia) and then convert the rest AFTER the switch? It takes 2-3 minutes to make 1 hour of fuel at a POS. Not really hard to play catch up with that.
Also LOL at the folks who are too broke to pay for a POS for any real length of time. L2isk fools.
Edit: I can't if everyone here is just really that upset or we're all trolling each other. It's like Poe's Law...
because the message was 2 weeks after the BPO's the change would be made jees man |
Pasha Cracken
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:26:00 -
[225] - Quote
I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....
Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.
Silly people... |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:34:00 -
[226] - Quote
Pasha Cracken wrote:I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....
Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.
Silly people...
you can call em silly people or stupid people, but actually you and others who are flaming the complainers are the sheep who go along with anything CCP is saying or doing
flaming people is probably the only fun thing there is to do for some... |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:35:00 -
[227] - Quote
Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.
CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.
POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.
POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!
Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people. |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:38:00 -
[228] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote:Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.
CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.
POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.
POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!
Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people.
some words written in a blog from the devs.......
CLARIFICATION:
Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.
Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens.
After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks?????? |
Pasha Cracken
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:44:00 -
[229] - Quote
disasteur wrote:Pasha Cracken wrote:I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....
Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.
Silly people... you can call em silly people or stupid people, but actually you and others who are flaming the complainers are the sheep who go along with anything CCP is saying or doing flaming people is probably the only fun thing there is to do for some...
Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch.
Even with no definitive date set, no one should have converted all their stock. At a max, the most people should have done was to buy the bpos, research them, and produce / buy a weeks worth of the new blocks, other then that they should have continued stocking regular fuel.
Anyway you look at it, everyone has a little bit of fault. |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:44:00 -
[230] - Quote
disasteur wrote:Icarus Helia wrote:Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.
CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.
POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.
POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!
Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people. some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel. so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I still don't see a hard date in that post - and he further clarified that closer to that time they would give a certain date. currently - it is closer to that time, and they have given a certain date. also he used "approximately" before giving a time frame. something i did openly fault CCP for in my post - goading you idiots on.
Now, if CCP had given a specific date, like actually saying December 14th, then the rage in this thread would be justified. but they didn't, so it is not.
edit - I might also suggest that you do not fall into the "competent people" category, in case my post didn't do that already. |
|
LethalGeek
Sexy Building
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:46:00 -
[231] - Quote
disasteur wrote: some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems." |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:55:00 -
[232] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:disasteur wrote: some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems."
no i didnt left out a part
this is the blog i got the info
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143
the txt you referring to says... i quote We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over.
@ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point
@ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part..
Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch. |
LethalGeek
Sexy Building
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:58:00 -
[233] - Quote
Ok so maybe I'm a tad more experienced with How Updates In Software works and could read between the lines a little better. Darn my experiance! |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:00:00 -
[234] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:Ok so maybe I'm a tad more experienced with How Updates In Software works and could read between the lines a little better. Darn my experiance!
im always suprised how many experienced people play eve... seems this game turns every noob into a technician |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:01:00 -
[235] - Quote
disasteur wrote:LethalGeek wrote:disasteur wrote: some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems." no i didnt left out a part this is the blog i got the info http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143the txt you referring to says... i quote We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over. @ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point @ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part.. Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch.
we already agree that CCP needs to clean up communications - but the point is that people took vague guesstimates as the word in stone, which I think places them far more at fault, especially if they converted their entire stocks to fuel blocks, and therefore makes them exactly the kind of people you don't want in charge of important stuff like keeping your isk farming moon goo bubbles, or jump bridge structures, or multibillion isk construction and research projects alive.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
103
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:10:00 -
[236] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote:disasteur wrote:LethalGeek wrote:disasteur wrote: some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems." no i didnt left out a part this is the blog i got the info http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143the txt you referring to says... i quote We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over. @ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point @ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part.. Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch. we already agree that CCP needs to clean up communications - but the point is that people took vague guesstimates as the word in stone, which I think places them far more at fault, especially if they converted their entire stocks to fuel blocks, and therefore makes them exactly the kind of people you don't want in charge of important stuff like keeping your isk farming moon goo bubbles, or jump bridge structures, or multibillion isk construction and research projects alive.
As the person that raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work.
I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening. |
Marcus Caspius
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:10:00 -
[237] - Quote
Hey Soundwave! Get your sh!t together and stick to the plan. You're causing issues because you don't have your house in order.
-> You tell me it gonna change! I plan and prepare. -> You change the plan again so now all me planning goes to crap 'cause your playing God! -> So a adapt and refine the fuel blocks back to raw and I loose again due to tax and waste
Wake up sweet-cheeks! Smell the roses and get you sh!t together...
|
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:16:00 -
[238] - Quote
Salpun wrote:As the person that raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work. I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening.
the kind of people who make all of their vital supplies semi-worthless based on a guesstimate date that hasn't been confirmed in any way are NOT the kind of people you want to be in charge of fuelling any important pos.
Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.
|
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:17:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:However, I'll make sure this is true. There's a fancy post-it here saying I should and post-its are law!
Especially when the post-its appear on a kanban board. Don't forget to take it off the backlog, or they'll post it on your coffin. I expect to be buried with an impressive collection of them myself. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:22:00 -
[240] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote: Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.
I haven't put any fuel blocks in any of our towers yet. I've been predicting it wouldn't happen before mid-January, but have been prepared for being wrong.
Should we consider that the difference between "proactive" and "hyperactive"?
I would have preferred an earlier date, but I'd have wanted that to be announced well in advance. It wasn't, so I'll take this instead.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |