| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Slimy Worm
   |
Posted - 2010.03.09 09:00:00 -
[1]
That way haulers carrying a few battleship BPC's don't show up as having lost a few billion ISK worth of stuff.
|
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari
The Phoenix Enclave
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 11:37:00 -
[2]
Support. While you're at it, put in some kind of distinguisher between BPOs and BPCs to make it easier to sort between the two...
|
odama jasonsson
Asteroid Cowboys
Pest Control Union
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 21:54:00 -
[3]
Edited by: odama jasonsson on 09/03/2010 21:54:03
 Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku
Support. While you're at it, put in some kind of distinguisher between BPOs and BPCs to make it easier to sort between the two...
Agreed on both points. I realy hate checking all the bpc's in my hangar when things got messed up...again!
|
Melleia
Vulcan Innovations
New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 22:46:00 -
[4]
Yes plx
|
Foxlike
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 11:40:00 -
[5]
Support |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 13:20:00 -
[6]
ok ... it doesnt even work in hangars (where it would be reaaaaaally helpful) and you expect it to work on killmails?
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperial Tau Syndicate
Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 16:33:00 -
[7]
Originally by: darius mclever
ok ... it doesnt even work in hangars (where it would be reaaaaaally helpful) and you expect it to work on killmails?
'ghm.. could that mean that in needs to be fixed? no way...
|
Cinori Aluben
Gladiators of Rage
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 19:43:00 -
[8]
I fully support this "little" thing, to distinguish BPO & BPC in general more clearly, and more especially in killmails, as there's definitely a serious difference value-wise...
If you value giving priority to little fixes like this, vote for Cinori Aluben. My priority is that CCP make these "Little Things" a priority. As such small items wouldn't require heavy coding time, devoting dev time to them is solely a matter of prioritization, which the CSM will have an active part in now.
Cinori Aluben CSM5 2010Fix the Little Things First!
---
Cinori Aluben -- CSM 2010!!
"Fix the Little Things First!"
http://www.littlethingsfirst.com |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 02:02:00 -
[9]
If this is technically feasible, I'd like to see it happen. However, I suspect that it's not. I do support raising it to CCP just in case it's doable, but frankly, you shouldn't expect much.
|
Darkwolf
TOG Empire
DRACONIAN COVENANT
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 03:20:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Slimy Worm
That way haulers carrying a few battleship BPC's don't show up as having lost a few billion ISK worth of stuff.
Supported.
While this is technically infeasible now, since CCP has no way of telling via itemid whether something's a BPO or not, there's an "easy" solution.
Have a BPC and a BPO be a different type of object, ie, two itemids. That way we can have our inventories (shock, horror) actually color BPO's and BPC's differently.
And we can have killmails act sanely.
|
|
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 06:15:00 -
[11]
ANYTHING that will make it easier to manage blueprints is ace in my book!!!
Please, whoever gets voted in, push this to the top of the 'we want this fixed NOW' que... right above destroyer utility.
---
Dreamer: My dream, Freddy! MY RULES.
Freddy Kruger: *groans* Awwwww, f**k.
---
Never give up! |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 06:25:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 09/05/2010 06:26:00
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
If this is technically feasible, I'd like to see it happen. However, I suspect that it's not. I do support raising it to CCP just in case it's doable, but frankly, you shouldn't expect much.
It is the same issue of differentiating them in the hangar.
So it will require a major overhaul of the database and all the parts of EVE that rely on the database. Practically it will require redoing one of the founding structures of the game.
So doing it for the killmails or the ease of industrialists is not worth it (especially as industrialists have some workaround).
It would be a good idea for CCP to do that as part of a huge modernization of the game, but it would be part of a very big patch aimed only at rewriting legacy code.
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 09:23:00 -
[13]
I really cant see why it wouldnt be technically possible. Look if there is a max runs remaining, if that is the case add copy behind blueprint.
|
NereSky
Maelstrom Crew
Paradigm Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 09:43:00 -
[14]
Totally supported
|
Johnathan Walker
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 16:45:00 -
[15]
100% supported.
Warmly,
"The Bear" JW 
|
Slimy Worm
Sons of Viagra
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 09:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Darkwolf
Originally by: Slimy Worm
That way haulers carrying a few battleship BPC's don't show up as having lost a few billion ISK worth of stuff.
Supported.
While this is technically infeasible now, since CCP has no way of telling via itemid whether something's a BPO or not, there's an "easy" solution.
Have a BPC and a BPO be a different type of object, ie, two itemids. That way we can have our inventories (shock, horror) actually color BPO's and BPC's differently.
And we can have killmails act sanely.
It could be feasible by checking the number of runs left on a blueprint. If that number is null then it's an original, if not then it's a copy. Even if the server had to do this for every single item on killmails involving blueprints, it wouldn't take much processing power since it would only happen when ships die carrying a blueprint.
Basically, adding this to whatever program spits out killmails should be easy:
Check if there's a blueprint
If yes, check the blueprint's runs
If null, BPO; otherwise BPC
The main problem is that the server might no longer know if a blueprint has any runs or not after it's destroyed, but CCP should still look at it. It's possible that they'd have to store the blueprints' data differently or add null blueprint data (productivity, runs, etc) to every single item; the former would require a lot of reprogramming and the later would take up a lot of CPU.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |