Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Cikuza
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 02:12:00 -
[211]
Edited by: Cikuza on 14/03/2010 02:21:40 Storage Facilities:
Okay so I got my chemical facility (processor) working almost non-stop producing Aluminum Nitrate, which was first routing to the PCC to then launching into space. It works great.
However I have been unable to use the storage facility in ways other than sending ore or processed product to it. once there it seems stuck.
I can't send ores or products from the storage facility to the chemical facility or the end product to the PCC.
all I end up with all the time when creating routes to move things is some quickly flashing error messages about wasting time and effort of empty trucks. - how ironic.
are the storage facilities working both ways for others?
for example - extractors to storage to processors; - or processors to storage to PCC
Links:
I also notice that when you click on a link between two pins to upgrade it or look at it, it zooms way off screen- then you say click upgrade link, pay you isk then close it, your still way off focus on what you were doing. I feel that the link should be in focus centre screen under the info box - so when you close it, you are at the point of interaction you were at before the box opened.
|
JAG Solex
GunStars
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 02:19:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Cikuza Storage Facilities:
are the storage facilities working both ways for others?
for example - extractors to storage to processors; - or processors to storage to PCC
Last time I was on, the storage pins could be set up to feed processors, but not the PCC. So extractors -> storage -> processors -> PCC works. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [SMK.C] |
Cikuza
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 02:39:00 -
[213]
Edited by: Cikuza on 14/03/2010 02:41:12 Cheers,
Yeah I concur with what you just said - the menu that pops up with choosing either aluminum or nitrogen from the storage facility for the route wasnt showing - so that is why, a restart of the client seem to fix it.
I got it working - extractor -> storage -> processor -> PCC
Still complains on the storage -> PCC route :P
on the LINKS:
as I said above, I noticed when I had more than one link to a storage facility the "links" list of that PIN just lists then as "Storage Facility" - now with the zoom way off screen I lose focus on which one I have clicked or wish to remove. I think it would be good to highlight the link when you select it in the "links" box for visual reference on the planet view - and it auto zoom to the center for ease of location.
|
Planetary Genocide
Gallente White Talon Enterprises New Bastion
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 04:25:00 -
[214]
In addition to the earlier point about this being SiSi and it probably doesn't matter anyways, I just realized that paste was more expensive than I thought. XD
So I was wrong, it is totally worth it.
Now my only complaint is the Storage-PCC route thing. I don't have any problems with the auto-zooming, it hasn't glitched for me... yet... ______________
RAWRRR |
Elegbara
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 07:46:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Cikuza Yeah I concur with what you just said - the menu that pops up with choosing either aluminum or nitrogen from the storage facility for the route wasnt showing - so that is why, a restart of the client seem to fix it.
I got it working - extractor -> storage -> processor -> PCC
Still complains on the storage -> PCC route :P
It seems that you can make route only if one of its ends produces or consumes the resource. Thus you can always make a route from extractor, but for processor you have to first submit a schematic. Then it will consume materials.
Neither PCC, nor storage neither consume, nor produce anything. That's why the logic fails here. ____________________________________ Open your eyes. And Awaken. |
Pytria Le'Danness
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 08:33:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Photon Ceray
1- are we going to be able to set logistics chain between different planets in the same system and setting convoys?
(e.g. move gold from planet 1 to planet 4 where it's used to create something else). Having to manually move cargo between 10 planets is a cumbersome task that has no meaningful and fun play to it, so I hope that will be dealt with (fueling pos anyone?)
Yet requiring the player to shuttle stuff back and forth opens all sorts of possibilities. The ship can be attacked by pirates or war targets, the planet can be blockaded, you can contract the hauling to other players, your stuff can be stolen... If you put all this into NPC hands you remove a layer of interaction.
However I agree with you that POS maintenance was cumbersome and annoying, especially if you had to run a low sec POS. I'd use a two-pronged strategy: you can hire players to do your hauling (although this requires a lot of work from a programming POV - the contractors need access to your production line somehow) but you can also set up routes run by NPCs to do that. They should charge a lot for their services, maybe based on a floating scale, so if many people build on Jita IV NPC haulage prices skyrocket. But the lowest price should still hurt in order to encourage doing things on the player side.
Expand the functions of the existing NPC haulers to carry resources between production chains. Give privateers a means to intercept them - but it should be more involved than parking a perma-run smartbomb BS AFK somewhere. This could even serve as a entry path for the pirate career - if each hauler killed gives a sec status hit the offender becomes an outlaw over time. Make their pricing dynamic - this alone will draw people away from highly populated areas and might revitalize low sec somewhat. If you look at ME slots people WILL go to low sec if the need is strong enough. However there is still a difference between hauling a few BPOs in a CovOps once every few months, or hauling Itty-Vs filled with valuable goods every other day. If we assume EVE keeps growing at one point in time every gate to low sec WILL be camped 23/7 simply because there are so many pirates around to faciliate that. Thus the "get your booty to safety" part needs to be carefully balanced. Side note: the resources should be on the market as well (not seeded, but able to sold there). Not only will this allow "planetary miners" to make a profit, pirates who blow up a ship full of silicon can earn a living off that as well.
The same thought applies to PCC size. IMO 500m¦ is too low, you can put that into a frigate if you try hard enough. But if you are forced to use freighters or JFs to deploy them low sec will remain barren. My favorite size would be somewhere in the 5000m¦ region - you need a decent industrial to move it but you can still fit it into a Cov Ops hauler along with some spare resources to start the process up fast.
Requiring a large (and skill-intense) ship has one advantage though: it creates a new mini-profession of "PCC deployer". That entails that there is a way to transfer control of the production network though.
As a side note, can the launch container warp-in be transferred? Making this entry bookmarkable would allow the creation of courier contracts for the end product.
In fact now that I think that over this looks as if it could solve the NPC hauling issue. Allow NPCs to haul the resources, but the end product still needs someone on grid. Opponents can then target this and the handling of the production chain is free of annoying haulage.
Disclaimer: "low sec" also applies to uncontrolled 0.0 as well.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 08:50:00 -
[217]
Originally by: JAG Solex
Last time I was on, the storage pins could be set up to feed processors, but not the PCC. So extractors -> storage -> processors -> PCC works.
Hmm. Seems odd that, you'd think you could run extractor -> storage -> processor -> storage (finished goods) -> PCC (or various combinations of that).
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 08:55:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Pytria Le'Danness
Yet requiring the player to shuttle stuff back and forth opens all sorts of possibilities. The ship can be attacked by pirates or war targets, the planet can be blockaded, you can contract the hauling to other players, your stuff can be stolen... If you put all this into NPC hands you remove a layer of interaction.
I'd use a two-pronged strategy: you can hire players to do your hauling (although this requires a lot of work from a programming POV - the contractors need access to your production line somehow) but you can also set up routes run by NPCs to do that. Give privateers a means to intercept them - but it should be more involved than parking a perma-run smartbomb BS AFK somewhere.
Disclaimer: "low sec" also applies to uncontrolled 0.0 as well.
NPC convoy ships could be a small scale objective for Null Sec warfare. For example with a given level of Sovereignty players could set up intra system convoy routes from planet to planet (extra system routes would still be player run), which in turn could be scanned out and attacked.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Falkrich Swifthand
Caldari eNinjas Incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 13:19:00 -
[219]
Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 14/03/2010 13:25:16 Apparently the number you put into the "create route" is a "per few seconds" amount. I have chemical factories (producing aluminium nitrade) working continuously with input routes of only 1/6th the input the factories need.
Routes still need to be maxed for leaving a pin though, because products are produced in one go and nothing has any "output" storage, so anything not transported instantly is lost. nullnull
My sig is not my sig. |
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 13:50:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Falkrich Swifthand Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 14/03/2010 13:36:46 Apparently the number you put into the "create route" for going TO something from storage/pcc is a "per few seconds" amount. I have chemical factories (producing aluminium nitrade) working continuously with input routes of only 1/6th the input the factories need.
Routes still need to be maxed for leaving a pin though, because products are produced in one go and nothing has any "output" storage, so anything not transported instantly is lost.
Currently the routes use one of two cycle times. If it a route FROM an extractor, it uses the extractor's cycle time, with the max being the per cycle yield of the extractor's deposit. If it is a route TO a processor, from storage, it uses the cycle time of the processor, with the max being the input requirement of the selected schematic. If it is a route FROM a processor, it uses the cycle time from the processor, with the max being the output quantity of the selected schematic. Intel/Nomad |
|
Falkrich Swifthand
Caldari eNinjas Incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 14:08:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Clansworth If it is a route TO a processor, from storage, it uses the cycle time of the processor, with the max being the input requirement of the selected schematic.
Except I've got the route cycling at least 6 times faster than the processor's cycle time for routes from storage/pcc to processor. nullnull
My sig is not my sig. |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 18:48:00 -
[222]
Question to the Devs or maybe a suggestion
Will you make the "Launch cans" able to be scanned down by probes. Ninja Priate Smily
Amarr for Life |
Twylla
Gallente Central Logistics Management Group
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 19:54:00 -
[223]
Any thoughts on including 'standardized' metrics on production and consumption of materials?
Currently, every process involving materials consumes a variable quantity over a variable time (eg, 35 seconds for NAl). This means a lot of tedious number crunching for those of us trying to figure out how much material to route to where.
A quick metric on material-per-minute would be a great numerical addition to extractors (production/minute) and processors (consumption/minute) would ease the assembly line head-scratching without changing the important factors of overall production (total production, speed of extraction).
Either that, or perhaps a move from a dumb-pipe assembly line structure to a store-and-retrieve system where materials are stored, and processor facilities 'request' materials until one or more are no longer present from a link-routed feed silo. Not dissimilar from the POS mechanics already in place. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7
Twylla DeVarii[-FNX-]
APS Director of Operations
Headquarters - Atier II
|
Maga
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 20:45:00 -
[224]
so when is tyrannis coming out?
|
Orephia
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 21:32:00 -
[225]
Spent the better part of two full days now with PI... I like it but what a clickfest it is getting all the pins & routes setup, only to have to reset them when the deposits play out in a day or so; dunno about the fun part there yet, will depend on isk in the end. Other stuff:
- the click & autozoom to inspect a pin. please make it go away, or an option. It's very slow & disruptive. Actually, some other method of seeing pin status is really needed. A simple infotip on mouseover would be very nice, maybe with ctrl or shift if necessary...the same info that is or would be given when the pin is clicked, but without the option buttons below.
- click lag starts to be an issue when zoomed in on a PCC with many routes & pins , and is particularly tough when the planet surface in the background has atmospheric effects
- needing to set links then routes then bandwidth is really repetitive, add in all the various cycle times for each deposit & the fun-ness is less than it seems it could be. I would support the previous suggestion for intelligent auto-routing (ie. fun without spreadsheets), or at least the request to save layouts once they are all set up so they can be deployed again without all the clickfu. and the preset default bandwidth when creating a route should be the max, not 1 ~ no need to force typing at every single route creation.
- an option to autolaunch product when the PCC is full would be nice. Maybe even an evemail from the foreman.
|
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 21:40:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Maga so when is tyrannis coming out?
dev blog said may
|
ChrisIsherwood
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 21:42:00 -
[227]
Originally by: CCP Nimbus [ But it's quite a waste of energy to send the elevator back down to earth empty, no?
/irrelevant aside
Well to truly save energy, you would use the century old technique of [San Francisco or ski] cable cars. For every car going up, there is a car going down.
Allowing a space elevator to not be empty when going down prevents the facility from being wasted. A pair of elevators where goods obviate the needs of counterweights would save energy; |
MsValentineWiggin
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 23:44:00 -
[228]
Any word on the grief-ability of PI in hi sec. I.e., cans ejected into space being flipped/ninjaed/liberated? Planetary objects being destroyable? Planets become giant Go boards where others put down structures only so you can not connect your structures?
Obviously the people who rat 20 jumps in their alliance nap deserve to be paid a lot more due to their massive endowment. But if hi-sec is going to pay less, will lower pay come with lower hassles? Or is this like POS, probably not for the new? |
Lors Dornick
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 01:31:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: JAG Solex
Last time I was on, the storage pins could be set up to feed processors, but not the PCC. So extractors -> storage -> processors -> PCC works.
Hmm. Seems odd that, you'd think you could run extractor -> storage -> processor -> storage (finished goods) -> PCC (or various combinations of that).
C.
I think the thing here is that the PCC already includes a storage component.
The PCC can be described as "storage -> launcher"
Setting a route from storage to PCC is the same as setting a route from storage -> storage.
|
Orephia
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 02:34:00 -
[230]
Edited by: Orephia on 15/03/2010 02:41:45
Quote:
Originally by: Lors Dornick
I think the thing here is that the PCC already includes a storage component.
that makes logical sense, but the practical problem is the PCC storage is not enough to get thru the night, when a few of us actually sleep, or thru our RL shifts between Eve sessions.
Once the PCC fills up any further production is lost. My little facilities are launching product every hour, and there is no way to shut it down. Needs additional product storage for buffer, or a way to automate launches whilst slumbering |
|
JAG Solex
GunStars
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 05:55:00 -
[231]
Let's not forget that this is testing... the materials being extracted, the products being made, the cycle times... all of that will likely be changed. It's very likely the process is hyper accelerated in order to facilitate testing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [SMK.C] |
cyclobs
Minmatar Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 09:18:00 -
[232]
to be honist i don't like the idea of 'space elevators' as a way of transporting stuff to the planet. to me if doesn't seem practical to have giant beams going out into space from the planet.
instead why can't we have some sort of space port that gets put in when someone lays down a command post. so that the port is linked with the command post. if the user dismantles the post then the port also goes. this way. rather then having a random can go out to space when we launch something it can go to the space port where it can be stored until the owner picks up their stuff.
with this idea tho. we could have a certain ammount of storage on the space port. so we could put minerals and stuff into the port and have it send back down to the planet with a count down timer (for example 30 minutes for re entry).
if you're not too confused about that. that to me seems to make a bit more sense then a space elevator. also when DUST comes out the port can be like the lobby for the dust players. so it will also tie in with the way dust was designed with the space port when the player looks for a game.
yay or nay?
|
Pytria Le'Danness
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 10:37:00 -
[233]
Originally by: MsValentineWiggin Any word on the grief-ability of PI ...? Planetary objects being destroyable? Planets become giant Go boards where others put down structures only so you can not connect your structures?
Right now there is no interaction between different installations on the planet. You don't even see the pins of other people. Thus you cannot block others. You cannot block your own structures by the way, links and pins can be placed as you like. If you put them too close together you have trouble selecting some, but that's all.
Apparently the resources will be global though, so if a deposit has enough materials for four days of operation and two people extract from it each will only get two days worth of material before the deposit depletes.
|
Calhontor
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 11:52:00 -
[234]
So im just wondering will we actually have graphics for buildings and things at some point? Or just this icons thing which looks terrible? I was all excited about PI and really hoping it would be like sim city or something like Imperium Galactica 2. Yes I realise it is in an Alpha stage at the moment im just wondering. At fanfest all sorts of things were stated about this expansion like trade agreements, population and pollution effecting other regions and im really hoping these things come through.
|
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 13:05:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Twylla Either that, or perhaps a move from a dumb-pipe assembly line structure to a store-and-retrieve system where materials are stored, and processor facilities 'request' materials until one or more are no longer present from a link-routed feed silo. Not dissimilar from the POS mechanics already in place.
If you route Extractors -> Storages -> Processor -> PCC, this is basically the effect you get. The Extractor will run full bore, until the Storage is full. the processor will pull from the storage it's full demand each process cycle, and put it into the PCC. Once you run out of required resources in the storage, ,the processor will sleep in 'waiting for resources' mode. Intel/Nomad |
Lord FunkyMunky
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 16:10:00 -
[236]
my question is, when will, get a view of the "population control" and you know the civilians etc that work at these places... i mean we were told of poplution management, and our neighbors, and dealing with neighboring districts, at the moment it just seems very very basic.
|
Spc One
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 17:21:00 -
[237]
What's the ships name used in this video ? It seems like "elite raven" but it's not.
Can someone give me showinfo id ?
|
Lord FunkyMunky
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 18:32:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Erinyen Guerilla
Quote: You need to put up Links/Routes between the facilitys, right klick on one icon-> select link -> klick on destination then do the same with a route :)
about these routes: are they supposed to transport on the fly or do they transport the goods if the corresponding deposit is depleded? I set up a bunch of extractors and linked them to my commandcenter but the storage of the commandcenter is not filling with goods :(
you need to create the route, but i do believe that the longer alink is and the level of link you use should have different travel times
|
DaDutchDude
Minmatar Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:22:00 -
[239]
Edited by: DaDutchDude on 15/03/2010 19:22:50 I've been playing with the PI version of Sisi, and I find it quite interesting so far. I know you're still very much in the design and develop phase, but I'd like to be a positive influence as much as I can. So I have a number of questions for you.
Sisi & feedback
- What kind of feedback are you looking for & would be most useful to you atm? Do you want: bug testing (as in: Does it work? Do I see bugs?), functionality testing (as in: Does it contain the proper functionality to do PI? Could current functionality be improved?) and / or concept testing (as in: Is this game feature cool, fun and rewarding to me as a player? How could it be more so?)
- Will you release new versions of PI to Sisi in between sprints? Will you keep us up to date with new features & changes so we can focus attention on those?
Bugs & issues
- Currently, the version of PI seems so incomplete that it is hard for me as a player to determine when something is a bug or simply functionality that is still missing. Do you agree with that assessment? Would you only advise use to report technical bugs so long (such as frozen screens, client crashes and such)?
Functionality
- Planet scanner graphics: The planet scanner seems very incomplete atm, so hard to give fair feedback. The part that does work (selecting a material highlights certain area's on the planet) only displays well on the 'dark side' of the planet. Towards the sun, the light is too bright to make out subtle changes. It would be nice to be able to switch off the sunlight.
Also, it would be nice to be able to 'super-impose' scans for multiple materials on each other, so you could make out where high concentrations of materials are shared.
- Planet scanner functionality: How accurate will the planet scanner actually display deposits? Will I always need to build an extractor to scan for deposits to confirm it is actually there, or will the planet scan be 100% (or at least highly) accurate?
- Routing: Currently, some routing patterns don't seem to work, like Storage -> PCC. Also, routing seems limited to 1-hop. It would be really nice to make multi-hop routes (so from PIN A to pin C via links X (from PIN A to B) and Y (from PIN B to C), which would enable you to optimize your infrastructure much deeper. I'm actually assuming this will get implemented in Tyrannis, because without it, PI is a lot less interesting
- Planet UI: currently, the UI is reasonably intuitive but quite cumbersome.
Creating links should be more like a design tool (like Visio for example), where you can select a 'Create link' pointer, click on one node to start a link with one side 'glued' to that node and the other to your pointer. You then move your pointer over to the node you want to link it to (planet 'rotates' if pointer starts to move close to edge). Clicking on a second node will create the link. If you click on unoccupied space, the link will still be created, just with one end point unconnected. You can then drag the end point over to the PIN you want to connect it to. This makes miss-clicking a lot less annoying, so you don't have to start over again. Especially when zoomed in too much or with long distance connections, miss-clicking will happen a lot.
I would also suggest offering 'prototyping' on new installations or installation changes. This means your creations & changes will will be designed first, but only created after an overview of the costs, also showing 'errors' (like a link with one endpoint not connected) and warnings.
Creating routes is currently very counterintuitive, and it really needs help. And there are a lot more things that can be improved. PI will have several phases: 1) Scanning & exploring 2) Initial construction (PINs, links), 3) Initial exploitation (routes, launches), 4) Improvements 5) Abandonment. If you look at what a player needs in each phase, the UI will improve.
post limit, so I'll leave it at this for now _____________________________________
Agony Unleashed (home of PVP University)
|
Fina Kelitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:45:00 -
[240]
Originally by: DaDutchDude
Routing: Currently, some routing patterns don't seem to work, like Storage -> PCC. Also, routing seems limited to 1-hop. It would be really nice to make multi-hop routes (so from PIN A to pin C via links X (from PIN A to B) and Y (from PIN B to C), which would enable you to optimize your infrastructure much deeper. I'm actually assuming this will get implemented in Tyrannis, because without it, PI is a lot less interesting
Already works, you just tell it to set up a route directly from A->C and it handles it.
- Experienced EVE player trying a new character |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |