EVE Search - let us distinguish between BPC and BPO finally!!!

All Channels

Science and Industry

let us distinguish between BPC and BPO finally!!!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.17 17:12:00 - [1] I'm getting mad every time I have to sort the fuggin BPO out of a bunch of BPC in hangars and POS divisions!!!! I dont care about technical backgrounds and explanations why things are broken currently, if you did it wrong, then simply fix it!
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.17 18:43:00 - [2] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 17/03/2010 18:44:51 Originally by: Jokiller Gerius The database is heavily 'normalised' (a method of removing duplicate data) this means that the marker for BPO/BPC is not actually in the Inventory table, it is a table that stores specific differential data. This means that to add this field to the inventory return we would need to do an addition join to the differential data table to look up this field for EVERY item in the inventory regardless of whether or not this is a blueprint of not. stop quoting bullsht. btw Originally by:* Robert Caldera I dont care about technical backgrounds and explanations why things are broken currently, if you did it wrong, then simply fix it! Originally by: Jokiller Gerius Trust me if we could do it I would love it ... but from a DB point of view the extra load is not wanted for the amount of gain. bull**! Stop quoting bull*! A simple flag cant be that hard to realize, the information is behind the BPC anyways if you look into item info. STOP QUOTING BULLSHT A CLUELESS DEV SAID ONCE OVER AND OVER AGAIN!! Originally by: Jokiller Gerius A good workaround ... I dont want pesky workarounds, I want a FIX!
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.17 18:48:00 - [3] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 17/03/2010 18:48:39 Originally by: Joe SMASH Oooo... You must be one of those, 'If you do not agree with me, you are wrong' type of people.... no I just dont want fukking workarounds pain in the ass anymore and please stop repeating bull**** like a parrot, it doesnt get more true from that.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.17 18:55:00 - [4] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey They didn't do it wrong, so there's nothing to fix. It's designed that way on purpose. Read up on the subject of database normalization. stfu I graduated in computer science and databases are my daily business, so please stfu teaching me stuff I'm messing aroung for years! Originally by: SurrenderMonkey They COULD differentiate between the two. What they are saying is that it's not worth the performance hit of adding an additional join (which is a logical connection between two tables in a database) not worth? NOT WORTH?? WE LIKE FUKKING OUR CUSTOMERS MUCH MUCH MORE, is it what you're going to tell me?? How many threads were there in the past regarding this painly issue??? Every producer/inventer is arguing about this WRONG IMPROPER implementation! If you cant joing a simple fukkin BOOLEAN FLAG into your join, either fire your database designer or JUST DENORMALIZE THE FUKKIN BOOLEAN into the parent table!!
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.17 19:11:00 - [5] Originally by: Tellenta Originally by: Robert Caldera Technical excuses for MAJOR GAMEPLAY flaws are always a really really dumb idea! Gameplay defines the backend usually! IT'S NOT REALLY A MAJOR GAME PLAY FLAW, BUT I ADMIRE YOUR ABILITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LITTLE ****. Typed in caps so you could hear me. it IS! FIX IT
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.17 19:46:00 - [6] Originally by: Tellenta I KNOW YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN WORKAROUNDS, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE SAME INTERESTS AS YOU!!!! then stop trolling if you're not interested in a fix and stfu.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.17 19:51:00 - [7] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 17/03/2010 19:52:42 Originally by: Tellenta IT'S NOT REALLY A MAJOR GAME PLAY FLAW being unable to distinguish 2 main groups of blueprint items easily and having a lot of annoying work sorting the sht out, once mixed accidentally, is a major flaw for me. Originally by:* Tellenta Typed in caps so you could hear me. FU
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.17 20:16:00 - [8] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 17/03/2010 20:23:43 Originally by: Emporer Norton Is easy use divison for bpo another for bpc or 2 containers or if in hanger s&i to sort thru quickly I do too, but sometimes, they accidentally get together, which suddenly causes a lot of annoying work. I know the workarounds, but like I said before, these are only workarounds for a FLAW, which I'd like to see fixed soon! Originally by: Tellenta I can accept that, considering that if I lose my BPO amongst my BPC's all I have to do is show info on the first or last BPO/C of that bunch to find it again if it was that easy, this tactic never worked for me - I had to look infos of each single one of 60 BPs to find my lost 2 BPOs again 2 hours ago.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.18 08:53:00 - [9] absolute normalization is a curse if it comes to performance considerations, its general knowledge - so I cant understand why CCP still sticks to it by all means. Functionality should form the backend, not the other way around, the complaints about this terrible game flaw are there since I've started playing eve.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.18 15:24:00 - [10] Originally by: NeoFusion ... [a lot of speculations about eve implementation internas] ... For EVE to display all the data about a blueprint in the item hangar it would need to say "give me all the types and instances of these types in my hangar" which would be an exponentially bigger query there is nothing exponential. If a query for a set of blueprints is O(n), then an expanded query which would check the exact type would still result in O(n), assuming the access to the type is O(1), if you know what I'm talking about. Originally by: NeoFusion There are more important things I'm afraid. yes, new ship paints for example.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.18 15:35:00 - [11] Originally by: Breaker77 It's bad enough waiting for my hangar to load several hundred blueprints. I don't want to add anymore time. Use containers, or seperate corp hangar divisons to keep everything seperate. It's really simple unless you're an idiot. poor you... I have several thousands blueprint copies in a pos hangar division. I wouldnt like to imagine if I drop a BPO there by accident.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.18 15:56:00 - [12] so, how does the stupid Science&Industry window help me separating them, since you cant move them anywhere within that window!
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.18 18:01:00 - [13] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 18/03/2010 18:03:16 Originally by: Sir Bonkers I am at work atm, but I believe there is a drop down menu at the top of the window. Should have options; "Show all Blueprints", "Show Only Originals", "Show only Copies". That is from memory, so do not take it as 100% fact. yeah you're right but this does not help since there is no option to move the prints across divisions or see in which division they exactly are. the use of Science&Industry is of very limited use in this concern.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.18 18:52:00 - [14] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 18/03/2010 18:52:12 the point of this thread was not talking about useless workarounds but about easier handling of blueprints, so sorry, the S&I is useless and there is no other way to find BPOs among many prints for sorting them out, which is the main issue.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.18 23:38:00 - [15] Originally by: Mad Constructor I have about 100 BPOs and over 1300 BPCs at any given time. I've never had BPOs and BPCs get mixed. Even if I had 10x that many BPs they still wouldn't mix. Learn to be better. this thread is not about personal habits handling the prints Originally by: Mad Constructor Oh, and a quick trip to the S&I window will help sort out your mixed BPs. you suck at reading and undestanding. S&I does not help me locating and sorting the prints, this is the thread all about actually. Originally by: ZeeOhSix Goodness, but you're confused regarding the benefits of nomalization for high-transaction databases says who? go trolling somewhere else if you have no clue
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.19 09:32:00 - [16] just STFU being idiots teaching me why 1 bit flag cant be retrieved from the database, all you can do is being parrots repeating excuses some dev did one day.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.19 12:38:00 - [17] Just fix it.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.19 13:19:00 - [18] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 19/03/2010 13:20:53 Originally by: Paknac Queltel Originally by: Robert Caldera Just fix it. Ah, so you're mid-level management. Figures. at least I'm honest I dont give a **** how eve ticks internally... I am a customer after all. All I can tell from my perspective is that such a thing is not a big business usually and even more not unrealizable at all as many parrots try to tell me. Many people in this thread remind me of a bunch of nerds standing in front of a machine and quarrel about its abilities and how its probably working.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.19 20:51:00 - [19] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 19/03/2010 20:52:06 Originally by: Sarina Berghil Of course none of those features work in a POS that is the only practical place to do research anyway, oh, wondered what he's talking about. Oh my.. Originally by: Susurrous 1. When I go to Science & Industry -> Corp Blueprints, I see a list of hundreds of corp blueprints, all with a tag COPY stating YES or NO. Clearly this tag is immediately available without any major overhaul. read the whole thread. It has been mentioned several times but S&I is useless for the main issue entirely Originally by: Tallaran Kouros I'm going to stop you here. No matter how smart you think you are or how good you are, CCP are smarter and know more. another CCP's advocate?? fck off Originally by:* SurrenderMonkey Yes - because it would require an additional join. one of how many thousands? so what? Do it... joining indexed tables is not that an issue actually. Or if you dont like joins for particular reasons, you introduce an redundant attribute, a common approach to mitigate consequences of heavily normalized schemas. Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Do you realize that anyone will locate your POS and come attack it ASAP now? you're kidding, arent you? POS is the easiest and actually the only practical way to research/invent. Originally by: Dasola Then why did you get them mixed in first place? It does ask when you copy the damn blueprint where you want copy to go to. by accident rolling eyes Its not the question WHY either...
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.20 10:06:00 - [20] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha YOU are kidding, aren't you? The person admits using BPOs at a POS >_< so what should happen in a high sec pos? Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Lolwut? I sincerely doubt the query that's called for getting the inventory of anything in Eve involves more than a handful of joins. Certainly not thousands, or even hundreds, probably not even tens. I meant overall joins in eve.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.21 11:22:00 - [21] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 21/03/2010 11:25:25 Originally by: ZeeOhSix Says a 25 year DBA that's designed more high-transaction, large-scale databases than you've had zits - and that's saying something. You noted you were a DBA - what's your experience in designing large-scale transactional databases? Just name one. yeah, and I am santa claus, c'mon, on an internet spaceships forum everybody can write what he likes to. I wont do it. Your 25 year DBA experience saying there is no way to get a simple attribute from a joined table lets look you like an idiot, tbh Originally by: ZeeOhSix The troll, sir, is you claiming something is "simple" and making consistent mis-statements about how databases actually work. so, what mis-statement? show me one. Originally by: ZeeOhSix I suggest you go back to your Microsoft Access playtime and leave real database work to professionals yeah, my master.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.21 12:04:00 - [22] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 21/03/2010 12:05:09 Originally by: Paknac Queltel Your lack of understanding the impact such a change has on a complex system like the EVE server infastructure makes you look like an idiot, tbh. yeah, actually eve couldnt work at all because its that complex, right? Its a miracle. Originally by: Paknac Queltel All of us can explain, and explain again, but you knowing how to write a query on that MySQL you installed on your home PC blocks you from understanding the scaling problems somehow. I give up. Enjoy your ignorance. lol you cant "explain" anything because you know a sh*t about the eve implementation as me too... so all we can do is discuss basics
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.23 11:18:00 - [23] like I wrote before, i am not interested in workarounds but in a proper fix. - the S&I window is delayed - the S&I window is cached - the S&I window shows me sometimes nothing even if I am at 0 to the lab -> the S&I window is a pain to use and I have to do a lot of work only for differentiating what I actually have in my fuggin hangar! This is a broken game design. FIX IT! thxbai
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.31 08:47:00 - [24] Originally by: Panjho So, in order to differentiate between BPOs and BPCs we need two pieces of information: Type information, which is automatically retrieved when you look in your hangar, and Instance information, which is never retrieved by the hangar but can be retrieved by the S&I. bla.. I cant hear this crap anymore... You always have to fetch the "instance", how would you else know if there is its type to show?? but actually, this discussion is pointless because its invaded by a bunch of nerds advocating CCPs "normalization"-excuses at all extents for some curious reasons.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.03.31 18:36:00 - [25] - you CAN'T move BPs within a POS!! - S&I window sometimes shows nothing - its delayed - its cached its just crappy!
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.04.01 13:45:00 - [26] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 01/04/2010 13:46:50 Originally by: Namdor This gets a big old "So what?" from me. "so what"? I've merely answered your question. Originally by: Namdor I've seen this happen, but I've always been able to attribute it to some networking issue. I've had blank hangars from the same cause. no, for me it was blank despite working network. Any further discussion about the broken S&I window is useless because I simply dont want it but requesting a proper implementation for all that instead, which is less pain in the a*s as it's now.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.04.01 14:11:00 - [27] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 01/04/2010 14:13:33 I'm simply requesting a fix for stuff; I did not ask for tips about pesky workarounds which are nearly as much pain in the butt as the problem itself and which I've even denied explicitly multiple times already in this thread, so stop telling me 'bout it finally.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.04.01 22:45:00 - [28] Originally by: Token Prophets Originally by: Token Prophets It's a pity the description could not be used to give the originals a gold glow or something similar. Further to the above I wonder if CCP could release in the next patch a sorta client side mod that would use the descriptions of the BPO's and BPC's to change their colour one way or another. As the server doesn't care about the difference this would only be a local change, shouldn't effect server lag as it's all local and could be a solution for many people. you still have to get BP infos, doing it on the client will probably result in even more lag due to the network overhead for each single query as if they implement this in the cluster and transmit the data to the client once per hangar showing.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.04.03 13:08:00 - [29] If the game design is bad, it has to be re-worked. The human kind has solved a lot of harder problems than coloring BPC/BPO differently.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.