|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
699
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Greyscale has news for all you starbase managers out there!
Check out his new blog on what's being done for the Winter Expansion to make starbase management more manageable.
CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote:Most important sentence:
"While we're waiting to do a proper rewrite of the starbase system"
Give us a modular POS, like the great flogger of the dead horse in the sky saw in his dreams!
Agree, let's do exactly this. |
|
|
CCP GingerDude
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote:Most important sentence: " While we're waiting to do a proper rewrite of the starbase system" Give us a modular POS, like the great flogger of the dead horse in the sky saw in his dreams! As a former POS fueler I can only smile at the fact that I don't need a calculator and an excell sheet anymore to fuel a POS and yet another thing in EVE is added that I can say "in the old days you needed to..."
Why, yes, lets. Maybe not absolutely right now today now, but... yes! Senior Server Programmer |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:A few questions:
1) What happens to the sov bonus to fuel use?
2) What's the manufacture time on the blocks? - Answered in the devblog, sorry - 10 minutes.
3) I'm guessing assembling fuel into blocks, inside the fuel bays, over the deployment DT is too complex? That would be a better solution for players.
As it stands currently, you'll get the bonus on large towers but nothing on medium/small due to :math:. Still thinking about that one though
3) is technically feasible but raises the technical risk sufficiently that it'd have pushed the whole thing back to a nebulous "later release" (again), so we skipped it.
Alice Katsuko wrote:Very nice changes. Might be a stupid question, but how exactly will jump bridge access be controlled now? Will it be purely through standings? And will we be able to set the level of standings at which jump bridge access is granted?
Basing it purely on control tower aggression settings may not be the best idea, because it may not allow for sufficient level of control. For example, an alliance will probably have its POS network configured to not shoot dark and light blues, but may not want light blues to use its bridge network.
Purely on aggro settings, yes. If the tower won't shoot you, you can use the bridge. The CSM was very clear that JB passwords are all public knowledge already so it's a pretty meaningless security check in practice.
Friedward Schnorch wrote:2 questions.
"We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers"
You actually doubled the consumption for medium and quadrupled it for large towers. Currently all towers just use 1 robotics, no matter which size.
1 robotics makes 4 fuel blocks, so large towers use 1/hour (4 blocks), mediums use 0.5 (2 blocks) and smalls use 0.25 (1 block). |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Currently thinking about:
- Fuel divisibility situation (ie, faction/sov fuel bonuses)
- Block build times
Keep on posting, we are paying attention :) |
|
|
CCP Prism X
C C P C C P Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
This one time. In Band Camp. Absolutely nothing happened. For a whole day, NOTHING! It was a fairly boring day to tell you the truth. Even so POSs all started going randomly offline. Somehow that did not stop them from opening fire on blues and only blues. I think this five year old love/hate relationship of ours with the current POS code is getting old.
Just felt like getting that off my chest after reading this. Carry on. ~ CCP Prism X EVE Database Developer "Prism X is my first world problem." ~ CCP FLX If anything in this post was informative or could be considered as 'good news' to you - chances are you've misread it. |
|
|
CCP Prism X
C C P C C P Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:This has happened before.
Remember last year when they went skynet on everyone?
Yeah I know, that was my fault. I should have known better than pick my left nose as a grey cat crossed the street in front of the office ON PATCH DAY!
Seriously, five years and I still do this. ~ CCP Prism X EVE Database Developer "Prism X is my first world problem." ~ CCP FLX If anything in this post was informative or could be considered as 'good news' to you - chances are you've misread it. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 12:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
Hi again.
Changes:
- We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
- We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
- We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
- CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.
WRT the faction tower fuel use, we were hoping that what we were being told by various large-scale fuel operators that maintaining the high refuel interval was the main benefit for most people, as all other things being equal a 1/2/4 scheme is easier to work with than a 10/20/40 one. Obviously we didn't talk to enough small-scale users for whom the use bonus is a bigger deal; this feedback thread has established that this is still a big deal, so we're dropping to our first fallback position and doing 10/20/40 instead.
Things we're not considering:
- Upping cycle times. It breaks reactors etc, and it makes the system harder for players to wrangle. We'd like to move away from designs that require you to memorize data tables to use them properly.
- Making the handover (or anything else to do with this change) more complex/more automated. If for example we determined that we couldn't do this without some form of upgrade script, we'd have cut the feature, because it increases the workload and the risk of this change by a factor of two or three, and at that level we can't justify committing to it. This goes for putting fuel into towers, it goes for running two fuel types at once (which would require major code changes) and so on.
Other things:
- You'll be able to reprocess fuel blocks in the normal way, getting back all the materials etc.
- Currently they're configured to be researchable, with fairly short durations. I'm seeing some questions about this here - is there a strong reason why these need to be unresearchable? I don't have an industry designer on hand right now or I'd ask them :)
- We'll keep an eye on the ice use situation and make further changes there if needed
- WRT the changes to robotics use, assuming large towers are the primary use case then going the other way would kick global consumption up by a factor of 3-4, which would make them a gigantic production bottleneck. Reducing the demand on small/medium towers a little is believed to be a better option than significantly driving up the running costs of all non-small towers everywhere.
- The handover isn't doing anything magic - it'll use old fuel before the switchover and new fuel afterwards. We're saying "half-and-half" because we're recommending you all put a mix of old and new fuel in your towers while the switch is happening, so it has old fuel available before the switch downtime and new fuel available after the downtime.
- WRT talking to players earlier, we have to strike a very careful balance between getting feedback early and not getting people's hopes up. Ideally we'd get input from everyone as soon as we start design work, but our experience has been that bringing very vague designs to the community, and/or pitching designs that subsequently get cut due to being infeasible, creates more disruption than holding back until we're sure something is actually going to work. We do of course talk to subject-matter specialists (ie, people who play that area of the game regularly) within CCP, and the CSM, in the early stages of the design.
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
77
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jackeroo wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi again. Changes:
- We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
- We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
- We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
- CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.
Great news. I was just wondering what a 15% and 25% bonus on small towers means? Will you round it down? Cause 10 blocks per cycle -15%/25% (1,5 or 2,5) doesn't work. And how does it work with SOV bonus. Will that count as well? Anyways, good changes!
It'll be rounding up in all cases I suspect. Not totally optimal, but the 64-block version doesn't deal with 15% well either and I don't want to go much bigger than that if I can help it. The fewer zeroes people have to punch into text boxes, the fewer times they're going to screw up their numbers. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
20%/10% works for me, and makes much nicer numbers to boot. Any objections? :P
WRT the blueprints, they're set up to do something like 3 hours/level for ME, I think (12000 seconds) with no skills, with a 5% base waste factor (it's kicking the isotopes up to 420). |
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Takeshi Ryuu wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:It'll be rounding up in all cases I suspect. Not totally optimal, but the 64-block version doesn't deal with 15% well either and I don't want to go much bigger than that if I can help it. The fewer zeroes people have to punch into text boxes, the fewer times they're going to screw up their numbers. Why using 40-based or 64-based arithmetic when most people would consider 100-based to be easier to calculate in? From the server side it does not matter whether it will be 10/20/40 or 25/50/100, but from the user point of view calculating all kinds of percents and quantities is, probably, easier when the base "anchor" number is 100 instead of 40 or, gods forbid, 64.
TBH I suspect most people are going to be calculating in 24-hour chunks not 1-hour chunks anyway, so 100 get you 2400 and 40 gets you 960. I'm trying to keep the zeroes low though because (as traders will tell you) miscounting your 0s is probably the most common type of bad input.
Dario Kaelenter wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:20%/10% works for me, and makes much nicer numbers to boot. Any objections? :P
WRT the blueprints, they're set up to do something like 3 hours/level for ME, I think (12000 seconds) with no skills, with a 5% base waste factor (it's kicking the isotopes up to 420). So I had a bigger feedback post tho ya stupid forum preview ate it One thing that came to mind was the BPC runs - Please make it reasonable like 300 as per most ammo ... and not something stupid like Nanite Repair Paste as I'm sure your DB and my hanger prefers 1 x 300 run BPC instead of 60 x 5 Run BPCs cluttering things up !!
Max production runs is set to 300. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Changes that I've just checked in for testing:
- Build time now 5 minutes
- Can build blocks in component assembly arrays
- Removed capacity bonus from faction towers
- Upped batch size to 40 and dropped volume to 5m3
- Increased fuel use in normal towers to 40/20/10
- Increased fuel use in tier 1 towers to 36/18/9 and tier 2 towers to 32/16/8
- Sov bonus should kick in for all towers, it will be rounding up though so keep that in mind with your calcs
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
116
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 15:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
Hi again.
Talked to Art people, they're going to take another look at the icons at some point and see if there are any usability improvements that could be made, but probably not for the Winter release as the relevant resources are all tied up making new spaceships and stuff. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
123
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 17:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi again.
Talked to Art people, they're going to take another look at the icons at some point and see if there are any usability improvements that could be made, but probably not for the Winter release as the relevant resources are all tied up making new spaceships and stuff. dude this is something that could be done in a minute in any image program the art people are blowing smoke up your ass they could have done it in the time they took making you go away
We used prioritized lists for a reason There's always tiny things that people could be doing besides what they're currently working on, but as soon as you open the door to "just do this quick thing now it'll only take five minutes" (it takes an hour, things always take longer than you think they will), you find that all you're ever doing is five-minute (one-hour) fixes, and the #1 priority work you're supposed to be working on (Battlecruisers, in this case) never actually gets finished. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
124
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:37:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tower capacity is up to 140k so you're at ~29.1 days already post-patch. |
|
|
|
|