|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 142 post(s) |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
43
   |
Posted - 2014.07.23 17:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Pheusia wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Ryuu Towryk wrote:I really don't think this 6 week dev cycle is a good idea... I'll have to disagree with you on that point. I think it is a good idea. However, this release is an example of how not to use a 6 week Dev cycle. Because it is clear that many of the features deployed in this release needed more time to be developed, reviewed and tested. Therefore they should have postponed much of the content for 6 weeks, finished it to a higher standard and then released it in a good state. This is one of the very reasons why they have moved to a 6 week Dev cycle and yet they failed to avail themselves of it's advantages. What we have recieved is an unpolished, feature light and bug heavy expansion... essentially the worst of all worlds. But it is not because of a 6 week Dev cycle. Well most of the stuff in Crius was originally slated for Kronos, which was the last 6 month expansion. Which also doesn't reinforce any criticism of the 6 week Dev cycle. It is certainly a criticism of CCPs ability to deliver quality content on schedule. And I think they owe the players an appology for Crius. But proper use of their 6 week Dev cycle could have fixed this.
That's the problem CCP has shown they cant properly use the 6 week cycle. Other games and companies maybe but not this one.They will want to push something out every 6 weeks no matter how broken it is instead of having to skip one expansion or it be really really light in content.
Plus their stated things they will be working on include reworking some of the most ignored and worst systems in the game (corp management and POS's) |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 17:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jason Xande wrote:I have not noticed any change in the Corporate Hangar Array cargohold size. Does this change affect only those built after the patch?
"Corporate Hangar Arrays cargohold has been increased from 1,400,000 m3 to 3,000,000 m3"
its a known issue. they state it would be fixed "soon" |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 19:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Clifton Oksaras wrote:Clifton Oksaras wrote:So I did 500 runs of R.A.M. Ammunition Tech, and the amount of Tritanium for 1 run of that is 491. The amount for 500 runs is 245197, which is less than the 245500 I expected it would cost. When I asked in the help channel they said it was a rounding error, that it didn't cost 491 but something closer to 490.34 and was rounding up. I was wondering if you could program the blueprints to reflect to however many digits what the actual cost per ingredient is to clear up any potential confusion? Is this a bug with the blueprints? Is the required amount actually more, or are the blueprints simply displaying incorrect information regarding material costs?
The BP's round up to the nearest unit always. when doing a 500 run it would take the actual value 490.34*500 and then round up to closest unit. thus on some things big runs will require less materials. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Clifton Oksaras wrote:Clifton Oksaras wrote:Would it be possible to instead of creating rounding errors on the blueprints to display their actual cost? For example, R.A.M. at max ME says 491 when in reality it's something like 490.34. What I'm asking is for you to display the 490.34, but we'll understand that you have to round up. It would make the resources required for large batches more predictable and much more intuitive. You can understand the players surprise when 500 runs of R.A.M. actually required an unpredictably less amount of materials than they were expecting. Any word yet on the this display usability bug? I understand if it's low priority given the functionality bugs everyone else is experiencing, I'm simply looking for feedback from CCP to see if/when they will address this. or take it to a single digit, not whole numbers of multiple of 100 :)
what he wants is the bp to show the real number and then have it rounded when he goes to build it. That way you don't need out of game sites and list of bp to see how much saving larger runs will get you. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 15:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Wolfensrevenge wrote:This was a massive rewrite of a ******** amount of code so keep your panties on and just relax. Bashing CCP is not going to fix anything except your womanly feelings... IMO its better to get it out and start taking in feedback and fixing bugs than waiting for ever for someone to try and break it on sisi to only find more bugs on TQ that were not on sisi. So cry some more please I love your tears  ...... http://i.imgur.com/oU3Pw.gifWE LOVE YOU CCP Nullarbor 
The issue is more these bugs where found and reported on sisi and then not fixed when they brought it over to live server. There was no trying to break things to test it out they where broken already.
If you don't see the problem with that than I have a super good deal for you. send me any amount of isk and I will triple it that's right triple it.
There have been daily patches for over a week and a half now and not everything is fixed. Is this going to be the standard process now a new release every 6 weeks then 2 or more weeks of patches to get it right? It didn't seam that bad before but now the release cycle can be measures in weeks and not months. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
56
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 20:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
Just a Hick wrote:Sisoko Osman wrote:hmm
CCP is preparing for Hyperion release and 10 known bugs are not fixed yet
good job Remember the movie "Fiddler On The Roof" where Tevye is singing? "Tradition. Without our traditions, our lives would be as shaky as... as a fiddler on the roof!" Consider CCP as simply keeping with tradition of having known bugs in their shipping product in order to keep us complaining.
They should stick with tradition and only release things twice a year. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
57
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Novastella wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote:
We understand your frustration, I'll start talking to the team. One question do you have containers in the Array and are they too small or full so cannot have anything delivered to them? Possible also that the jobs were started from these containers?
If yes to containers, then there are some rare cases where the job is trying to deliver to the wrong location (I.e. the container). A crude but manual workaround for this specific case is to move the containers out of the array (or division), this will cause the job to use the array rather than the container and should hopefully fix your issue.
We are hoping to add the ability to select/change the location you want to deliver the job to in the future.
No containers, the arrays are 100% empty. The jobs were started in station (pre crius) from locked bp's in the "root" of a corp hangar array. Thanks again for looking into this, you have admirable patience dealing with frustrated players :)
do you have a can in the station that the bp was in? that has caused lots of problems even when it was suppose to go to the pos it decided to go to the station in a random can. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
63
|
Posted - 2014.08.15 20:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
Alinkarn wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
There is no sense is petitioning or making more forums posts, people have brought it up for the last month and the answer has been the sameGǪ.as intended due to :math:
Any chance you can explain how it is functionally the same and waste was removed, when it requires more materials and where that is cited? not that I don't believe you, I just think bad maths = maths that need to be looked at closer.
Its CCP they made statements not knowing what was actual going on then had to back track. There current line is that all the BPO and BPC are effected the same way so its "functionally" the same as before. |
|
|
| |
|