Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 142 post(s) |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:08:00 -
[631] - Quote
I have clarified the Known Issues regarding jobs that cannot be delivered.
Marking the Some reverse engineering jobs as fixed as those have been predominantly fixed, though there are still a number of jobs which include reverse engineering (primarily those started prior to Crius or remotely) that are still stuck.
Apologies this was not worded appropriately, but the key point is that we have a number of other jobs we know are still stuck and will fix them. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3315
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:12:00 -
[632] - Quote
I supposed a roll-back is out of the question, and putting this disaster back on the test server, where it rightfully should be, is completely out of the question.
Because this polished product is far superior to what we had Monday, right? |
Ezeus
DIGIBUS The Predictables
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:26:00 -
[633] - Quote
When you announced the changes on the BPO ME and PE you basically said that existing bpos that were researched would stay the same or get better, well that is not the case.
Just tried to start a job with my archon BPO which was ME 5 and wasting only 1 drone bay,
Now its me 9 and wasting 1 cap engine 1 power generator 1 battery 1 construction parts 1 jump drive 1 armor plates 1 corporate hangar 1 ship maintenance
To me this BPO actually got worst than what it was
this BPO is now not competitive on the market due to the patch. |
Maxpie
MUSE Buy-n-Large Metaphysical Utopian Society Enterprises
435
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:28:00 -
[634] - Quote
Miyazaki Hetoshi wrote:Maxpie wrote:We have hundreds of locked blueprints.
We had them in a station that could not copy or research because we would remotely use a pos. This was far before the current changes were ever suggested.
Due to the new system, we can no longer use the pos to remotely copy prints.
There seems to be no way to unlock, move and then re-lock the prints elsewhere, other than going through the tedious process one print at a time.
Is there any way to do this without spending literally hours and thousands of clicks? No. I had to manually unlock over 1000 bpos
Good Lord, how long did that take you? I refuse to do this. This is a game. It is supposed to be enjoyable, not physically painful. I suppose I will petition and beg for mercy. How this issue has never been addressed is mind boggling.
No good deed goes unpunished |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
91
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:34:00 -
[635] - Quote
Ezeus wrote:When you announced the changes on the BPO ME and PE you basically said that existing bpos that were researched would stay the same or get better, well that is not the case.
Just tried to start a job with my archon BPO which was ME 5 and wasting only 1 drone bay,
Now its me 9 and wasting 1 cap engine 1 power generator 1 battery 1 construction parts 1 jump drive 1 armor plates 1 corporate hangar 1 ship maintenance
To me this BPO actually got worst than what it was
this BPO is now not competitive on the market due to the patch.
Yeah, your BPO is approximately the same as before, but due to CCP math, it now takes more materials because there is no more wastage
I think i hit all the keywords and tricky phrases there
Working as CCP intended unfortunately
The whole "No blue print gets worse was CCP's version of Obamacare"
|
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
377
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:35:00 -
[636] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ophelia Valentine wrote:Echo Mande wrote:When I try to start a job at a POS with a 'new' BPO type (for example an auguror or LSE; in anycase something I haven't used that session) the input/output selections appear to default to the lowest number hangar partition you have access to and not the hangar partition (or maybe can; haven't tried that) that the blueprint is actually in.
I really hope that this is not intended behavior. In the previous system you could configure the science/industry window to use the last used input/output hangars for new jobs. Being able to do that again would be very nice since my jobs almost always take their input from one hangar and output to another, neither of which is the first hangar. It will remember the input / output in your client between sessions, per type at a facility. The first time you pick a blueprint of that type you need to select, after that all of the settings are remembered (runs, output, decryptors etc)
This absolutely unacceptable for those of us who don't just produce one item all day long. The Input/Output settings should be remember per location and industry type. Manufacturing jobs, invention jobs, copy jobs etc.
Either way, different people have different setups, some settings for the industry UI and it's behavior would be nice. You should know by now that one size doesn't fit all.
Current system is worse for us because we use dozens and hundreds of different blueprints and we're forced to select input/output every time, which now takes longer than it did before as you can't use keyboard shortcuts. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
91
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:37:00 -
[637] - Quote
While i have been vocal and critical of this release - and RIGHTFULLY so, it does have a ton of fail in it
Invention is so much easier and nicer
Holy crap, i have invented more now then the past 3 years
6 guys, 11 slots each, going to town |
Ezeus
DIGIBUS The Predictables
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:39:00 -
[638] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Ezeus wrote:When you announced the changes on the BPO ME and PE you basically said that existing bpos that were researched would stay the same or get better, well that is not the case.
Just tried to start a job with my archon BPO which was ME 5 and wasting only 1 drone bay,
Now its me 9 and wasting 1 cap engine 1 power generator 1 battery 1 construction parts 1 jump drive 1 armor plates 1 corporate hangar 1 ship maintenance
To me this BPO actually got worst than what it was
this BPO is now not competitive on the market due to the patch. Yeah, your BPO is approximately the same as before, but due to CCP math, it now takes more materials because there is no more wastage I think i hit all the keywords and tricky phrases there Working as CCP intended unfortunately The whole "No blue print gets worse was CCP's version of Obamacare"
well looks like the aspect i appreciated the most in this game got wanked due to faulty logic and maths. Maybe i should apply the same logic and only pay 10 months and the 11 is free ? its as good as it was before. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
91
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:50:00 -
[639] - Quote
Ezeus wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Ezeus wrote:When you announced the changes on the BPO ME and PE you basically said that existing bpos that were researched would stay the same or get better, well that is not the case.
Just tried to start a job with my archon BPO which was ME 5 and wasting only 1 drone bay,
Now its me 9 and wasting 1 cap engine 1 power generator 1 battery 1 construction parts 1 jump drive 1 armor plates 1 corporate hangar 1 ship maintenance
To me this BPO actually got worst than what it was
this BPO is now not competitive on the market due to the patch. Yeah, your BPO is approximately the same as before, but due to CCP math, it now takes more materials because there is no more wastage I think i hit all the keywords and tricky phrases there Working as CCP intended unfortunately The whole "No blue print gets worse was CCP's version of Obamacare" well looks like the aspect i appreciated the most in this game got wanked due to faulty logic and maths. Maybe i should apply the same logic and only pay 10 months and the 11 is free ? its as good as it was before.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4820325#post4820325
That kinda help them explain it, although all i see is Fred Astair and Ginger Rodgers
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
351
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:56:00 -
[640] - Quote
For users with many blueprints please refer to: this thread
In summary blueprints in a password protected container (with a password), will not be displayed in the Blueprint Browser. This should allow those of you who have blueprints you don't want in the browser to hide them (which will also improve the performance). Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
552
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:03:00 -
[641] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:For users with many blueprints please refer to: this threadIn summary blueprints in a password protected container (with a password), will not be displayed in the Blueprint Browser. This should allow those of you who have blueprints you don't want in the browser to hide them (which will also improve the performance). Is there a plan to improve performance for those that have lots of blueprints and still want to be able to access them?
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
92
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:05:00 -
[642] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote:For users with many blueprints please refer to: this threadIn summary blueprints in a password protected container (with a password), will not be displayed in the Blueprint Browser. This should allow those of you who have blueprints you don't want in the browser to hide them (which will also improve the performance). Is there a plan to improve performance for those that have lots of blueprints and still want to be able to access them?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4837646#post4837646
LOLOLOLOL |
Maxpie
MUSE Buy-n-Large Metaphysical Utopian Society Enterprises
435
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:07:00 -
[643] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:For users with many blueprints please refer to: this threadIn summary blueprints in a password protected container (with a password), will not be displayed in the Blueprint Browser. This should allow those of you who have blueprints you don't want in the browser to hide them (which will also improve the performance).
What about for those of us that now need to unlock, move and lock the blueprints? Any relief for us, or will I be getting carpal tunnel syndrome?
No good deed goes unpunished |
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:12:00 -
[644] - Quote
Any chance we could do this?
100 veld = 1 compressed veld 95 Concentrated veld = 1 compressed veld 90 Dense veld = 1 compressed veld
That would give us one big compressed veld market instead of three.
|
Clifton Oksaras
Innocuous Anonymity
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:14:00 -
[645] - Quote
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. |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
351
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:16:00 -
[646] - Quote
Maxpie wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote:For users with many blueprints please refer to: this threadIn summary blueprints in a password protected container (with a password), will not be displayed in the Blueprint Browser. This should allow those of you who have blueprints you don't want in the browser to hide them (which will also improve the performance). What about for those of us that now need to unlock, move and lock the blueprints? Any relief for us, or will I be getting carpal tunnel syndrome?
To be clear this is not the only solution, this is an existing solution that got implemented and released today. We are investigating smarter ways to retrieve and present the data so performance is better and will continue to release those as we can.
Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
93
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:16:00 -
[647] - Quote
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 :) |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:19:00 -
[648] - 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. |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
351
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:22:00 -
[649] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: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.
I just had a chat with CCP Ytterbium about this, and have added it as a required change for Industry. We don't have an ETA but this is something we agree needs to be looked at and improved. There is some discussion to be had though and we don't want to rush anything out.
Consider it noted, but not part of our immediate Crius fixes.
Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
93
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:59:00 -
[650] - Quote
The teams that effect "damage" modules distinctly have no listing for "Drone Damage Amp", even though they have the four other low slot damage mods listed. Not a single one i can find includes the "drone damage" in lat list.
Is this on purpose, or left out because your QA is a bit lackluster lately? |
|
De'Veldrin
Black Serpent Technologies The Unthinkables
2637
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:00:00 -
[651] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
I just had a chat with CCP Ytterbium about this, and have added it as a required change for Industry. We don't have an ETA but this is something we agree needs to be looked at and improved. There is some discussion to be had though and we don't want to rush anything out.
Consider it noted, but not part of our immediate Crius fixes.
You may later decide that was an unfortunate turn of phrase. MAMBA is recruiting. -áWhen other folks are whining about a lack of content, we go out and create it. The case of Shrodinger's Hotdropper |
Clifton Oksaras
Innocuous Anonymity
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:01:00 -
[652] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:Lady Rift wrote: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. I just had a chat with CCP Ytterbium about this, and have added it as a required change for Industry. We don't have an ETA but this is something we agree needs to be looked at and improved. There is some discussion to be had though and we don't want to rush anything out. Consider it noted, but not part of our immediate Crius fixes.
You sir are my personal hero. I'd totally hug you, but given that you don't know me and live a 1000 miles away, we'll have to settle with this:
|
Xer Jin
Ancient Anomaly and Artifacts Recovery Explorators
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:11:00 -
[653] - Quote
CCP Contra wrote:Fixy FixIT wrote:When installing a job at a POS, the cost of installing the job is being taken from the Corp Master Wallet........
Surely, this cost should come from the member who is installing the job. Even better if it was deducted from the member and given to the Corp Master Wallet as charge for using corp labs.
Currently its given to Secure Commerce Commission.
Is this intentional or is it a bug ?
Regards. By Design
sorry can you explain why we are paying the SCC to use our own facilities??? |
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
27
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:14:00 -
[654] - Quote
I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but the Industry UI seems to show wrong numbers for ME/TE in active invention jobs. To explain further: I started invention jobs with use of process decryptors. If successfull, i'll get BPCs with ME -5% and TE -10%. But viewing the still runnning invention jobs in the industry UI, it shows ME -2% and TE -4% in the outcome box.
Another thing: Wouldn't it be less confusing, if the decryptor info page showed the actual saving in %?
For example, process decryptor again:
Material Efficiency Modifier: +3 Time Efficiency Modifier: +6
Why not display it like:
Material Efficiency Modifier: - 5% Time Efficiency Modifier: - 10%
Damjan |
Koenaika
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:19:00 -
[655] - Quote
Xer Jin wrote: sorry can you explain why we are paying the SCC to use our own facilities???
Because everyone pays to produce industry now. People who don't have their own facilities pay additional costs (fixed npc taxes, whatever tax rate a nullsec station owner decides to charge). But everybody pays.
CCP Contra wrote:By Design |
De'Veldrin
Black Serpent Technologies The Unthinkables
2639
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:25:00 -
[656] - Quote
Xer Jin wrote:CCP Contra wrote:Fixy FixIT wrote:When installing a job at a POS, the cost of installing the job is being taken from the Corp Master Wallet........
Surely, this cost should come from the member who is installing the job. Even better if it was deducted from the member and given to the Corp Master Wallet as charge for using corp labs.
Currently its given to Secure Commerce Commission.
Is this intentional or is it a bug ?
Regards. By Design sorry can you explain why we are paying the SCC to use our own facilities???
Depending on who you listen to it's one (or more) of the following: CCP is controlled by nullsec cartels and it trying to ruin the game for everyone else; Grrr goons; CCP hates you specifically and did it to spite you - as soon as you unsub they'll change it back; or CCP felt that it was a reasonable change that would help spread people out and offer some diversity in the manufacturing landscape. MAMBA is recruiting. -áWhen other folks are whining about a lack of content, we go out and create it. The case of Shrodinger's Hotdropper |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
666
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:25:00 -
[657] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:While i have been vocal and critical of this release - and RIGHTFULLY so, it does have a ton of fail in it
Invention is so much easier and nicer
Holy crap, i have invented more now then the past 3 years
6 guys, 11 slots each, going to town
That's why they are going to "improve" it in the next release CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Clifton Oksaras
Innocuous Anonymity
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:27:00 -
[658] - Quote
Koenaika wrote:Xer Jin wrote: sorry can you explain why we are paying the SCC to use our own facilities???
Because everyone pays to produce industry now. People who don't have their own facilities pay additional costs (fixed npc taxes, whatever tax rate a nullsec station owner decides to charge). But everybody pays. CCP Contra wrote:By Design
Not an objection, but it is rather strange that the cost of building at your own POS is affecting to how much construction is going on in the same system. Your labor force should be independent of everyone else's so it should only go up or down depending on your own workload. I'm guessing the labor force must be socialized to some extent. |
Hadubrandt Koeppl
Hybrid Flare Project Immersion
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:32:00 -
[659] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: ... There is some discussion to be had though and we don't want to rush anything out.
Consider it noted, but not part of our immediate Crius fixes.
Good one. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
667
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:34:00 -
[660] - Quote
Still have BPC's locked out of invention with ghost team selection that I can't get rid of. CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |