Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
128
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 11:59:00 -
[331] - Quote
hellz bringer wrote: maybe find a new job if you dont like it?
I loved my old winter job doing Ski Patrol. I love skiing, I love EMS, and I love being outdoors and getting paid. But by the end of the season, if I have to go out in one more whiteout to find a lost drunk/rig safety rope/rescue some *******, I' be ready to stab someone. Burnout's a real thing, and the short intensity of a Ski season meant I was working 6-7 days a week for 10 hour days. I lost weight, got pissed at everything, but after about a week of the season being over, I had recharged my batteries and all of a sudden I missed getting out and stabilizing a shattered leg in a sub-zero blizzard. And I'd do it all again.
Nobody can do any job without ever taking a break, and a high stress, high workload job requires more downtime than most. A game designer for a large MMO with a massive, demanding playerbase seems to fit the bill for being a high stress, high workload job.
tl;dr If you want dev's with more than 9months experience in being an EVE Dev, let them have their vacation in peace. |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
113
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 12:03:00 -
[332] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:hellz bringer wrote: maybe find a new job if you dont like it?
...tl;dr If you want dev's with more than 9months experience in being an EVE Dev, let them have their vacation in peace.
QFT! DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
714
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 14:15:00 -
[333] - Quote
hellz bringer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:MuppetsSlayed wrote:OFFICIAL NOTICE: DUE TO COMPLETELY SCREWING UP ....... CHRISTMAS LEAVE HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR "various key people" SO THIS CAN BE PUT RIGHT. Putting aside the basic human-decency arguments that I'm assuming you're not interested in (I'm flying home for Christmas, it'll be the first time I've seen my sister in two years, this isn't that big of an emergency), there's an entirely pragmatic reason why this sort of approach is a bad idea. Anyone who's played EVE for any serious amount of time will be familiar with burnout, and how destructive it can be, and devs can burn out too. Cancelling holidays and making people work lots of overtime and so on is hugely counterproductive in the long run. You get payed for what you do, we do not. There is a big difference here and you should not even be making that comparison.
Not only is Greyscale correct, but he's also being gentile enough to not blatantly call you a self-entitled basement dwelling obnoxious little prick. Since I find his example refreshing, I'll to the same. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 14:54:00 -
[334] - Quote
Aldarean wrote:Icarus Helia wrote:are people still whining because they converted their entire stocks of fuel way too early?
reduction in pos fuel costs or removal of it would be a tremendously bad idea s mentioned earlier - rich will get even richer, poor might skate by with a couple extra hundred mil.
you hauling types who went and converted all the fuel you had based on a guesstimate instead of a more modest "meh, halfish?" approach - shame on you. Wait for a hard date next time, and get over it. Which is better and more balanced on the way things play out now. Right now poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer. Prices of everything will sky rocket. Atleast a "POS fuel amnesty" will allow market values to stabilise, and everyone can make a little money. Win, win situation for everyone. Fuel will still be bought sold and mined. So market will still chug along nicely.
Free reactions, no fuel expenses - that sounds like a good plan to you for an entire month? ice miners will get screwed even more than they already are courtesy of the bots, and anyone who just anchored a few dozen customs offices will be even more ripped off.
they wont be giving you free towers for a month. |
Deriah Book
Fox Clan Inari Kimon
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 17:55:00 -
[335] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Not only is Greyscale correct, but he's also being gentile enough to not blatantly call you a self-entitled basement dwelling obnoxious little prick. Since I find his example refreshing, I'll to the same.
Yeah.
The insults in the OP were sufficient. |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 20:04:00 -
[336] - Quote
Salaphiel wrote:As someone running about in a WH, I'm in agreement with the rest of the sentiments from WH folks. We had managed to switch over all the fuel we had to fuel blocks with the exception of the month we had in the POS already, which now isn't enough to get us to the deadline. Soon as you allowed us to put fuel blocks in the POS it just made logical sense for any reasonable POS manager to assume that it wouldn't be long before it'd go live. Dec 13th would've been much better and certainly seemed more like what you had in mind with allowing us to put Fuel Blocks in. *sigh*
Maybe CCP is colluding with the goons and their stupid insistence on raising the price of oxygen isotopes which ironically is only annoying our HS POS.
I do, however, appreciate the firm deadline, but I do ask that in the future, you make deadlines a little more transparent much sooner. Like the day you seeded the fuel block BPO would've been a great day for that.
LOL.
The GOONs had to learn from somewhere. Everyone who knew that the fuel blocks seed date and 2 weeks from that we were converting over to it. Shot its being a pain to try and make sure i got enough fuel now and i am in 0.0 and logistics is just a nightmare right now |
Letrange
Red Horizon Inc Cascade Probable
32
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 20:54:00 -
[337] - Quote
Dear CCP
Re: your communications issues.
After the Dev Blogs led expectations for the fuel switch over to be a short order (around 2 weeks in the 2nd blog) after BPO seeding, the following is NOT the way to communicate a delay.
CCP Soundwave wrote:Starbase structures begin consuming fuel blocks exclusively on January 24th. Hopefully this timeline will allow you to build up a sizable stock of blocks, without ruining your Christmas. IGÇÖm sure your family will appreciate you not bringing your laptop to the Christmas dinner to start production jobs. Please keep in mind that on the day of the switch, POSs will ONLY consume fuel blocks and all the old items will no longer keep the starbase going.
On a slightly related note, here is a quick piece of wildlife advice that could save you or a loved one: If bitten by a snake, avoid attempting to suck out the poison from the wound, like seen in movies. YouGÇÖll remove insignificant quantities of poison, while transferring bacteria to the wound and subjecting yourself to the risk of getting poisoned. Instead, call for help and arrange transport to the nearest hospital emergency room. Like with bears, the safest bet is staying away from poisonous snakes in the first place.
We might be able to sneak a few more changes in, but for now, this is the timeframe for fuel blocks. Enjoy.
The following:
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so here's what happened.
We knew we needed at least two weeks between Crucible going live and us patching in the change, so people had time to sort out their logistics.
We can't safely do the switch between ~Decembec 17th and ~January 15th due to various key people leaving the country for Christmas, and the need for a clear run-up to the patch.
We had the patch on the 14th scheduled primarily to do this switchover, as it's effectively the last possible date before Christmas to safely do this (we don't patch later in the week because it means fallout drags into the weekend, and particularly in this case a lot of people are getting on aircraft that weekend).
Our original test plan would've seen us squared away weeks ago, but a series of various unforeseen events meant our critical "upgrade test" (requires a spare "full-sized" test server) got repeatedly bumped back in the schedule.
We finally ran the test earlier this week, and the thing we were most anticipating breaking, broke. The fix is relatively straightforward, but it requires us running another upgrade test to confirm that the fix works.
We weren't expecting the second test to be ready until today or Monday, and in the unlikely event that that didn't go smoothly it'd leave way too little time for you all to sort your towers out. Therefore we made the decision to push the deployment of the change back.
As above, once we miss the 14th we can't safely patch for at least a month. Given that we already had a small post-Crucible tidy-up patch scheduled for the 24th, we opted to bundle the fuel switch into that patch rather than running two "serious business" patches (ie, full client/server patch) less than a fortnight apart, because it's safer and causes less overhead.
It's not the way we wanted to do it, but it's the best option we have available to us right now. We're obviously very sorry for the trouble this is causing.
Should have been the first post on the subject. Much rage would have been avoided. Seriously, someone needs to sit on CCP Soundwave BEFORE he opens his mouth and inserts the contents of CCP's boot tray (leaked internal document anyone?). Especially anything industry related. |
Sassaniak
Rayvek Laboratories
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 02:22:00 -
[338] - Quote
Dallas Makanen wrote:So glad, so very, very glad, that I bought all of the fuel and just shoved it into a couple of offline corporate hangars without doing anything with it until we were given an explicit date now. :)
yes.
Jackie Fisher wrote:Switch off POS fuel consumption for a couple of weeks to give people time to sort out their logistics and some compensation for the hassle.
also yes, i would like this even more.
as to everyone else,
seriously? you all expected CCP to follow a timeline? to patch on time and for things not to be broken? wtf were you thinking converting all your reserves to blocks? this is ccp we are talking about.
large alliances pos fuelers, dont you keep a reserve amount that's outside of your normal fuel stash? (if not why?) but again really? you expected CCP to not screw this up? how long have you been incharge of pos's? didnt you notice that a great many things about pos's are meh/borked? what would make this major change to pos's different?
remember WIS coming soon?
I changed enough fuel for two weeks into blocks, everything else is the same, the runs dont take very long to do when the change does happen so i would have had time to refuel with two weeks worth of leadtime, but i don't run alliance pos's in numbers so, blearg?
we should all push for Jackie Fishers idea. ...............................................................................
Sometimes, you all make me very disappointed. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
134
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 03:13:00 -
[339] - Quote
Letrange wrote:Dear CCP Re: your communications issues. After the Dev Blogs led expectations for the fuel switch over to be a short order (around 2 weeks in the 2nd blog) after BPO seeding, the following is NOT the way to communicate a delay. The following: Should have been the first post on the subject. Much rage would have been avoided. Seriously, someone needs to sit on CCP Soundwave BEFORE he opens his mouth and inserts the contents of CCP's boot tray (leaked internal document anyone?). Especially anything industry related.
This.... is probably true. That said, Soundwave's post reminds me of the convivial F@$K you attitude of the Ghost of CCP Past, which I tend to enjoy. |
Spiritus Placidus
EXT-suply
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 08:01:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP told everyone to do a half and half approach to the switchover from the beginning so anyone that is whinning about this now either can't read or has some major comprehension problems. How hard is it to figure out what it takes to build half a month pf fuel blocks and leave it in the fuel bay till the switchover? Quit bitching about something they told you to do in the first place! |
|
Sunrise Omega
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 13:41:00 -
[341] - Quote
In this thread - a list of people who merc/grief corps should consider wardec'ing, because they're sure to give extra tears and laughs because they apparently can't plan well.
The smart thing was to produce enough fuel blocks to fill up the extra space that the devs gave you in your towers back on Cruc launch date. An extra 30k of volume in your large tower's fuel bay which you could have filled up with the new style fuel blocks, then just waited for a firmer date.
Sometimes, being proactive means sitting on your hands but with a plan in place to deal with the event once it becomes a certainty. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
387
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 14:00:00 -
[342] - Quote
Hi everyone,
As you can see from this news item here, we got the TEMPORARY fuel bay size boost through all the relevant hoops and it's going out in the patch tomorrow.
This means that, until the 24th, your fuel bay sizes will be doubled, which should allow you to compensate for the unfortunate postponement of the fuel block switchover by just dumping another month's worth of fuel into your bay, without having to take out any blocks that you've already added.
We are at this time planning to revert these changes and reduce bay sizes back to their current (ie, post-Crucible-boost, pre-tomorrow-boost) sizes on the 24th. We appreciate that leaving them at their larger size would be well-received, but we're also aware that making substantial changes to logistics can have unforeseen consequences. We'd prefer not to significantly alter starbase logistics over the long term without having a better think about the situation.
Thanks for your time, and our apologies once again for the inconvenience this has caused. -Greyscale |
|
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
113
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 14:08:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone, As you can see from this news item here, we got the TEMPORARY fuel bay size boost through all the relevant hoops and it's going out in the patch tomorrow. -Greyscale Thank you very much.
CCP Greyscale wrote: We'd prefer not to significantly alter starbase logistics over the long term without having a better think about the situation.
Please do so. And think it through!
DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
137
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 14:17:00 -
[344] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone, As you can see from this news item here, we got the TEMPORARY fuel bay size boost through all the relevant hoops and it's going out in the patch tomorrow. This means that, until the 24th, your fuel bay sizes will be doubled, which should allow you to compensate for the unfortunate postponement of the fuel block switchover by just dumping another month's worth of fuel into your bay, without having to take out any blocks that you've already added. We are at this time planning to revert these changes and reduce bay sizes back to their current (ie, post-Crucible-boost, pre-tomorrow-boost) sizes on the 24th. We appreciate that leaving them at their larger size would be well-received, but we're also aware that making substantial changes to logistics can have unforeseen consequences. We'd prefer not to significantly alter starbase logistics over the long term without having a better think about the situation. Thanks for your time, and our apologies once again for the inconvenience this has caused. -Greyscale
Really cool.
What happens to an overfull fuel bay?
EDIT: nvm, need to learn o read news post |
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
96
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 14:53:00 -
[345] - Quote
As I understand the news post, says overfueled bay post 24th just can't accept more fuel until it has been chomped down by the tower so it is under the cap. A logical way to do it and a good change.
|
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
87
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 15:02:00 -
[346] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:As you can see from this news item here, we got the TEMPORARY fuel bay size boost through all the relevant hoops and it's going out in the patch tomorrow. Domo Arigato Greyscale-san.
May you keep your job for at least the next 18 months ;)
|
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 15:02:00 -
[347] - Quote
The problem is that it doesn't address the real issue, the fact that this delay is brutalizing high sec POS operations with the staggering increase to cost until this patch come out.
Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomine Tua Da Na Glorium |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
246
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 15:12:00 -
[348] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:The problem is that it doesn't address the real issue, the fact that this delay is brutalizing high sec POS operations with the staggering increase to cost until this patch come out. Highsec? If you are in highsec, just sell your fuel cubes on the market. They are going at 15-20% profit over material cost. Or reprocess them into normal fuel. You have all the options available to you, stop complaining. What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
96
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 15:18:00 -
[349] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Cygnet Lythanea wrote:The problem is that it doesn't address the real issue, the fact that this delay is brutalizing high sec POS operations with the staggering increase to cost until this patch come out. Highsec? If you are in highsec, just sell your fuel cubes on the market. They are going at 15-20% profit over material cost. Or reprocess them into normal fuel. You have all the options available to you, stop complaining.
No, can't you understand the highsec carebear logic?
"I own fuel cubes. I need fuel cubes to run my POS in the future. Since I own the cubes, they are free. I can't do anything with them, they must go to a POS. Oh, now I need another month of POS fuel but I'm low on iskies. Damn, I'm hosed".
(when the answer is, as you point out, "sell cubes, buy fuel (or reprocess cubes to get most of the materials out), keep running POS. Buy more fuel and manufacture it into cubes sometime in January") |
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 15:50:00 -
[350] - Quote
Melting Fuel Cubes sounds like a logical conclusion - HOWEVER... 1 week of fuel cube material is less than one week of material at current numbers. So yes, you still need to buy and transport the difference. |
|
Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 16:07:00 -
[351] - Quote
Reverting the change after Jan 24th is good. I don't want any players in the game that keep their towers online for months even when they are not active. If you are inactive for weeks in a row, don't operate a POS. |
Flamehaired Death
The Order Of Viision
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 16:52:00 -
[352] - Quote
Good call on the temporary double fuel bay size. Too bad that didn't come out with the late announcement of the delay.
I will say the decision to delay was drawn out far longer than I expected. As many pointed out, waiting until 3-4 days before original meant that almost anyone who could meet the deadline had already gone through most the pain. And I can see that even some who might have fallen 1 POS short of being done might have preferred it shields down for a few hours to an extended hectic refuel schedule. Once the blocks were in, it looked like Xmas was hit anyway to refuel old fuel -- negating the point of a delay.
After the fact, it looks like most of the important people who talk in forums were ready to go 24 hours after BPO release. If you were not ready ...you make a conclusion as to what the "ready to go" people thought. I suspect a few people were also quite angry because they expected to make a windfall profit off those who were not going to be ready on their own. That market is now all but gone.
However, once BPOs were released I can't say PE and ME research times were ever a consideration. Heh Noctis type BPO price and limited numbers were possible before that time. Actual BPO Prices were lower than they could have been and numbers quite plentiful. So if you can afford to own and fuel a POS - the cost of a second BPO to go into research while using a wasteful unresearched BPO was no challenge. And 10% waste on 1/2 month fuel would not break many POS owning corps either.
|
Flamehaired Death
The Order Of Viision
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 17:02:00 -
[353] - Quote
Oh and I admit that several small corps I know had it a lot easier than big corps with overextended POS. They are apparently using a mostly offlined corp hangar to store fuel blocks and extra fuel. So they were less worried about many trips to directly load 50/50 POS fuel bays than finding people to produce and haul the initial stock of fuel blocks to their POS.
But double sized fuel bays ought to cover any corp that is not going to fail to meet POS needs soon anyway regardless of fuel type changes. Well double doesn't issues in corps over possible confusion in the ranks about what to haul and load - but that is a relatively minor issue that should become obvious to anyone allowed to load fuel bays even if not clearly ordered. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
729
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 17:04:00 -
[354] - Quote
Quote:Please note that these changes will be reverted when fuel block consumption is enabled on January 24. Towers left with their fuel bays in an "overloaded" state as a result of this change should continue to function as normal.
Um... should? SHOULD?!
Why does that word not give me a warm and fuzzy...
I'm sure they're testing the crap out of this and it'll be fine... right guys? Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Flamehaired Death
The Order Of Viision
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 17:07:00 -
[355] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Quote:Please note that these changes will be reverted when fuel block consumption is enabled on January 24. Towers left with their fuel bays in an "overloaded" state as a result of this change should continue to function as normal.
Um... should? SHOULD?! Why does that word not give me a warm and fuzzy... I'm sure they're testing the crap out of this and it'll be fine... right guys?
LOL well double bay sizes will help with that a lot -- just keep normal fuel to full level until block actually work. |
Flamehaired Death
The Order Of Viision
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 17:27:00 -
[356] - Quote
Two BIG questions about double fuel bay sizes.
First can we wait until its confirmed that all POS are eating their fuel blocks correctly before turning that off? Day or two after.
Second what happens when double size is turned off?
I am just thinking that old fuel will be in bays until everyone sees fuel blocks are working. And many of us will be tempted to have a full load of fuel blocks onboard. In total more than a full normal fuel bay can hold.
Most of us do not want stuff lost or jetcanned when you turn off double size -- especially randomly or last placed inside. Nor do we want to worry about old fuel getting stuck nor fuel blocks in excess volume becoming inaccessible for POS consumption.
Ideally the "reduced to normal" fuel bay only balks at adding anything more until volume excess is removed. Hopefully every other fuel bay operation continues as normal until everyone is able to unload old fuel to reach normal fuel bay volumes. |
Aluminy
Ethereal Wolves AAA Citizens
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 17:47:00 -
[357] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Update from CCP Greyscale:
We got the TEMPORARY fuel bay size boost through all the relevant hoops and it's going out in the patch tomorrow.
does absolutely nothing for the HUGE mess made with MASSIVE HAULING of fuels to "out of way" places (nullsec / wh spaces) -
i'm sure there will be some flame down the road bout how someone was ill prepared etc... while not all our fuel blocks where converted - it was stated a projected date... and for it to go 30+ days past is still a massive **** up on ccps part making the player have to work harder, any way you slice it~
Christmas dinner? pft... will be in a damn providence or an ark for Christmas, thanks for that btw
still a giant F / U to ccp~ but hey... they had to try something yes?
|
Flamehaired Death
The Order Of Viision
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 17:49:00 -
[358] - Quote
Flamehaired Death wrote:Two BIG questions about double fuel bay sizes.
First can we wait until its confirmed that all POS are eating their fuel blocks correctly before turning that off? Day or two after.
Second what happens when double size is turned off?
I am just thinking that old fuel will be in bays until everyone sees fuel blocks are working. And many of us will be tempted to have a full load of fuel blocks onboard. In total more than a full normal fuel bay can hold.
Most of us do not want stuff lost or jetcanned when you turn off double size -- especially randomly or last placed inside. Nor do we want to worry about old fuel getting stuck nor fuel blocks in excess volume becoming inaccessible for POS consumption.
Ideally the "reduced to normal" fuel bay only balks at adding anything more until volume excess is removed. Hopefully every other fuel bay operation continues as normal until everyone is able to unload old fuel to reach normal fuel bay volumes.
If there might be issues with excess volume in fuel bays when double size is turned off -- CCP might want post a warning to make sure contents are under normal fuel bay volume limits the week before change.
I can understand temporary code might not be perfected.
And if double size goes off at same time as switch to fuel blocks...you might want to repeat your 50/50 advice for that normal volume in case there are fuel block issues. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
392
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 17:56:00 -
[359] - Quote
Flamehaired Death wrote:Two BIG questions about double fuel bay sizes.
First can we wait until its confirmed that all POS are eating their fuel blocks correctly before turning that off? Day or two after.
Second what happens when double size is turned off?
I am just thinking that old fuel will be in bays until everyone sees fuel blocks are working. And many of us will be tempted to have a full load of fuel blocks onboard. In total more than a full normal fuel bay can hold.
Most of us do not want stuff lost or jetcanned when you turn off double size -- especially randomly or last placed inside. Nor do we want to worry about old fuel getting stuck nor fuel blocks in excess volume becoming inaccessible for POS consumption.
Ideally the "reduced to normal" fuel bay only balks at adding anything more until volume excess is removed. Hopefully every other fuel bay operation continues as normal until everyone is able to unload old fuel to reach normal fuel bay volumes.
I tested it on Friday by filling a test starbase to capacity, halving the fuel bay size, and restarting the test server. This left it in a state where there was twice as much fuel in the bay as should be possible to add. It kept consuming fuel without any problems, it just didn't let me add any more stuff (on account of being full+). |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
105
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 18:01:00 -
[360] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Flamehaired Death wrote:Two BIG questions about double fuel bay sizes.
First can we wait until its confirmed that all POS are eating their fuel blocks correctly before turning that off? Day or two after.
Second what happens when double size is turned off?
I am just thinking that old fuel will be in bays until everyone sees fuel blocks are working. And many of us will be tempted to have a full load of fuel blocks onboard. In total more than a full normal fuel bay can hold.
Most of us do not want stuff lost or jetcanned when you turn off double size -- especially randomly or last placed inside. Nor do we want to worry about old fuel getting stuck nor fuel blocks in excess volume becoming inaccessible for POS consumption.
Ideally the "reduced to normal" fuel bay only balks at adding anything more until volume excess is removed. Hopefully every other fuel bay operation continues as normal until everyone is able to unload old fuel to reach normal fuel bay volumes. I tested it on Friday by filling a test starbase to capacity, halving the fuel bay size, and restarting the test server. This left it in a state where there was twice as much fuel in the bay as should be possible to add. It kept consuming fuel without any problems, it just didn't let me add any more stuff (on account of being full+).
Could fuel be removed in this over filled state?
Thanks for spending the time and doing what you could to help us pos users out. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |