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) |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
301
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
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.
|
|
|
CCP Prism X
C C P C C P Alliance
240
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?! ~ 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. |
|
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum KUGUTSUMEN.
293
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fuel Pellets sounded cooler. Gotta feed those POS hamsters. |
Halcyon Ingenium
Warm Holes
54
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
Good news. Is there a time we can use fuel blocks before this or is the switch over going to be that abrupt?
People say things like: "Oh, you make so much money. What do you need any more for?" Well, actually, *****, I never asked for your opinion. I'll let you know when I have enough money. -Gene Simmons |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
As a wh dweller who got a bpo into the wh and started makeing blocks in an anticipated switch over in 2 weeks from blue print release your pushing it back for a month just put a big kink in my plans. Will now have to pull in more fuel to carry us over to the new date. Would have been nice to have this news even 24 hours ago
Could time left be changed to must be refilled on in anticipation of the change |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
209
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thank you for letting us know so far in advance. We were fearing a "Oh, btw, the block switchover? In three days." scenario. Now I can go to sleep safely knowing that I won't have to spend the next three days hauling cubes 23/7 to get to every tower. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
304
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Good news. Is there a time we can use fuel blocks before this or is the switch over going to be that abrupt?
Going to be abrupt. Hopefully the long leadtime will make it less painful. |
|
Halcyon Ingenium
Warm Holes
54
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Halcyon Ingenium wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Good news. Is there a time we can use fuel blocks before this or is the switch over going to be that abrupt? Going to be abrupt. Hopefully the long leadtime will make it less painful.
Good to know, good to know. Thank you. People say things like: "Oh, you make so much money. What do you need any more for?" Well, actually, *****, I never asked for your opinion. I'll let you know when I have enough money. -Gene Simmons |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?!
Gave you a like for this one, bro. Seleene's Sandbox - My Blog, where I say stuff. Follow Seleene on Twitter |
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
82
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
Thank you for finally announcing a date and a date that is now known well in advance. Should make the transition smooth.
Assuming of course the actual switchover goes without any hilarious bugs... well, I'll have my fuel blocks and bags of popcorn ready...
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
304
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Seleene wrote:CCP Prism X wrote:Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?! Gave you a like for this one, bro.
CCP Prism should continue drinking his own urine. Everyone else should not. |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
304
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:Thank you for finally announcing a date and a date that is now known well in advance. Should make the transition smooth.
Assuming of course the actual switchover goes without any hilarious bugs... well, I'll have my fuel blocks and bags of popcorn ready...
Yeah, having it late January means everyone is also back at the office, ready to remedy if needed. The programmers responsible for the change have promised to not make any bugs, so we should be in the clear! |
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
82
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jarnis McPieksu wrote:Thank you for finally announcing a date and a date that is now known well in advance. Should make the transition smooth.
Assuming of course the actual switchover goes without any hilarious bugs... well, I'll have my fuel blocks and bags of popcorn ready...
Yeah, having it late January means everyone is also back at the office, ready to remedy if needed. The programmers responsible for the change have promised to not make any bugs, so we should be in the clear!
Sounds legit. No bugs then. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong.jpg
|
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 14:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
*Reserves 25-31 january schedule for looting POS modules* FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
279
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
Thanks for letting us know this on December 9th, two weeks after everyone asked you to postpone this change. We've all really enjoyed rushing around half-filling towers with fuel blocks all week only to now have to replace with normal fuel again for another month.
**** you very much |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
279
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
edit: quote is not edit
but still **** you anyway |
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Thanks for letting us know this on December 9th. I've really enjoyed rushing around half-filling towers with fuel blocks this week only to now have to replace with normal fuel again for over a month.
**** you very much
Not empty quoting. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
468
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Yeah, I am really not a fan of this, after you guys said 2 weeks after the patch the switch would happen. It is especially bad for folks in w-space, most of whom have been converting their fuel to blocks for the last week. CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog What does CSM 6 do? |
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:08:00 -
[19] - Quote
I bet you still haven't updated the starbase API either. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:12:00 -
[20] - Quote
Nothing like having 4 days left on a deadline, only to be told that you have another month and a half.
And now you have to do twice as much work now to maintain your fuel block levels, or back them all out.
**** CCP.
BTW, considered reading anything beyond general discussion? You do have a science and industry subforum that would have been ideal for this. |
|
|
CCP Prism X
C C P C C P Alliance
246
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:13:00 -
[21] - Quote
spookydonut wrote:I bet you still haven't updated the starbase API either.
Confirming this. But that's because the new and old system are the same system with different type requirements so there should not be any need to.
However, I'll make sure this is true. There's a fancy post-it here saying I should and post-its are law! ~ 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. |
|
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:spookydonut wrote:I bet you still haven't updated the starbase API either. Confirming this. But that's because the new and old system are the same system with different type requirements so there should not be any need to. However, I'll make sure this is true. There's a fancy post-it here saying I should and post-its are law!
If it's not working a reasonable time before the change-over you're just going to make the logistics people of eve hate you even more, if hating you more was even possible. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
700
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
Any chance you could stick a big freakin' throw switch on the side of the pos that we can simply toggle between fuel chunks or PI chunks when ready? It would be kind fo cool to have this big audible "CLICK" as we switch the POS over to fuel chunks, then see the switch break off and float away into the depths of space...
It would give us control of the switch in a more pleasant way, with the 24th of Jan being a deadline, switch or die. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
468
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
The API works fine for blocks. CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog What does CSM 6 do? |
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
Two step wrote:The API works fine for blocks.
I'm really truly genuinely surprised. |
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
While I would have preferred a switch before the holidays, if stuff isn't ready on CCP side (or they are not comfortable for hitting the big red butan without weeks of advance warning), this is okay. Would've been nice if this date would have been given already when fuelblock BPOs were seeded, but I guess we'll live.
|
Ichtarus
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:35:00 -
[27] - Quote
Goon's tears are so sweet ! |
Rastuasi
Crunchy Crunchy Peregrine Nation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:35:00 -
[28] - Quote
Salpun wrote:As a wh dweller who got a bpo into the wh and started makeing blocks in an anticipated switch over in 2 weeks from blue print release your pushing it back for a month just put a big kink in my plans. Will now have to pull in more fuel to carry us over to the new date. Would have been nice to have this news even 24 hours ago Could time left be changed to must be refilled on in anticipation of the change
This exactly, kinda put my corp short on isk cause of this change >.> |
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
spookydonut wrote:Two step wrote:The API works fine for blocks. I'm really truly genuinely surprised.
Well, all API-using applications that monitor towers will still need updates... |
oogs
Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:40:00 -
[30] - Quote
Well, this sucks. You're basically screwing over anyone that was proactive and aimed for the original estimate (a couple weeks after the BPOs became available). Sure you can't make it run in a hybrid mode? |
|
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
149
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:49:00 -
[31] - Quote
mmm 2 weeks from the 29th of november is the 24th of jan? i dont know what made me think it would be the 13th of december, that would have just been stupid
CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
DaiTengu
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:49:00 -
[32] - Quote
I've been out of the logistics loop for awhile, since every time I got within 100km of a POS I've wanted to suck the end of a .45.
However, IIRC, CCP mentioned they were going to do a hybrid system so a POS could consume both regular fuel and fuel blocks for a limited time period.
Today, talking to my masochistic friends that currently do logistics, I find out this isn't the case. I was wondering what all the fuss was, and now I know.
CCP is handling this in the worst possible way. At least set up some sort of hybrid system so people can convert to fuel blocks easily. You're being absolutely ******* ******** about this.
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
97
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:53:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah, having it late January means everyone is also back at the office, ready to remedy if needed. The programmers responsible for the change have promised to not make any bugs, so we should be in the clear!
CCP Soundwave wrote: The programmers responsible for the change have promised to not make any bugs, so we should be in the clear!
CCP Soundwave wrote: programmers responsible have promised to not make any bugs
CCP Soundwave wrote: programmers promised
RUH-ROH |
Nathan Jameson
Talocan Dominion Talocan United
117
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:56:00 -
[34] - Quote
Salpun wrote:As a wh dweller who got a bpo into the wh and started makeing blocks in an anticipated switch over in 2 weeks from blue print release your pushing it back for a month just put a big kink in my plans. Will now have to pull in more fuel to carry us over to the new date. Would have been nice to have this news even 24 hours ago Could time left be changed to must be refilled on in anticipation of the change
lol, same here. We are just too squared away. |
Bruno Chowson
Itsall Mining Inc.
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:07:00 -
[35] - Quote
Just don't get why they chose the 24th of January.
Why not the 10th? That would only put those who prepared for the transition out for 3-ish weeks rather than 5-6. |
Iniquita
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
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.
I guess this means you have time to work out some sort of DB script to calculate the effective run time of the fuel in the towers and replace that with fuel blocks now?
Seriously you guys said it'd be ~2 weeks from crucible and my logistics guys have been scrambling to make blocks and get them into towers. This is really annoying news. |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:11:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Halcyon Ingenium wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Good news. Is there a time we can use fuel blocks before this or is the switch over going to be that abrupt? Going to be abrupt. Hopefully the long leadtime will make it less painful.
Actually the long lead time will make it more painfull :/ |
Wibla
Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:12:00 -
[38] - Quote
weeks = months in CCP time, 'heh'. CEO Tactical Narcotics Team |
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Narwhals Ate My Duck
15
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:15:00 -
[39] - Quote
Two step wrote:, after you guys said 2 weeks after the patch the switch would happen. It is especially bad for folks in w-space, most of whom have been converting their fuel to blocks for the last week.
+1
|
oogs
Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:16:00 -
[40] - Quote
Wibla wrote:weeks = months in CCP time, 'heh'.
Sounds like Time Dilation is working! |
|
Aareya
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:17:00 -
[41] - Quote
It gives CCP more time to find bugs in the system. We wouldn't want fuel block go-live to do something like uncheck an alliance's autopay setting. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:19:00 -
[42] - Quote
Aareya wrote:It gives CCP more time to find bugs in the system. We wouldn't want fuel block go-live to do something like uncheck an alliance's autopay setting. Only way to test it is live Everyone knows that |
Iniquita
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:21:00 -
[43] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=406086#post406086
Maybe you could address some of the player suggestions brought up in that thread now. Specifically the ideas around converting existing fuel inside towers to fuel blocks or allowing pos to burn both type sof fuel during a transition period. |
MentalM
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:22:00 -
[44] - Quote
Two step wrote:Yeah, I am really not a fan of this, after you guys said 2 weeks after the patch the switch would happen. It is especially bad for folks in w-space, most of whom have been converting their fuel to blocks for the last week.
+1
This delay is going to mean more logistics which is never a good thing!
|
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:37:00 -
[45] - Quote
Thank you for the timeline, but once again those who planned ahead get screwed.
I already have 4 weeks worth of fuel blocks produced, but now I need to get and haul more individual components for an implementation almost NINE WEEKS after patch when it was hinted it would be only a couple.
This means, ironically you actually ended up screwing up the time off you tried to prevent.... Im glad I expedited my fuel production...
I really don't understand why so much more time is needed. Plenty of blocks are already on the market and people are already selling researched Fuel Block BPOs.
Get the train rolling already! |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir. Unforgiving.
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:39:00 -
[46] - Quote
MentalM wrote:Two step wrote:Yeah, I am really not a fan of this, after you guys said 2 weeks after the patch the switch would happen. It is especially bad for folks in w-space, most of whom have been converting their fuel to blocks for the last week. +1 This delay is going to mean more logistics which is never a good thing!
I'm really feeling the empathy for the W-space dwellers.
I mean, sure EVE is a sandbox, and two (three?) years ago CCP said they were not going to make it easy to live in wormholes when Apocrypha came out. But since you chose to live in wormholes anyway, and CCP isn't making it easy, you want to whine more? Yeah, you are right. Let's have the switchover on Dec 13th, so what if half (or maybe all) the folks who would need to be available in case of a problem are away on vacation because of the holidays.
You don't care if your POSses all go offline for several weeks, right? |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir. Unforgiving.
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:43:00 -
[47] - Quote
BoBoZoBo wrote:Thank you for the timeline, but once again those who planned ahead get screwed.I already have 4 weeks worth of fuel blocks produced, but now I need to get and haul more individual components for an implementation almost NINE WEEKS after patch when it was hinted it would be only a couple. This means, ironically you actually ended up screwing up the time off you tried to prevent.... Im glad I expedited my fuel production...I really don't understand why so much more time is needed. Plenty of blocks are already on the market and people are already selling researched Fuel Block BPOs. Get the train rolling already!
I think the timing is quite interesting, since you could have purchased your BPOs, and put them into PE research (which takes just over a month to get perfect PE and 3 minute build times) - and you will have those perfect PE BPs ready to produce with just enough lead time to still fuel a lot of towers.
But CCP couldn't have been thinking of the actual industrialists, who pay attention to ME/PE production and cost savings. I'm sure that's not it so it's probably just Soundwave being mean to all of you.
Cry more. |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
189
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:45:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jarnis McPieksu wrote:Thank you for finally announcing a date and a date that is now known well in advance. Should make the transition smooth.
Assuming of course the actual switchover goes without any hilarious bugs... well, I'll have my fuel blocks and bags of popcorn ready...
Yeah, having it late January means everyone is also back at the office, ready to remedy if needed. The programmers responsible for the change have promised to not make any bugs, so we should be in the clear!
*makes copy of boot.ini |
Iniquita
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:46:00 -
[49] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:BoBoZoBo wrote:Thank you for the timeline, but once again those who planned ahead get screwed.I already have 4 weeks worth of fuel blocks produced, but now I need to get and haul more individual components for an implementation almost NINE WEEKS after patch when it was hinted it would be only a couple. This means, ironically you actually ended up screwing up the time off you tried to prevent.... Im glad I expedited my fuel production...I really don't understand why so much more time is needed. Plenty of blocks are already on the market and people are already selling researched Fuel Block BPOs. Get the train rolling already! I think the timing is quite interesting, since you could have purchased your BPOs, and put them into PE research (which takes just over a month to get perfect PE and 3 minute build times) - and you will have those perfect PE BPs ready to produce with just enough lead time to still fuel a lot of towers. But CCP couldn't have been thinking of the actual industrialists, who pay attention to ME/PE production and cost savings. I'm sure that's not it so it's probably just Soundwave being mean to all of you. Cry more.
It takes less than 7 days to get perfect ME on fuel blocks (ME40), and PE 20. Which is more than sufficient for manufacturing. Now not only do we need to either purchase more fuel to cover the longer interim, which is a fairly substantial investment when you manage 100 towers. All the blocks we've put into towers are effectively reducing the max run time on our pos meaning they need to be fueled more frequently over the next six weeks. This does not simplify things for anyone who runs a significant number of POS. |
Sassums
Wormhole Exploration Crew Transmission Lost
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:48:00 -
[50] - Quote
-1 for this.
More than a month we have to wait for the fuel blocks to actually go into effect?
Far too much time, I thought the idea was 2 weeks after patch day, fuel blocks will be turned on, and the old fuel turned off.
There were plenty of us waiting for this change so we could go POS hunting for those less fortunate. :)
Not a cool time line at all. |
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
237
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:49:00 -
[51] - Quote
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. Umadbro that like 2 months from expansion. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
560
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:52:00 -
[52] - Quote
There was a dev post around here s'cuse me my google fu is weak but it did state there was an issue for havning two fuel types for the towers something abut the tower eating both when they where present and that an or argument counldnt fit in there somewhere due to the nature of the tower eating something every hour.
I could be wrong though memory fails me with age and finals this week.
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
267
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:00:00 -
[53] - Quote
This is horrible.
People who run POS's have been preparing for this. You've screwed over the people who already hate their jobs.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:01:00 -
[54] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:I think the timing is quite interesting, since you could have purchased your BPOs, and put them into PE research (which takes just over a month to get perfect PE and 3 minute build times) - and you will have those perfect PE BPs ready to produce with just enough lead time to still fuel a lot of towers.
But CCP couldn't have been thinking of the actual industrialists, who pay attention to ME/PE production and cost savings. I'm sure that's not it so it's probably just Soundwave being mean to all of you.
Cry more.
Considering how far off you are about how long it takes to research the BPO, ill consider the rest of your backhanded argument just as poorly thought out.
I don't see why it is improper to voice an opinion about a deadline being extended for all the wrong reasons when certain people have taken steps to meet that deadline.
The fact is, the statement about extending the deadline for logistical reasons is backwards - The extension actually causes MORE logistical issues, not fewer. At least for those of us who have POS to fuel. And, lets not forget, this Fuel Block implementation was specifically implemented FOR people with POSs and to make managers of POSs want to kill themselves less... not more.
If you are one of those and could not meet the deadline for some odd reason because you rather Pew Pew with your ePeen, or had trouble understanding basic industrial timelines, thats not my problem. You made that choice. |
Kelrift
V.O.I.D.
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:09:00 -
[55] - Quote
MentalM wrote:Two step wrote:Yeah, I am really not a fan of this, after you guys said 2 weeks after the patch the switch would happen. It is especially bad for folks in w-space, most of whom have been converting their fuel to blocks for the last week. +1 This delay is going to mean more logistics which is never a good thing!
I agree .. Unfortunately I don't have time or isk to stock 5 months of fuel .. I have to load month buy month .. I left enough fuel in my POS for 2 1/2 weeks (as was stated in previous dev blog with a little spare) and now because ppl whined so much u extended it After you guys released the BPO's on the market .. Would have been nice to get this notice a little sooner as i just burned all my WH fuel into fuel blocks .. now i have to spend every waking hour for the next week praying an exit to empire will show up. so i can get More to cover the full month and a half ...
I stress This notice should have came out when the Bpo's were seeded to market .. woulda been easier to take in |
Aidamina Omen
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:26:00 -
[56] - Quote
This is very frustrating.
After spending the last two weeks rushing to convert my POS fuel reserves into blocks I find myself having to buy old POS fuel at inflated rates. And since most POS maintainers have been doing exactly the same market demand for the fuels going to explode. And after January it will plummet.
Good job for screwing the people that listen to you and prepared based on your information out of hundreds of millions of ISK.
And I'm not even talking about the logistical pain. If you guys stuck to your original schedule, and didn't screw up the bpo seeding, the switch over could have easily been done before christmas.
Ok I'm done qq'ing, back to hauling POS fuel....again. |
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
192
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:29:00 -
[57] - Quote
Thats a real pain in the gripper, we put 10 days of fuel blocks in teh pos's already as you said it woul dbe 2 weeks after patch, now I have to put another month and a half of regular fuel in. This has made me unhappy. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
AssassinationsdoneWrong
DeckardsDisciples ORPHANS OF EVE
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:35:00 -
[58] - Quote
Look at all the Dev and CCP jokes, messages, responses at the beginning of this thread and then the complete lack of them once they realised they only opened their mouth to change feet!
If you want to cover the "special" people who couldn't work out what fuel blocks are, how to make the change etc and thus make an interim period where BOTH fuel sources are accepted by the POS towers then this would make sense but what you have done is completely wreck the forward thinking of those who are squared away enough to prep for the transfer and, to some extent punished them.
CSM come on and get on this for us.
EVELOAN-á
The REAL isk loan alternative |
Draciste
Boiians Bloodbound.
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:This is horrible. People who run POS's have been preparing for this. You've screwed over the people who already hate their jobs.
+1 |
Anne Lou
Aeria Gloris Inc
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:37:00 -
[60] - Quote
Hello dear Santa! Sorry for bothering you while you must be really busy preparing a bunch of Christmas presents for all those kids around the world. I really have to do this as the elf responsible for packing and sending presents seems to have totally lost his marbles. I really think you should take away all his candies, or maybe even put him on spike - you decide yourself please, and DON'T be gentle. You see, the point is like that: When I was 5, instead of a talking doll I got a microscope and a fare inspector's kit. WTF? First of all, how are those related? Yeah, I had a lot of profit selling tickets to the WC, but still? At 6, I received a Scrabble game. Man, have you tried it yourself? At 7, it was a clockwork pigeon. Yeah, with a windup in his ass. He flew out of the window and is still flying somewhere. At 8, it was a cymbalo. Thanks, that was fun, but after 80th "Jingle Bells" in a row my parents got a real bad head, ear, and some other aches, and my grandmother shouting "JERONIMO!!!" sent my cymbalo flying after the clockwork pigeon. Man, I want it back! 9. Come on, do you really think that another microscope and a doctor's set are better than a Barby? 10. A sewing machine? Really? Even a DIY birdhouse would be better. 11. DIY birdhouse. Perfect. I liked the joke, but I'm still missing my cymbalo. 12. Oh, a talking doll! Well, that was fast, thank you. At that pace maybe at 70 I'll get a box of Durex. 13. A magician's set. Man, the only magic that happened was that the kit went after the pigeon and the cymbalo, and as a gesture of consolation I was allowed to spend the night out. 14. I wanted a skateboard. But what I got? Some ****** mackinaw coat! What should I do with it? 15. I wanted Julian to love me not that ***** Cindy. But in a last year's mackinaw coat? 16. A talking Barbie. With a pager. Oh yeah, when I'll start talking to a doll, it'll really need the pager, so that it doesn't get lost. 17. A cell phone charged with a 100 bucks. Given by an aging boyfriend, only to always know in what exactly point in Universe I am at the moment, and to be sure that Universe is not in me. 18. Orange underwear. Looks like it was made back in 1950s. Given keeping in mind almost the same idea as the cell phone. The Universe loses it's sexual power, the boyfriend is happy, I'm in a brown study. 19. Oh, a laptop and the Diablo anthology! Three months in a row I'm wearing the orange underwear, occasionally talking to Barbie, and exterminating the monsters all nights long. Boyfriend is knocked out, Universe is no more. 20. I want IT. But not of raccoon. But I get Diablo II and an advice to relax. 21. I want IT. But not of otter. What do I get? Another patch, a new mouse, and a Playstation. I'm really pissed of, and finally single again. However, together with the patch, and the lack of IT, the long-awaited freedom loses all it's attractiveness. 22. I want IT. And a new boyfriend. Not a jerk. But I get a marriage, two dogs, and a **** shovel. Only the orange underwear and Diablo stop me from suicide. 23. You bearded s**t-face, you've been spoofed! Instead of IT I get 20 pounds and morning sickness. Even the laptop is not able to compensate for that. Seems like it's reproduction time. 24. Oh go to hell, give me some sleep. 25. Wait a minute.
Now listen, you ****** guiser! Shove your ice staff into your hole, strain your brain and keep in mind that I already had my birdhouse and microscope. I don't want any talking dolls, I still sometimes talk to the last one you gave me. An if you, old stinkpot, have any bright ideas to give me something really useful and smart - you'd better make these thoughts go after my pigeon an cymbalo, cause you know air fares are really cheap these days, and it's not all that far to get all the way to your Lapland or where is it that you live. Believe me, having a fake beard torn off your face and stuffed up your hole is not that nice and pleasant.
I want IT. Yes, a fur coat. And only a mink one. No fakes, no excuses, nothing. Otherwise I'm coming after you, do you hear me? I have a really, really good idea how exactly I will massacre you. But, we'll discuss that when the Christmas comes.
PS And don't tell me I didn't warn you. I did. PPS Now dear CCP. First of all, thank you very much for reading all of this. Now you must have a pretty good understanding of how I feel, knowing that all of those long hours I spent at first flying all the way from my tidy wormhole to some forgotten station in losec after those fuelblock BPO's, researching them for several days, and manufacturing a 3-months worth of fuel into fuel blocks, only to find out it was all pointless and there is 1.5 months more to do it, and moreover, now I must again fly back to the empire to buy fuel for all that time! Who the hell do you think you are? If you said 2 weeks after BPO seeding - now please go and make a patch so that my tower starts eating fuel blocks, and turn off the regular fuel consuming whenever you wish it to happen. PPPS Santa, please look after them, okay? Or at least bring me all their presents if they won't be nice and do the patch. |
|
Calsys
Monks of War
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:44:00 -
[61] - Quote
Anne Lou wrote:HNow you must have a pretty good understanding of how I feel, knowing that all of those long hours I spent at first flying all the way from my tidy wormhole to some forgotten station in losec after those fuelblock BPO's, researching them for several days, and manufacturing a 3-months worth of fuel into fuel blocks, only to find out it was all pointless and there is 1.5 months more to do it, and moreover, now I must again fly back to the empire to buy fuel for all that time! Who the hell do you think you are? If you said 2 weeks after BPO seeding - now please go and make a patch so that my tower starts eating fuel blocks, and turn off the regular fuel consuming whenever you wish it to happen. THIS
|
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:46:00 -
[62] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:This is horrible.
People who run POS's have been preparing for this. You've screwed over the people who already hate their jobs.
This, this and this.
Seriously, those of you with 2 POS's might not care, but those of us managing 100 POS's now have to figure out how to get another 6 weeks of regular fuel in and distributed.... It simply cannot be that hard to check if there is enough regular fuel in the POS for the next cycle, and if not THEN check if there are fuel block present. Maybe you should give this problem to Team Paperclips. They managed in 3 weeks to make more players in this game happy then the rest of the development teams have in the last year. |
SMX
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:47:00 -
[63] - Quote
Soundwave your message is confusing and I cannot find a clear answer to this anywhere else. You say on January the 24th they will be consuming fuel blocks exclusively, to add to that I can already put fuel blocks in the fuel bays. Does that mean the control towers are already capable of using both fuel blocks and the old individual fuel items now? If so then I don't see the problem, if not why don't you make it so they will use both types of fuel untill then?
Edit: typo. |
Lady PimpStar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:49:00 -
[64] - Quote
Can we use the fuel blocks sooner or revert fuel blocks into real pos fuel at a refinery for those that already moved fuel blocks in? |
Sollac Krieg
Goats Unlimited
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:49:00 -
[65] - Quote
think this is a bit wrong even though its posted in advance.
I agree initially a time span of 2 weeks from patch day was given, CCP move the goal posts for the minority yet again....
However things change, sorry to see some things sound the same....
Oh well back to jita for more normal fuels, so much for being prepared |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:59:00 -
[66] - Quote
Artctura wrote:Zagdul wrote:This is horrible.
People who run POS's have been preparing for this. You've screwed over the people who already hate their jobs.
This, this and this. Seriously, those of you with 2 POS's might not care, but those of us managing 100 POS's now have to figure out how to get another 6 weeks of regular fuel in and distributed.... It simply cannot be that hard to check if there is enough regular fuel in the POS for the next cycle, and if not THEN check if there are fuel block present. Maybe you should give this problem to Team Paperclips. They managed in 3 weeks to make more players in this game happy then the rest of the development teams have in the last year.
All this. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises IMPERIAL LEGI0N
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:06:00 -
[67] - Quote
I don't see all the fuss. Fuel as you have been doing since the beginning of time, and put in 1 weeks worth of blocks.
The only people upset I can see are the ones that already converted all their pos fuel to blocks. I being a procrastinator was waiting for the last minute, so i am good.
Those of us that make fuel, we can just keep making it. and covert any to blocks after the transition.
At least we have a firm date now. That is helpful. Stop Whining! Embrace the joy that is Fuel Blocks! A year from now you will wonder how you did it any other way. Competition will drive the price so low over cost that a lot of people will just pick up fuel blocks in jita instead of the hassle of making their own.... |
Killarock
BOAE INC
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:15:00 -
[68] - Quote
Seems CCP cant win...
If they rush this out everyone rages...
If they hold it back to when their programmers are back off the holiday to fix any possible bugs, everyone rages...
what the hell do you people want ccp to do?
Since CCP has a history of blundering into decisions at the last minute and causing major problems, this seems like the best idea... It is only painful if you didnt keep a supply of normal POS fuels... which are whats required to make the blocks... so if you didnt... you werent expecting CCP bugs... and we always seem to get some bug...
I've seen gates disappear, ships flying backwards, velocity displays not working, warp to options killed and many other things... whoever thought things would go without a hitch at short notice needs their head examined |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
341
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:21:00 -
[69] - Quote
I was beginning to wonder when a date would be announced.
I can't say I'm pleased with the delay, and by the looks of it, neither is anyone else.
Wish I hadn't just started that fuel block production run... I'm gonna need to go buy more raw **** again.
P.S. Don't forget to plaster the announcement every single possible place you can in game. There are way too many people who don't bother to read the forums or login screens or dev blogs or evemail or anything else with words on it. Your best bet would be a pop-up window that opens the next time you open a POS fuel bay. This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Pyro Miner
Dutch Powerrr
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:25:00 -
[70] - Quote
Lady PimpStar wrote:Can we use the fuel blocks sooner or revert fuel blocks into real pos fuel at a refinery for those that already moved fuel blocks in?
wel if i rememebr corectly from ccp responds before ya can refine the blocks back to original feultype with no loss ,, that is if ya at a high eff refinery and ya got the skils to do it
for me this isnt a big deal as i have both types still, but i can see the horror for the big players and wh ppl
also yust got vacation so was hoping to hunt down some ofl towers ;o
ooh wel another badly handled thinghy from ccp, should have date rdy when ya launched the feulbpo's [IMG]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b274/pyronl/sigfire.png[/IMG] |
|
uglybass
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:26:00 -
[71] - Quote
Killarock wrote:Seems CCP cant win...
If they rush this out everyone rages...
If they hold it back to when their programmers are back off the holiday to fix any possible bugs, everyone rages...
If you didnt notice, they rage because previously anounced 2 weeks is now 2 months.
Only thing I cant understand is how hard it can be to implement dual fuel system, ofc in large projects with hasty implementation makes code much more difficult to manage....still... I think I can provide you a pseudocode for dual fuel: IF fuelblockPresent() THEN {insert new fuel system here} ELSE {insert old fuel system here} END IF.
there you go. you can prolly pretty much copy & paste new fuel system from old one, just strip extra items and change itemID. [insert more sarcasm here...]
|
Konshu
V.I.C.E. The Lostboys
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:27:00 -
[72] - Quote
Yeah...thanks a lot....2 weeks does not equal 2 months. I already converted all my pos fuel reserves to fuel blocks on the announcement that it'd happen in 2 weeks. And with the announcement of fuel bays now being able to hold fuel blocks, I had no reason to think we weren't following the original 2 week plan. Now i have to go pay stupid high prices to rebuy the standard fuel, because i only have enough of that left for a week or so....
Another Fail |
aetherguy881
Malformed Entity
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:32:00 -
[73] - Quote
Thanks for letting us know when they're switching!
About the snakes... Stay calm and keep the wound below your heard. Lowering circulation (mild tourniquet, we don't want the whole arm off) reduces the chance that the venom will circulate within your body. |
Smiska Grizzel
Happy Empire Pubbie Corp
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:43:00 -
[74] - Quote
Fantastic! I bought BPOs as soon as they were ready, researched them, and then flew them out the the end of nowhere. There I turned most of my painfully-imported fuel reserves into fuel blocks so that I was ready for the switch before the holidays.
Now it turns out that I won't have enough 'old' fuel to last until New Year's, so I get to waste a bunch of time transporting fuel across the galaxy before the holidays.
Thanks for loads of warning, CCP. |
Lili Lu
50
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:54:00 -
[75] - Quote
Smiska Grizzel wrote:Fantastic! I bought BPOs as soon as they were ready, researched them, and then flew them out the the end of nowhere. There I turned most of my painfully-imported fuel reserves into fuel blocks so that I was ready for the switch before the holidays.
Now it turns out that I won't have enough 'old' fuel to last until New Year's, so I get to waste a bunch of time transporting fuel across the galaxy before the holidays.
Thanks for loads of warning, CCP. Well now that was your mistake. Seriously, did noone see this coming? A change of this magnitude to a very important component of the game was bound to experience delays. Anyone who converted all or most of their fuel to blocks was not thinking straight.
And, stop crying about having to haul more fuel. Yes you will have to now but you will have a stockpile for later so no big loss. |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:56:00 -
[76] - Quote
I had horrifying visions of this happening, and turns out i was right. Go figure.
As many other people have said, by announcing the date as two weeks and switching it you've completely screwed a lot of us who have tried to get ready and have been converting large percentages of our stocks. At least caution kept me from converting everything I had, as I knew there was no way on earth this was going to go through without a hitch...
Anyhow, I'm suspecting you're going to leave the date as-is at this point. I'd like to say that whomever was handling this at CCP has managed to turn what should have been a fairly positive change for POS owners into a series of miserable logistics nightmares - between getting BPOs, getting labs, and producing/moving fuel blocks - and now we have to go obtain more fuel to cover our towers until the transition date.
This date should have been set before the patch even went live. |
Rong Targets
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:59:00 -
[77] - Quote
As a owner of multiple pos, after hearing this update I must say. Thank you very much for the tip on snake bite, it will proven useful in the future. |
Konshu
V.I.C.E. The Lostboys
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:59:00 -
[78] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Smiska Grizzel wrote:Fantastic! I bought BPOs as soon as they were ready, researched them, and then flew them out the the end of nowhere. There I turned most of my painfully-imported fuel reserves into fuel blocks so that I was ready for the switch before the holidays.
Now it turns out that I won't have enough 'old' fuel to last until New Year's, so I get to waste a bunch of time transporting fuel across the galaxy before the holidays.
Thanks for loads of warning, CCP. Well now that was your mistake. Seriously, did noone see this coming? A change of this magnitude to a very important component of the game was bound to experience delays. Anyone who converted all or most of their fuel to blocks was not thinking straight. And, stop crying about having to haul more fuel. Yes you will have to now but you will have a stockpile for later so no big loss.
I'll cover 2 things here....1) I did prepare for problems..i kept a couple weeks worth of fuel in raw form just in case....not 7 weeks.
2) Fuel prices are crazy right now with the Gallente ice issue and the changes to PI. So 'just running out and buying 4-5 weeks of fuel is NOT going to help me with 'bigger reserves later' |
Slumber
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:03:00 -
[79] - Quote
Very disappointed in the time delay for the switch over. Your screwing those who live in WH space and were ready for the original timeline. |
NUXI7
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
87
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
Well of course this doesn't work, there isn't any poison in the wound ;) |
|
NUXI7
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
87
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:08:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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..
Well of course that doesn't work, there isn't any poison in the wound to remove...
Double posted cause the forums sent back an error the first time, but apparently posted it anyway.... |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:09:00 -
[82] - Quote
You couldn't have announced the switchover date would be six weeks after the BPOs were seeded before you seeded the BPOs and told everyone that the fuel switchover date would be a couple of weeks after the BPOs were seeded? Is joined-up thinking is short supply in Iceland? |
Karia Sur
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:19:00 -
[83] - Quote
great, all but 2 weeks of my fuel is already turned into blocks which now means im going to have to buy/mine more to get me to the 24th....wish you'd make your mind up or at least not say things which you then decide to change. |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:20:00 -
[84] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Smiska Grizzel wrote:Fantastic! I bought BPOs as soon as they were ready, researched them, and then flew them out the the end of nowhere. There I turned most of my painfully-imported fuel reserves into fuel blocks so that I was ready for the switch before the holidays.
Now it turns out that I won't have enough 'old' fuel to last until New Year's, so I get to waste a bunch of time transporting fuel across the galaxy before the holidays.
Thanks for loads of warning, CCP. Well now that was your mistake. Seriously, did noone see this coming? A change of this magnitude to a very important component of the game was bound to experience delays. Anyone who converted all or most of their fuel to blocks was not thinking straight. And, stop crying about having to haul more fuel. Yes you will have to now but you will have a stockpile for later so no big loss.
Do you have any idea how much fuel 100 pos's go through and what it costs? You do realize the effects of the current system is driving fuel prices up, and will continue to do so. Couple this with the dramatic and unexpected increase in customs office taxes and now you're making fuel prices unpredictable.
The market is a fragile sandbox. We had people blowing up billions and probably trillions of isk of ships in protest of CCP "potentially" breaking the market over the whole Aurum and monocle thing. The timing of this, coupled with previous statements means that those who dutifully went around and filled their POS's and converted their fuel are getting screwed. Yes, they will be able to use that fuel later, but the cost per hour of running a POS is going to be significantly higher as a result of this change because of all the fuel that is now locked up and out of the system.
Look at it this way, 1. The supply of fuel is down because players simply stopped doing PI with the new tax rates. 2. Those that didn't have raised their PI product costs to cover the costs of gantries or the new taxes. 3. A *LOT* of fuel has been converted into blocks.
As a result of 1,2 and 3, there is less fuel on the market. Now I have to either buy more regular fuel or melt my blocks. Further, since we we're ALL led to believe that this was a change that was going to happen next week, there is now a huge shortage of regular fuel locally. Most POS's are fueled on a cycle of around 25-28 days. That means that only about 30% of the POS's in the game will require fuel next week. But because players have already started shifting regular fuel out for blocks, CCP basically set the end of life on regular fuel as next week. I'd bet that right now in game, 50-60% of the POS's will need fuel by the 17th of December. CCP has basically created the perfect storm of market forces on this market, and done so by basically telling everyone that DID listen to the original messages and prepared that they now have 4 days to undo all that preparation only to have to redo it in 6 weeks.
Is this the end of the world? No. But it is causing a ton of volatility in a market simply because CCP cannot provide clear direction in a market area that is already a mess and frankly the least completely rewarding thing in all of the game. I'd bet that 99% of the people that handle this do it because they have to, not because they enjoy moving green boxes. And now they've made these same player's lives harder simply because they can't provide either the ability to dual run fuels (which frankly amazes me) or a clear message on when such a major change is coming.
|
Cole Ontor
Mindstar Technology Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:29:00 -
[85] - Quote
Would make ccp look better if they compensate every1 with starbase roles 4mill sp for this mess |
Dallas Makanen
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:29:00 -
[86] - Quote
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. :) |
Bald is Bald
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:33:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?! The short answer to that is that he is part of the problem and likes to **** in ppls faces while he still can.
The bit longer answer includes a few more things, in no particular order of importance:
Ghostcrawler does something similar too, if you have been paying attention. Not that that waste of humanity is worth idolizing or imitating.
Once a goon, or rather once a 'somethingawful',...
Sidenote is naturally that this was posted in GD, not Information Portal as a blog. Even SI would have been more appropriate than GD.
That shitbit, as I prefer to call it, is a information warfare tactic that is indicative of hostility/contempt toward the playerbase, particularly the forumusers, further adding to the circumstantial evidence that he is part of the problem, besides all the attitude problems he has.
|
Karia Sur
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:34:00 -
[88] - Quote
i have to admit ive not tried this as i heard someone in local say you cant, but can you reprocess them? |
Zeusini
Shen's Heroes Fade 2 Black
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:36:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Being F'n A$$ Clowns yet Again!!!
You guys should NOT be changing the date. Most of us have complied and are ready for the original date. Hell, got 3 months worth and the BPO's ME done too.
You guys SHOULD allow the POS's to use either Fuel and then only FB on the 24th of Jan. We are ready NOW, so for all though's that have prepped for the original date, we should not have to suffer for being ready.
SO CCP, MAKE THE POS's ALLOW FOR BOTH FUEL BLOCKS AND PI FUELS TO BE USED UNTIL THE 24th of Jan.
If Anyone thinks this is Reasonable and Fair to All, Please show your support on this and then MAYBE CCP will make this change!
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT PEOPLE, IT IS THE ONLY WAY CCP WILL LISTEN! |
Don Dark
x13 Raiden.
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:37:00 -
[90] - Quote
this is some proper BUllshit .. they told us it would be Set to go live 2 weeks after the release of the Bpo's .. ive setup my personal poses to run out of fuel witnin Said week of expected release and converting all the other fuel to blocks .. and now your telling me i need to buy More regular fuel cause you felt like delaying this
Sorry to say but im Just about there with ccp .. im sick and tired |
|
Bath Sheeba
Another Success Story
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:38:00 -
[91] - Quote
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.
We might be able to sneak a few more changes in, but for now, this is the timeframe for fuel blocks. Enjoy.
Well ain't this a kick in the f'ing pants.
Thanks for telling us in the orig dev blog that it would be "a couple of weeks later." That implies 2 or maybe 3.
WTF?
Great those fuel blocks I built will be dusty by the time I get to use them.
And now I got to go buy another set of fuel........
So thanks again, for keeping to the schedule you told us. I really appreciate it. "Enjoy" Yeah, right. |
Cristalen
Fleetworks ROMANIAN-LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:40:00 -
[92] - Quote
Now that we have a timeline do we still not know what the fuel block rate will do if someone's got a faction tower and/or Has sov owned in the system? I'm all for saving 5% in total fuel, but if my towers go to 10,20,40 per hour I'll be losing more money. I've tried searching the forums and sadly I can't find any information on this. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
338
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:42:00 -
[93] - Quote
oh **** me ... we've converted tons of our fuel to blocks already
I'm a ******* profanity filter that can catch **** and *****, but fuckin little else. -á
|
Letrange
Red Horizon Inc Cascade Probable
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:48:00 -
[94] - Quote
I realize that your original fuel changes blog posts did not give exact dates. But you did specify that you'll give a couple of weeks time from bpo seeding to fuel use switchover. However the wording of that seemed to indicate that it would be 2-3 weeks between the seeding and the implementation - not 8 weeks. Smells of "we need another 18 months ... again". |
chewy newton
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:51:00 -
[95] - Quote
Please make fuel blocks work soon. Thanks, everyone running pos's. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:53:00 -
[96] - Quote
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. |
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
234
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:54:00 -
[97] - Quote
To all the premature converters: right click, reprocess.
May involve docking in a station, so good luck to wormholers
EDIT: Why does greyscale always post while I'm typing? 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 |
Ione Dee
Lucror Commerce Investment Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:54:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Going to be abrupt. Hopefully the long leadtime will make it less painful.
Other than all the problems and inconvenience you are obviously causing by extending the date a month and a half.
CCP Soundwave wrote: The programmers responsible for the change have promised to not make any bugs, so we should be in the clear!
Then you should have no problem switching over now like you told everyone you would. |
fido gotran over
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:57:00 -
[99] - Quote
In an effort to create less trouble and save time for the morons that have ignored the coming fuel block changes . . . CCP has managed to screw the vast majority of people who did take the time to convert thier fuel stockpiles to blocks.
Thank you for the present CCP.
This should have been announced before the blueprints were released. |
Kylier
The Black Legionnares Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 19:57:00 -
[100] - Quote
Alright.... my first response to this was to scream in frustration.... I have calmed down.
First off CCP, thank you for giving us a date we can hold you to. That is appreciated and everyone is welcome for that in some way shape or form. The rest of this is a bit of a rant... that said I do honestly appreciate the firm deadline.
Secondly, do you understand exactly what the effects of you jerking the market around like this are? (If so please reply)
If you don't I will try to explain. Lots of folks have stopped running PI, even if only briefly, because of the Custom Office changes.
At the same time you announced the fuel block change over with a short deadline. Those of us who are use to PoS Management are no stranger to working on short deadlines. So what do we do.... we get off our ass, buy however many BPOs we need and get them researched top priority. (This part doesn't much matter as we were going to do this anyway)
Next, we scrapped together an extra x amount of isk. Where x = about 210Million isk per tower we run. (this is for about 14 days of fuel at about 15 mill a day) in addition to our normal fuel costs. This essentially DOUBLED the demand for fuel at this point in time, which sent already high prices higher. None of us on the expense end are happy with it, but we only had 2 weeks so it had to be done. Besides in two weeks our lives will be much simpler when it comes to PoS fueling.
Now.... a week and a half into the two week period with everyone having made their fuel, paid exorbitant prices on a market that was in flux, Now you tell us oh we pushed back the switch over date till January?!
Lots of us were okay with the added expense of the fuel for a couple weeks as we would quickly recoup the loss by being able to use the old fuel in conversion rather quickly. Now you are asking us to sit on these blocks for an additional month and a half!?
That is 7.5Billion isk for my corp alone.
Congrats CCP you have dealt with the stupid inflation in the game for a short period of time, you have, at a guess removed at least a couple Trillion moveable isk from the market place.
And peeved a bunch of us while doing it. |
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
704
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:03:00 -
[101] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so here's what happened. * snipped the explanation
Regardless of the complaints, it's appreciated that you're taking the time to do it right and have it ready. People would really be shitting their pants to log on Dec. 14th and find their force field down and someone like me looting the pos pinatas that were exposed. Yeah, it's an inconvenience for some, but better than the worst case scenario could have been by a longshot.
That being said... I don't want a switch. I want a friggin balloon. Yep, a big, red friggin balloon tied to a big gawdy glowing red string attached to the top of the POS, floating there inside the forcefield. But this isn't any balloon, this balloon is special. It's the only thing in the forcefield you can actually target. So basically, when you're ready to switch over to fuel niblets, you put some in the fuel hangar and shoot the balloon, releasing a shower of glowing, sparkly confetti signifying that the pos is now on the niblet system and will no longer accept the old PI chunks. Of course, the balloon would pop by itself at the deadline, so you still need to be ready to switch.
Yeah. I'd wait an extra month for that. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
101
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:04:00 -
[102] - Quote
Updates are updates. Anyone that is on sisi deals with them.
An additional hour of down time to save a weeks worth of fuel that would have messed up the markets even more is just fine with me. Everyone that will be ready for the change is already and pushing it off just means that some of those ready now will forget to do it when the actual change his in Jan.
If its ready to go on the 14th do it. WH pilots will thank you.
Thanks for the explanation but common this is EVE. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
234
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:06:00 -
[103] - Quote
fido gotran over wrote:In an effort to create less trouble and save time for the morons that have ignored the coming fuel block changes . . . CCP has managed to screw the vast majority of people who did take the time to convert thier fuel stockpiles to blocks. I don't get why you would convert this early. I've had the BPO ready, the stockpile ready, but have kept away from production precisely because the date was unknown. Building is actually quite fast, even without any PE research, so there was no need to hurry. 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 |
Marsha Mallow
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:08:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so here's what happened.
.....
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.
Was ready to rant a bit (just put 2b worth of blocks into production) but meh.
We suspected this wouldn't be a smooth transition. I wasn't personally keen on seeing this rushed, or having to spend time fiddling about close to Christmas with towers.
Thank you for the candid explanantion and apology. Not much more can be done, so no point banging on about it. It's also appreciated that you took the time to explain.
Only suggestion I can make is, next time with any significant change like this, please allow sufficient time and don't rush just to attempt to please the rabble.
Fingers crossed for a smooth transition in January
|
Kylier
The Black Legionnares Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:11:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so here's what happened.
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.
Also you posted this while I was ranting.
Thanks for the explanation. Makes me feel somewhat better :D |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
473
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:14:00 -
[106] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:fido gotran over wrote:In an effort to create less trouble and save time for the morons that have ignored the coming fuel block changes . . . CCP has managed to screw the vast majority of people who did take the time to convert thier fuel stockpiles to blocks. I don't get why you would convert this early. I've had the BPO ready, the stockpile ready, but have kept away from production precisely because the date was unknown. Building is actually quite fast, even without any PE research, so there was no need to hurry.
Because some people have hundreds of POSes, some of them in far away locations that need blocks in them.
Greyscale, this is really screwing POS people over. You guys should have been more honest with the community earlier. I'm not sure what a workable solution for this is, but you guys should really consider using the extra time you now have to figure out a way to make up for all this hassle. Perhaps you might consider working on that fuel->block conversion script that you didn't have time to get done? CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog What does CSM 6 do? |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
287
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:15:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
OK so you're sorry. Cool. However that apology without action still leaves us just as ****** over as before.
We told you two weeks ago to either a) automate the handover process to reduce player misery, and/or b) add an additional fuel bay for fuel blocks only, and/or c) delay it until a more suitable time rather than rush things and leave players stuck high and dry
You did none of these, and pushed ahead with your date that was optimistic at best (and pure fantasy at worst). Now the EVE community has to spend the holidays un-doing all their recent work, desparately scraping together ISK in an inflated market, rushing around moving supplies, repeat the whole process in 5 weeks time and generally spending more man-hours than you have spent developing this entire project.
So now the only remaining question is:
What is CCP going to - in the next week - to resolve this clusterfuck? |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:16:00 -
[108] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Regardless of the complaints, it's appreciated that you're taking the time to do it right and have it ready. People would really be shitting their pants to log on Dec. 14th and find their force field down and someone like me looting the pos pinatas that were exposed. Yeah, it's an inconvenience for some, but better than the worst case scenario could have been by a longshot.
Pretty much this. If it was something where the failure case was less destructive, we'd have at least considered crossing our fingers and pushing the button anyway. Where the worst-case scenario is that every starbase in New Eden goes offline, though, we're erring on the side of extreme caution. We know this is horribly inconvenient, and it sucks, and it's wasting a lot of people's time and money, but it's better than the Great Starbase Pinata Bash 2011. Everyone here's a bit miffed that we've got to this point, but we console ourselves with the fact that this is a one-time burst of pain that's paving the way for a much smoother ride for large-scale tower operators everywhere.
(Yes, I know it makes your one wormhole tower marginally more difficult to run, and I'm personally very sorry about that, but I ran half a dozen towers for six months and splitting fuel into piles to go into my hauler made me want to lobotomize myself. We shouldn't have that sort of user pain in our game.) |
|
MadMuppet
Jarts
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:17:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP - recommendation: Make fuel bricks reprocess to their component parts until the 24th to try and offset this mess.
-Mad
Never trust a soldier wearing velcroed insignia
While not perfect, I find the font at 13 pt and scaling at 90% to be pretty good, and overall better than the old font.-á |
Kaotixs
Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:20:00 -
[110] - Quote
WTF can yall make up your mind. i have already converted all my POS fuel stocks to blocks based on your original date and loaded all my poses with fuel blocks. now i have to go by more of the old fuels and run to all my poses again to take out the blocks and add old fuel. please go back to the old date |
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:23:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Where the worst-case scenario is that every starbase in New Eden goes offline, though, we're erring on the side of extreme caution.
But that would be... hilarious!
Quote: ...but it's better than the Great Starbase Pinata Bash 2011.
I'm not entirely convinced about this. Purely based on the comedy value!
...okay, seriously, it was always clear that serious advance warning for the drop dead date was absolutely required and as the announcement was not out when block BPOs were seeded, I kinda assumed this would happen ("no block usage until after the holidays"). You could've communicated it all earlier tho... |
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:23:00 -
[112] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Regardless of the complaints, it's appreciated that you're taking the time to do it right and have it ready. People would really be shitting their pants to log on Dec. 14th and find their force field down and someone like me looting the pos pinatas that were exposed. Yeah, it's an inconvenience for some, but better than the worst case scenario could have been by a longshot. Pretty much this. If it was something where the failure case was less destructive, we'd have at least considered crossing our fingers and pushing the button anyway. Where the worst-case scenario is that every starbase in New Eden goes offline, though, we're erring on the side of extreme caution. We know this is horribly inconvenient, and it sucks, and it's wasting a lot of people's time and money, but it's better than the Great Starbase Pinata Bash 2011. Everyone here's a bit miffed that we've got to this point, but we console ourselves with the fact that this is a one-time burst of pain that's paving the way for a much smoother ride for large-scale tower operators everywhere. (Yes, I know it makes your one wormhole tower marginally more difficult to run, and I'm personally very sorry about that, but I ran half a dozen towers for six months and splitting fuel into piles to go into my hauler made me want to lobotomize myself. We shouldn't have that sort of user pain in our game.)
Goonswarm federation has 180 towers across 5+ regions. Turbonigger. |
Kaotixs
Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:24:00 -
[113] - Quote
Two step wrote:Jack Dant wrote:fido gotran over wrote:In an effort to create less trouble and save time for the morons that have ignored the coming fuel block changes . . . CCP has managed to screw the vast majority of people who did take the time to convert thier fuel stockpiles to blocks. I don't get why you would convert this early. I've had the BPO ready, the stockpile ready, but have kept away from production precisely because the date was unknown. Building is actually quite fast, even without any PE research, so there was no need to hurry. Because some people have hundreds of POSes, some of them in far away locations that need blocks in them. Greyscale, this is really screwing POS people over. You guys should have been more honest with the community earlier. I'm not sure what a workable solution for this is, but you guys should really consider using the extra time you now have to figure out a way to make up for all this hassle. Perhaps you might consider working on that fuel->block conversion script that you didn't have time to get done?
agree we are getting screwed now. isk and time wise. at least make the towers burn both fuels for now for those of us that did pay attention and converted all our old fuel stocks |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:25:00 -
[114] - Quote
Two step wrote:Greyscale, this is really screwing POS people over. You guys should have been more honest with the community earlier. I'm not sure what a workable solution for this is, but you guys should really consider using the extra time you now have to figure out a way to make up for all this hassle. Perhaps you might consider working on that fuel->block conversion script that you didn't have time to get done?
We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
The reason we've not said anything earlier is that our schedule kept slipping a day or two at a time, and it's really hard to know where to draw a firm line. We hit the point this week where the failed test meant another three or four days, and combined with the closeness to the deadline we had to make the decision to push it back. If the server had been available a couple of days earlier and the test had past we could ship on the 14th as we originally planned. We had to announce some sort of timeline when the blog went live, and as soon as we've even hand-waved a date, slipping that date is a pain for everyone. If we'd pushed back the date on Monday morning and then passed the test Monday afternoon, for example, that'd have been a whole load of avoidable user pain that we'd inflicted.
As to the conversion script thing, the reason we've worked so hard to avoid that is because it usually involves multiple upgrade tests to catch all the corner cases (there were ~700 Oneiros with five midslot mods fitted the day after Crucible because of a corner-case issue), and you're seeing right now why we try to avoid upgrade tests. If it went right it'd make the experience a little smoother, sure, but it also adds another huge pile of risk to the deployment. Right now we don't need any more risk, and you don't need us to tell you mid-January that we're slipping the handover another month. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:27:00 -
[115] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote:CCP - recommendation: Make fuel bricks reprocess to their component parts until the 24th to try and offset this mess.
-Mad
Fuel blocks should already reprocess to their component parts, although only in multiples of 40. |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
475
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:28:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Regardless of the complaints, it's appreciated that you're taking the time to do it right and have it ready. People would really be shitting their pants to log on Dec. 14th and find their force field down and someone like me looting the pos pinatas that were exposed. Yeah, it's an inconvenience for some, but better than the worst case scenario could have been by a longshot. Pretty much this. If it was something where the failure case was less destructive, we'd have at least considered crossing our fingers and pushing the button anyway. Where the worst-case scenario is that every starbase in New Eden goes offline, though, we're erring on the side of extreme caution. We know this is horribly inconvenient, and it sucks, and it's wasting a lot of people's time and money, but it's better than the Great Starbase Pinata Bash 2011. Everyone here's a bit miffed that we've got to this point, but we console ourselves with the fact that this is a one-time burst of pain that's paving the way for a much smoother ride for large-scale tower operators everywhere. (Yes, I know it makes your one wormhole tower marginally more difficult to run, and I'm personally very sorry about that, but I ran half a dozen towers for six months and splitting fuel into piles to go into my hauler made me want to lobotomize myself. We shouldn't have that sort of user pain in our game.)
I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th. CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog What does CSM 6 do? |
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:28:00 -
[117] - Quote
Really sounds like you need more/better QA.
Maybe reassign some of the Dust people. |
Bring Stabity
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:29:00 -
[118] - Quote
Yo how about you create another fuel bay that burns Blocks and let people use either or
bam hire me |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:33:00 -
[119] - Quote
Two step wrote:I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th.
I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. |
|
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:35:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Two step wrote:I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th. I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future.
Saying sorry is fine, we understand you're sorry.
You still haven't said what you're going to do to fix the clusterfuck you've created. |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
355
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:36:00 -
[121] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
a) Run a script to melt all fuelblocks already inside towers back into their materials. This will require a bare minimum of QA as it cannot cause towers to go offline. The worst that can happen is that they don't melt and you try again the next day, or the towers become overfilled for a few hours until the fuel burns off. Or they turn into Rifters, whatever.
b) Spend the remaining time you have before Jan 24th either sorting a final handover script, or pushing in an extra fuel-block-only bay to towers to cover the switch over.
Voila, fixed with a minimal amount of player intervention.
Can I have your job? |
Salaphiel
Beacon of Light
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:37:00 -
[122] - Quote
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. No one plans to fail, some fail to plan. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:37:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
You have numerous workable solutions, several of which are in this very thread. You're just taking the lazy way out and dumping the work on the players. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:39:00 -
[124] - Quote
Karia Sur wrote:i have to admit ive not tried this as i heard someone in local say you cant, but can you reprocess them? Confirmed. Yes, you can reprocess your fuel blocks into the original fuel components. There are the usual reprocessing losses, depending on the station, standings, and skills.
Now, please stop whining and let the CCP folks enjoy their holidays, too, after what must have been a frantic and stressful past few months.
Happy Holidays, CCP! |
Bath Sheeba
Another Success Story
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:39:00 -
[125] - Quote
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.
Not what you said in your dev blog.
Quote: 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.
And you did not know this a month ago?
Quote: 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.
WTF? So you guys knew you were slipping the deadline f'ing weeks ago? And you said.......NOTHING?
ARGH.
SCREW YOU GUYS.
Quote: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.
It may not be the way you wanted to do it, but BY YOUR OWN statements, you are saying, F you eve players! Thanks for being prepared, we knew the date was gonna slip, but we chose not to tell you.
Stupid of you guys. Why would you try to **** off the player base and then TELL US YOU did it?
W. T. F.? |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:41:00 -
[126] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
a) Run a script to melt all fuel already added to towers. This will require a bare minimum of QA as it cannot cause towers to go offline, the worst that can happen is that they become overfilled for a few hours until the fuel burns off. This means that there is no manual correction needed by players in time or ISK b) Spend the remaining time you have before Jan 24th either sorting a final handover script, or pushing in an extra fuel-block-only bay to towers to cover the switch over. Voila, fixed with a minimal amount of player intervention. Can I have your job?
That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare.
An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above. |
|
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:42:00 -
[127] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
a) Run a script to melt all fuel already added to towers. This will require a bare minimum of QA as it cannot cause towers to go offline, the worst that can happen is that they become overfilled for a few hours until the fuel burns off. This means that there is no manual correction needed by players in time or ISK b) Spend the remaining time you have before Jan 24th either sorting a final handover script, or pushing in an extra fuel-block-only bay to towers to cover the switch over. Voila, fixed with a minimal amount of player intervention. Can I have your job? That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare. An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above.
All I'm hearing is excuses about the amount of effort. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:43:00 -
[128] - Quote
Next time you see a massive change in schedule that affect thousands of players, let us know that the schedule is changing. That simple. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:43:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare.
An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above.
tl;dr: We don't want to have to actually do our jobs. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
198
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:43:00 -
[130] - Quote
How about a checkbox that lets you switch to the new fuel if you're ready?
Would be 2 exclusive sets of code that would run depending on whether the checkbox would go.
Wouldn't require any fudging with the hangar spaces in themselves. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:45:00 -
[131] - Quote
Bath Sheeba wrote: WTF? So you guys knew you were slipping the deadline f'ing weeks ago? And you said.......NOTHING?
The original test plan gave us a huge amount of available slippage time that we could eat up without affecting the schedule in the slightest. Unfortunately we ate up all that slippage time and then about ~5 days more, but those final ~5 days slipped one day at a time. We could've made the call sooner. In retrospect, we obviously should have made the call sooner, but that's only because we know now that we were going to run completely out of time. The question we asked every step of the way was "what decision today is going to cause the lowest amount of user pain". That got us where we are today, where the best decision is definitely to postpone it. |
|
Nylan
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:45:00 -
[132] - Quote
Taking the easy way out isn't the best way all the time CCP.
Starbase code is old and crappy.. well it's been this way for years maybe someone should devote some time to it. |
Pricy McPricechecker
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:45:00 -
[133] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=CynoNet Two][quote=CCP Greyscale] An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above.
Have you considered simply doubling the capacity of fuel bays until the patch, then reverting them afterwards? That way we can all fuel block up our POS and otherwise still fuel them as normal until the patch comes along, and doing this is clearly not a big technical problem because you've already increased their capacity once.
|
DeLaBu
FireStar Inc Curatores Veritatis Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:45:00 -
[134] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
a) Run a script to melt all fuelblocks already inside towers back into their materials. This will require a bare minimum of QA as it cannot cause towers to go offline. The worst that can happen is that they don't melt and you try again the next day, or the towers become overfilled for a few hours until the fuel burns off. Or they turn into Rifters, whatever. b) Spend the remaining time you have before Jan 24th either sorting a final handover script, or pushing in an extra fuel-block-only bay to towers to cover the switch over. Voila, fixed with a minimal amount of player intervention. Can I have your job?
Sigh
|
SmartBird
Fish Curtains
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:47:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:MadMuppet wrote:CCP - recommendation: Make fuel bricks reprocess to their component parts until the 24th to try and offset this mess.
-Mad
Fuel blocks should already reprocess to their component parts, although only in multiples of 40.
Utter bull***. Have jumped 2 months of fuel from 16 POS's to hisec. Bought BPOs and researched them and made worthless blocks for 2 weeks after patch.
POSes are now gonna run out of fuel 4 days after original published date.
Now your saying we train the reprossing skills in time to fix your mess to put them back to the normal way? That doesn't work here.
I use 2 accounts to deal with the POSes which aren't very much fun anyway. You have just made it even worse for organized POS owners and this is the final straw for me I'm afraid CCP.
Can't be F' ed even pulling the POSes down. Good luck to them players. I'm out.
Don't normally post in forums. But here's feedback from someone who has been playing for 4 years, time to move on.
Thanks all you players who made my time playing EVE a fun experience. (Tinkering with the fuel market and you'll make good isk right now it seems!!!)
And CCP. -2 accounts |
Kazanir
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
353
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:48:00 -
[136] - Quote
In light of the massive amount of effort being required from the playerbase by CCP's development choices, perhaps it would have been much better for you to not announce a "tentative 2 week changeover" date and then, 1.5 weeks after Crucible's launch, announce that you are moving it back...another 6 weeks?
You guys have painted yourself into a corner that is full of the rage of POS managers -- already one of the most notoriously thankless and annoying parts of EVE. You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens."
Grr, I say. Grr. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:49:00 -
[137] - Quote
spookydonut wrote: All I'm hearing is excuses about the amount of effort.
Then I'm sorry, because we're having an irreconcilable communication breakdown. From our point of view this decision is concerned pretty much exclusively with risk, not effort.
Pricy McPricechecker wrote:Have you considered simply doubling the capacity of fuel bays until the patch, then reverting them afterwards? That way we can all fuel block up our POS and otherwise still fuel them as normal until the patch comes along, and doing this is clearly not a big technical problem because you've already increased their capacity once.
Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though.
Kazanir wrote:You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens."
That's not snark, it's resignation. One of the things I've learned over the years is that sometimes there's nothing right now you can do to fix the situation, however much you'd like to. The only practical way to deal with this in the long run is to be able to say "it is what it is" and get on with something that you can make better. |
|
Nylan
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:53:00 -
[138] - Quote
If the risk is because of a poorly written pos code base then it does come down to effort/money/man hours to fix it. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:54:00 -
[139] - Quote
Why not just use the lowest fuel time left on the fuel tab of the pos manager? Vaporize what's in the fuel now and add in the blocks. Your fuel isn't balanced too bad. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:55:00 -
[140] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Then I'm sorry, because we're having an irreconcilable communication breakdown. From our point of view this decision is concerned pretty much exclusively with risk, not effort.
Ok so now it's pushed back. You have time to do it right. You've put all of the players in the position of having to completely rethink their fueling plans to push the date back a month. Now that you've failed to pull off the quick option, making the players do the work, take the time to do it right. |
|
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:57:00 -
[141] - Quote
I don't need to know about how to or not to run a POS or anything like that to see you CCP dudes saying nothing more than, "BUT GUUUUUUUUUYS!! We wanna go see our mommies. We don't wanna do it nooooooww." or my personal favorite that I hear from my kids, "....but I don't care if I made a mess. I don't wanna clean up the mess daddy. I don't wanna and you can't make me!!"
Grow up you whinning babies and get your homework done or Santa might take your unwrapped presents back. How would you feel then huh? |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 20:57:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:MadMuppet wrote:CCP - recommendation: Make fuel bricks reprocess to their component parts until the 24th to try and offset this mess.
-Mad
Fuel blocks should already reprocess to their component parts, although only in multiples of 40.
Are they reprocessable at POS refineries with 0% waste, like ice blocks? Is that a quick fix you could manage to put in?
and just to say, i'm more comfortable with the delay till january than i am with the risk in everything going offline, i'm simply irritated that you guys couldn't have communicated better with us about the status of this. |
spookydonut
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
73
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:00:00 -
[143] - Quote
Solution: Remove the need for fuel until the changeover.
Can I have your job now CCP Greyscale? |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:01:00 -
[144] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare.
Is it worth me explaining how to add one number to another in an UPDATE statement, or does your SQL server only do INSERT and DELETE?
CCP Greyscale wrote:An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above.
Stront bays were added years after the original starbase code was written. Although it's not as though those bays need to do anything but exist before the end of January of course. |
Skeith Oumis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:01:00 -
[145] - Quote
Here's some ideas.
1) If a pos is out of fuel but has a fuel block, burn the block and add the add the fuel. Cases to test: - Ensure enough room is in the tower to add the fuel - Ensure each block provides the right amount of fuel - Ensure the correct block is being burnt if multiple are present for some reason Implementation: You can write a simple function to do this that hooks into the code that checks a pos tower for fuel. Add it as a last case check before going into the pos offlining code. Should have basically no impact on the starbase code and be fairly reliable in practice as long as the tower isn't full of cubes.
2) Write a script to convert blocks to fuel Cases to test: - Handle towers that will overfull Considerations: - What to do with excess fuel. Can the EVE code handle overfull bays? If not, this can be jetcanned outside the pos. Implementation: Simple run-once script. This should be fairly easy to code on a core level, as you're just removing items and adding new ones. I saw you mentioned "things can go wrong" but I don't see how some towers could magically fail beyond overfilling (can it, dump it, I'm sure you can figure this out) and basic error logging will tell you if something breaks long before it actually does (add items, check bay, if there's less fuel than you added something probably went wrong!)
Neither of these are hard to write. The first one should just be a few lines of code, and the second is maybe a few hours plus a day or two of testing with sisi if you take your time. I understand you guys are busy and want to take vacation and all, but consider this is literally going to take days for some larger alliances; and we're not getting paid... quite the opposite really. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
338
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:03:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though.
Update on this: I'd rate this at about a 50-50 chance of happening at this time, depending mainly on whether we run into any kinks. I pulled a bunch of people out of the christmas party and managed to get preliminary approval. Checking right now what happens if you over-fill a tower bay...
Nylan wrote:If the risk is because of a poorly written pos code base then it does come down to effort/money/man hours to fix it.
There's a huge difference between "effort" and "money and man-hours".
Ampoliros wrote:Are they reprocessable at POS refineries with 0% waste, like ice blocks? Is that a quick fix you could manage to put in?
and just to say, i'm more comfortable with the delay till january than i am with the risk in everything going offline, i'm simply irritated that you guys couldn't have communicated better with us about the status of this.
Probably not viable, sorry. Starbase refining is arcane to say the least (remember the "you can only have one type of ore in there at a time" rule?). |
|
SmartBird
Fish Curtains
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:05:00 -
[147] - Quote
spookydonut wrote:Solution: Remove the need for fuel until the changeover.
Can I have your job now CCP Greyscale?
And I stay... |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:05:00 -
[148] - Quote
spookydonut wrote:Solution: Remove the need for fuel until the changeover.
Can I have your job now CCP Greyscale? Bad idea, free production. Alliances like us could drop towers and react a ton of goo, produce a ton of ships, etc for free.-á |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:06:00 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: There's a huge difference between "effort" and "money and man-hours".
i.e. It's cheaper to make thousands of players work for days than to have one dev implement a proper solution.
Please CCP, I thought we were past this ****. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:07:00 -
[150] - Quote
Wow, look how much whinage and tears are coming from Goonswarm Federation, esp. after all of the quacking about the pain they were going to inflict on POS operators with their Oxytope interdiction!
Goon tears are so much sweeter than carebear tears.... :)
Hahahahahahahaha..... +1 CCP! |
|
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:07:00 -
[151] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
a) Run a script to melt all fuel already added to towers. This will require a bare minimum of QA as it cannot cause towers to go offline, the worst that can happen is that they become overfilled for a few hours until the fuel burns off. This means that there is no manual correction needed by players in time or ISK b) Spend the remaining time you have before Jan 24th either sorting a final handover script, or pushing in an extra fuel-block-only bay to towers to cover the switch over. Voila, fixed with a minimal amount of player intervention. Can I have your job? That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare. An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above.
At least you have a reality grip on it if all POSes offline and dont imeadiatlely re-online with new fuel just keep EVE pilots offline till they are all up and running they're in your hands not ours.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
338
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:08:00 -
[152] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare. Is it worth me explaining how to add one number to another in an UPDATE statement, or does your SQL server only do INSERT and DELETE? CCP Greyscale wrote:An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above. Stront bays were added years after the original starbase code was written. Although it's not as though those bays need to do anything but exist before the end of January of course.
You're going from one stack of x items to 8 different stacks of items of size between x/40 and 10x.
WRT bays, I'm not saying additional bays are impossible in principle, I'm saying they're risky in practice, and we don't want more risk right now.
Skeith Oumis wrote:Here's some ideas.
1) If a pos is out of fuel but has a fuel block, burn the block and add the add the fuel. Cases to test: - Ensure enough room is in the tower to add the fuel - Ensure each block provides the right amount of fuel - Ensure the correct block is being burnt if multiple are present for some reason Implementation: You can write a simple function to do this that hooks into the code that checks a pos tower for fuel. Add it as a last case check before going into the pos offlining code. Should have basically no impact on the starbase code and be fairly reliable in practice as long as the tower isn't full of cubes.
2) Write a script to convert blocks to fuel Cases to test: - Handle towers that will overfull Considerations: - What to do with excess fuel. Can the EVE code handle overfull bays? If not, this can be jetcanned outside the pos. Implementation: Simple run-once script. This should be fairly easy to code on a core level, as you're just removing items and adding new ones. I saw you mentioned "things can go wrong" but I don't see how some towers could magically fail beyond overfilling (can it, dump it, I'm sure you can figure this out) and basic error logging will tell you if something breaks long before it actually does (add items, check bay, if there's less fuel than you added something probably went wrong!)
Neither of these are hard to write. The first one should just be a few lines of code, and the second is maybe a few hours plus a day or two of testing with sisi if you take your time. I understand you guys are busy and want to take vacation and all, but consider this is literally going to take days for some larger alliances; and we're not getting paid... quite the opposite really.
On the first, if the starbase code was that robust, reliable and extensible they wouldn't break so often.
On the second, "I don't see how it could go wrong" is how all the really big disasters happen. |
|
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:08:00 -
[153] - Quote
Skeith Oumis wrote:Here's some ideas.
1) If a pos is out of fuel but has a fuel block, burn the block and add the add the fuel. Cases to test: - Ensure enough room is in the tower to add the fuel - Ensure each block provides the right amount of fuel - Ensure the correct block is being burnt if multiple are present for some reason Implementation: You can write a simple function to do this that hooks into the code that checks a pos tower for fuel. Add it as a last case check before going into the pos offlining code. Should have basically no impact on the starbase code and be fairly reliable in practice as long as the tower isn't full of cubes.
2) Write a script to convert blocks to fuel Cases to test: - Handle towers that will overfull Considerations: - What to do with excess fuel. Can the EVE code handle overfull bays? If not, this can be jetcanned outside the pos. Implementation: Simple run-once script. This should be fairly easy to code on a core level, as you're just removing items and adding new ones. I saw you mentioned "things can go wrong" but I don't see how some towers could magically fail beyond overfilling (can it, dump it, I'm sure you can figure this out) and basic error logging will tell you if something breaks long before it actually does (add items, check bay, if there's less fuel than you added something probably went wrong!)
Neither of these are hard to write. The first one should just be a few lines of code, and the second is maybe a few hours plus a day or two of testing with sisi if you take your time. I understand you guys are busy and want to take vacation and all, but consider this is literally going to take days for some larger alliances; and we're not getting paid... quite the opposite really.
See how easy it can be? This seems to have come from some one who actually knows what they are talking about.
DOOOO EEEEEEEEET |
Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:09:00 -
[154] - Quote
There really is a disconnect here between the actions of CCP and their consequences for us. Just try for a minute the old back of the cig. packet calculation of the number of man.months of our real lives YOU have just wasted through failing to invest a few man.DAYS in getting this right or rushing in a technical fix.
If we were talking about some unnecessary pretty explosions we would shrug it off, but pos logistics is the aspect EVE ONLINE that makes a mid spectrum aspergers sufferer with a spreadsheet fixation snort in derision as being too extreme even for them.
This is a bad show and I'd like you to go reflect on exactly what you have done.
Think for a second about YOU logging in on an alt and handling the fallout for this even for a mid level POS holder with 75 POS.
The **** jokes are inappropriate and frankly irritating. Get a clue about your own game and your impact on it.
/ragelogsoff |
spooky turbonigger
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:10:00 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though. Update on this: I'd rate this at about a 50-50 chance of happening at this time, depending mainly on whether we run into any kinks. I pulled a bunch of people out of the christmas party and managed to get preliminary approval. Checking right now what happens if you over-fill a tower bay...
Hearing you pulled people out of a christmas party to DO THEIR JOBS made this thread worthwhile.
P.S; you still haven't said if I can have your job or not. |
Ivanova Denisovich
Hobbit Enterprises Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:11:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though. Update on this: I'd rate this at about a 50-50 chance of happening at this time, depending mainly on whether we run into any kinks. I pulled a bunch of people out of the christmas party and managed to get preliminary approval. Checking right now what happens if you over-fill a tower bay...
Excellent. Oops, let me post on my main not my market alt!
If it does prove problematic, perhaps you could do something like this -
On fuel cube patch day, leave the bays double size.
Tell everyone that on patch day+x days you will nuke both any non-fuel cube materials in the fuel bay and any fuel cubes over excess capacity.
Give people time to empty the bays, then do just that. (or, if it's simpler to implement codewise, offline the towers until they're no longer over capacity - could be as simple as if(volume_of_materials_in_bay > capacity_of_bay) offline() and do this check every downtime)
|
SmartBird
Fish Curtains
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:11:00 -
[157] - Quote
Crias Taylor wrote:spookydonut wrote:Solution: Remove the need for fuel until the changeover.
Can I have your job now CCP Greyscale? Bad idea, free production. Alliances like us could drop towers and react a ton of goo, produce a ton of ships, etc for free.-á
Ah didn't think of that.
Is there anyway CCP can fix players who have followed the route to fuel blocks and convert them back without needing to train skills etc?
i.e fast track method fuel blocks back > normal fuel at no cost or training.
Then just the hours of moving stuff about has been endured. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:13:00 -
[158] - Quote
I'm pretty much done QQ'ing about this. We'll get this stuff done regardless. Doing work in a game is apparently par for the course, I wonder why more people don't play.
But just be aware that poor communication is once again a problem for you guys. If you've slipped a week, and you say nothing, this is more of a problem than this particular **** up.
And once again, all your forums need to be read once and awhile. I raised this question yesterday for instance: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=43786 |
Desparo
Roid Ravagers Unitary Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:14:00 -
[159] - Quote
Okay what I don't understand is why you think you need to convert all the fuel.
I'm assuming you already have the code ready to allow fuel blocks to be loaded into towers. If you havn't already patch that into the client. Just that code part.
DT each night run a script that converts upto 24 hrs of fuel blocks into standard pos fuel. Yes it may take a few mins more but as your 30 min dt runs in 8-10 mins no one will mind. This is a SQL script so there shouldn't be any code to break.
Once you have the thing working stop running the script
If you've so intergrated the fuel cube code that it can't be split and done separately or you can't run a 24hr cube conversion script then your code has much bigger problems.
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't have a workable solution right now that answers all the issues, that's pretty much the problem. Sometimes that's a thing that happens, unfortunately.
a) Run a script to melt all fuel already added to towers. This will require a bare minimum of QA as it cannot cause towers to go offline, the worst that can happen is that they become overfilled for a few hours until the fuel burns off. This means that there is no manual correction needed by players in time or ISK b) Spend the remaining time you have before Jan 24th either sorting a final handover script, or pushing in an extra fuel-block-only bay to towers to cover the switch over. Voila, fixed with a minimal amount of player intervention. Can I have your job? That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare. An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone. Plus, making sure that towers ran smoothly when we threw the switch would require another upgrade test; see above.
|
Harris
Aura. Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:14:00 -
[160] - Quote
Props to you Greyscale for staying to man the forums while others are partying!
I have visions of you waving a flaming torch at the baying wolves, what with the mood the forums are in at the moment! I can appreciate the angst for the mass-POS managers but understand how you got the place you're in.
The expanded POS fuel hangars lets people put their blocks somewhere but still doesn't give them a way out of hauling the other POS fuel products to their locations, the operations for which they'd have scaled back.
The timing combined with the PI tax debacle (the tax increases should have been phased in after the POCOs were released by the way) is what is making the hurt particularly expensive. I hope you guys have a think about that the next time you plan your big game changes - try to look at the impact from every angle possible, instead of the changes on their own or only in relation to other changes on a code level. This mistake has been made before and You are making it again.
Good luck with the change over whenever it comes around and I hope you can address some of the concerns with a patch in the meantime. |
|
whaynethepain
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:16:00 -
[161] - Quote
While you are in there CCP, may I have the fuel bay size increased three fold please.
My Vacations can last quite long in the spring time, and the ice miners would appreciate the business I believe. Getting you on your feet.
So you've further to fall. |
Bring Stabity
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:16:00 -
[162] - Quote
Really this is a bad thread for you guys, because you've basically shown again that you're trying to completely change another facet of the game that you have no actual understanding of. Go fuel 500 towers for a couple months and come back to us. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:17:00 -
[163] - Quote
Most of these suggestions are completely beyond a SQL script. This is why they a resisting as they would have to write a whole new piece of program and test it.
Now, I you agree to let them just divide all the fuel types in a tower by a static value based on tower size, take lowest time, vaporize, and add blocks on the time not taking anything like sov into account you could do it with a stored proc and SQL script.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=494090#post494090 |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:21:00 -
[164] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though. Update on this: I'd rate this at about a 50-50 chance of happening at this time, depending mainly on whether we run into any kinks. I pulled a bunch of people out of the christmas party and managed to get preliminary approval. Checking right now what happens if you over-fill a tower bay... To be fair, you could just increase the sizes of the bays permanently; I'm not imagining anyone complaining or any horrific game imbalance being caused by it. Maybe that's just me.
Quote:Ampoliros wrote:Are they reprocessable at POS refineries with 0% waste, like ice blocks? Is that a quick fix you could manage to put in?
and just to say, i'm more comfortable with the delay till january than i am with the risk in everything going offline, i'm simply irritated that you guys couldn't have communicated better with us about the status of this. Probably not viable, sorry. Starbase refining is arcane to say the least (remember the "you can only have one type of ore in there at a time" rule?).
fair enough, i suppose. Is there any bone you can throw to us w-space residents? I mean, if we can't break the blocks in w-space, we might as well go buy more fuel as the hauling blocks out, refining, and hauling fuel back in is going to be even more effort than just buying replacement fuel...
oh well. I appreciate the responses at least, greyscale. |
Skeith Oumis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:22:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:On the first, if the starbase code was that robust, reliable and extensible they wouldn't break so often.
On the second, "I don't see how it could go wrong" is how all the really big disasters happen.
As someone who works with code that isn't remotely robust, reliable, or extensible on a daily basis, I feel your pain. However adding a simple hook where I mentioned is pretty safe in any programming structure, no matter how poorly it's written.
As for your comment on "how can this go wrong", this is why i mentioned testing, logging, and error handling. I realize things can go wrong, but testing is a pretty cool way to weed out those cases. You can even do cool things like test runs where you iterate though everything and do all the processing but don't run the final DB changes, allowing you to do neat things like sanity checks on live data without breaking anything. And running it on a DB copy (especially a second run with randomly filled bays) lets you work out weird edge cases that might crop up.
If manpower is such a problem set me up with the DB structure and some sample data (You can just pull out all the goon towers if you're paranoid, or random fill ****) and I'll gladly write this for you. You don't even have to pay me! |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
338
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:23:00 -
[166] - Quote
Harris wrote:The expanded POS fuel hangars lets people put their blocks somewhere but still doesn't give them a way out of hauling the other POS fuel products to their locations, the operations for which they'd have scaled back.
I'd be inclined to be philosophical and look at it this way (assuming we get the double bays in, see above for approximate probabilities): it just means that you're doing next month's logistics this month as well as this month's. Sucks more now, sucks less later. |
|
ogletorp
Surrender Dorothy Bipolar Stability
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:25:00 -
[167] - Quote
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.
Nice knowing since I've spent the last week getting ready for the switchover now have to go back and pull blocks/pellets back out and haul them back, oh yeah and go buy more fuel and haul it to the POS' since i used all excess was used to build blocks. Well since the launch for this has changed you obviously have time to write a script to convert existing fuel in towers to blocks on the launch date rather than using this moronic half and half plan. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:28:00 -
[168] - Quote
Towers usually need to fueled every 25 days. We have more than that time now. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:31:00 -
[169] - Quote
@CCP Greyscale - here's another suggestion for a temporary code fix:
Can you change the current fuel consumption rate from N units per hour to N units per every 6-8 hours?
This would effectively stretch the existing fuel supplies in all of the towers, to last until the revised changeover date. |
i hatechosingnames
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:32:00 -
[170] - Quote
A little solution that gets CCP to do some of the work to fix this..
Haul all your fuel cubes to the nearest station Contract them to a CCP dev as an item exchange with you receiving back the raw materials and the cost of creating the contract. wait for CCP to accept and turn around those contracts... dump your fuel back in your towers.
or CCP make a script
:CCP: |
|
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
75
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:33:00 -
[171] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Two step wrote:I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th. I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'. Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'.
Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
271
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:37:00 -
[172] - Quote
@CCP Greyscale
I have your solution:
Remove taxes on customs offices until Christmas to help offset the cost of increased fuel prices due to this change and your announcement.
"Concord has had an accounting error, collect $200"
This would assist flooding the market with the fuels, allow for us to adjust to logistics and give POCO's a chance to get stabilized so the market can level out a bit.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
339
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:43:00 -
[173] - Quote
Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Two step wrote:I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th. I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'. Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'. Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary.
Sorry, we're looking at different blogs, my bad. Original blog said "a couple of weeks", follow-up blog said "approximately two weeks". Sorry for the mix-up. |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
373
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:44:00 -
[174] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:@CCP Greyscale - here's another suggestion for a temporary code fix:
Can you change the current fuel consumption rate from N units per hour to N units per every 6-8 hours?
This would effectively stretch the existing fuel supplies in all of the towers, to last until the revised changeover date.
Fuel use is tied to other starbase functions like moon mining. Reducing the rate of one affects the other. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:47:00 -
[175] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Remove taxes on customs offices until Christmas to help offset the cost of increased fuel prices due to this change and your announcement. That is a really ****** idea |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
149
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:49:00 -
[176] - Quote
increasing the fuel bays by 100% and leaving them at that after the switch over would be a very nice way of saying 'hey we know this screwed you all a bit, but we are nice guys honest fuel all your pos's less often from now on'
like an above poster, i wouldnt expect to see anyone bitching about game balance issue, id bet most would be very happy with that CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
271
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:53:00 -
[177] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Two step wrote:I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th. I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'. Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'. Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary. Sorry, we're looking at different blogs, my bad. Original blog said "a couple of weeks", follow-up blog said "approximately two weeks". Sorry for the mix-up.
Thanks for the apology duder.
Don't want to think we're all here to hate on you, many people here are genuinely frustrated and I'm glad you're being involved in the discussions. There's some good suggestions in this thread and I hope that the frustrations of people are understood completely. That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward.
The prices of fuel are going to skyrocket so even if we melt down the fuel to revert our stuff back, the market with how it's been with the POCO's and people now running to Jita to jack prices in anticipation for the spike that's about to happen is about to make a lot of corporations go broke.
Please find a way to compensate this and potentially find ways for more fuel to be injected into the game.
Removing taxes from empire CO's. A special ice crystal that burns out and allows for increased yield. Faster respawns of hotspots on planets.
Something... right now there's a shortage and with the changes so drastic, people's wallets are suffering because of it.
EDIT: The above suggestions would be temporary to provide for a brief injection during the shortage. The market needs a chance to rebuild and breathe.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Dick Jones
Omega Celestial Procurement Omega Consortium Projects
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:55:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:MadMuppet wrote:CCP - recommendation: Make fuel bricks reprocess to their component parts until the 24th to try and offset this mess.
-Mad
Fuel blocks should already reprocess to their component parts, although only in multiples of 40.
How about just making refining arrays reprocess FB at 100% efficiency. This is a simple and relatively painless solution. |
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
75
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:56:00 -
[179] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Sorry, we're looking at different blogs, my bad. Original blog said "a couple of weeks", follow-up blog said "approximately two weeks". Sorry for the mix-up. Apology accepted. But I am under the impresion that a follow-up blog always supercedes the original blog. So in this case, the things stated in the follow-up blog are the ones that count.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:58:00 -
[180] - Quote
CCP had this to your wish list thus Christmas.
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/book.aspx?ID=10329&locale=en-us
:iceburn: |
|
Boltzy Tsero
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:59:00 -
[181] - Quote
So, out of the 180 replies to this post only about 5 are positive!
CCP Greyscale, please ignore all 175 posts by trolls and griefers, and thanks for giving a DATE on when this conversion will take place.
As stated CCP have never given a date and only mention approx two weeks after Crucible regarding the fuel block change over period.
You guys need to give CCP some love for a change! You have just had the best expansion for months!.
Safe! o7 |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:01:00 -
[182] - Quote
I like many obviously wish you good luck in makeing this happen as trouble free as possible and it is good to see you giving feed back. +1 for that.
However many of us have serious concerns over the forced need for not being able to tweek and carefully manage our fuel requirements based upon what we use on the POS, you have apparently simply assumed everyojne who has a POS is running full on 24 / 7 with every possible module online all the time. this was probably never the case for 100% of the POS's. Seeing as you have forced the maximum consumption of Heavy Water and Liquid Ozone doewn our throats you should have ballanced that by allowing more of the same to be extracted from the ICE.
for two reasons.
1. to reduce the explosion in bots this is very likely to create in order to make up the shortfall.
2. You are famous for engaging and promoting EVE ballancing so whiy have you not prepared the correct ballance to the usage they are now going to consume; espesially for the smaller corps. Why are they being ignored and forced out yet again, not by players note, but by CCP's implementaion of something. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:07:00 -
[183] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward.
If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes.
In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes. |
|
Luvvin McHunt
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:07:00 -
[184] - Quote
Just posting here to help soak up some of the POS owner tears.
Reading this thread reminds me of when you get out of the water in Crysis and all the drops are running down your visor.
But seriously -
Hire me to fill your pos's on changeover day.
I will 100% deliver your fuel. This is guaranteed as I will need the cargo room for datacores and blueprints + stuff.
|
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
101
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:08:00 -
[185] - Quote
Boltzy Tsero wrote:So, out of the 180 replies to this post only about 5 are positive!
CCP Greyscale, please ignore all 175 posts by trolls and griefers, and thanks for giving a DATE on when this conversion will take place.
As stated CCP have never given a date and only mention approx two weeks after Crucible regarding the fuel block change over period.
You guys need to give CCP some love for a change! -áYou have just had the best expansion for months!.
Safe! -áo7
People are reasonable upset. Not everyone is as rich as Goonswarm and now they have to have even more float fuel made further crunching fuel supplies.-á
In short, I'm going to make mad space bucks with my stock of pos fuel. Ka-Ching.-á |
Janssen
General Services
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:13:00 -
[186] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sorry, we're looking at different blogs, my bad. Original blog said "a couple of weeks", follow-up blog said "approximately two weeks". Sorry for the mix-up.
CCP Greyscale (and everyone else on this project) - some things I have noticed and appreciate:
1 - you guys are communicating a lot more - thank you. 2 - you are explaining things a lot more - thank you. 3 - I appreciate your patience here in this forum - mine has been sorely tested. 4 - I appreciate the care and responsibility you folks are taking with making sure that there is no "Great Starbase Pinata Bash of 2011".
I remember reading somewhere on the forum with the POS pellet discussion that we'd have to keep both kinds of fuel, just for good measure, until the switchover. This I have done. I did not assume that the switchover would take place in two weeks, I just prepared myself / my towers with a balance of both types.
In my opinion, CCP made the correct call on this - rather than take the risk and not have a full compliment of staff to handle any problems that might arise, they made the responsible decision to postpone until testing was completed and staff was available.
Kudos CCP and may you all have safe and happy holidays.
|
Blakslabeth
Killer Koalas R.A.G.E
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:13:00 -
[187] - Quote
I work with software implementations as well and am planning a break at Christmas - I too will not schedule a major change during periods of low support. It just makes sense. So, quit your bitching people and cut them some slack. They tried to hit a date; they can't for quality reasons. Do you want it done right or do you want to wake up one morning and YOUR pos has gone offline and your goodies have been swiped by someone else?
Keep up the good work.
|
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
150
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:15:00 -
[188] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Zagdul wrote:That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward. If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes. In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes.
this fuel bay increase will stay after the fuel changes right??? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:17:00 -
[189] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Zagdul wrote:That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward. If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes. In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes. this fuel bay increase will stay after the fuel changes right???
No, this will be a temporary thing. I'd want to sit down and have a proper think about the consequences of making this a permanent change, and I don't have the energy to do that right now, sorry. |
|
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:17:00 -
[190] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future.
Well, thanks for explaining why this push-back happens and I agree on why you push it back. Next time however, I wish you let us know of such uncertainties in advance, because Schroedinger's Cat is always going to screw someone or several for that matter. Expectation management and all ;) |
|
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
150
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:19:00 -
[191] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Zagdul wrote:That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward. If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes. In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes. this fuel bay increase will stay after the fuel changes right??? No, this will be a temporary thing. I'd want to sit down and have a proper think about the consequences of making this a permanent change, and I don't have the energy to do that right now, sorry.
well it would be awesom if it was left in place and i can not see anyone calling it a bad change. less ball ache jobs the better CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:20:00 -
[192] - Quote
Madner Kami wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. Well, thanks for explaining why this push-back happens and I agree on why you push it back. Next time however, I wish you let us know of such uncertainties in advance, because Schroedinger's Cat is always going to screw someone or several for that matter. Expectation management and all ;)
Yup, that was our bad, we'll try and do it better next time.
OK I'm going home, I'll check back in tomorrow hopefully. |
|
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:22:00 -
[193] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Madner Kami wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. Well, thanks for explaining why this push-back happens and I agree on why you push it back. Next time however, I wish you let us know of such uncertainties in advance, because Schroedinger's Cat is always going to screw someone or several for that matter. Expectation management and all ;) Yup, that was our bad, we'll try and do it better next time. OK I'm going home, I'll check back in tomorrow hopefully.
No.....No.....try not. Do or do not there is no try. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
276
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:24:00 -
[194] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Zagdul wrote:That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward. If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes. In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes. this fuel bay increase will stay after the fuel changes right??? No, this will be a temporary thing. I'd want to sit down and have a proper think about the consequences of making this a permanent change, and I don't have the energy to do that right now, sorry.
A positive: the people in this thread most hurt by your announcement would love you very much as they'd be able to fuel pos's and not have to do that logistics for 2 months. Less frequent POS running around = more time to play the game all the while spending less time feeling like a slave to it.
If there's a real drawback to game mechanics because of this, I don't see any immediate ones. I'd say making the people who have been playing this game the longest (ya know, the bitter dudes who are trusted with roles/wallets/big ships to move this stuff around with) happy should be another big +.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
276
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:30:00 -
[195] - Quote
Oh, and can you allow fuel blocks in the Ore hold of the Rorqual+Orca.
that'd be freaking sweet.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
112
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:31:00 -
[196] - Quote
OK.
you gave the only good reason for this "we have to pospone"-"Situation". I don't want to say you screwed up very big time or you are fail, but ...
Ok, after said that:
Honestly: after thinking about that "Customer ownd Offices"/"PI"-"Situation": Doing PI is a major PitA (aka: Click-fest) which gives a roughly 1 mil isk per hour "payment" you increase the amount we have to pay to transfer PI from the Planet not by 10 or 20 %, no you increse it by 1.000%. So nobody wants to do PI anymore. And now that.... OK guys, admit it: You are all doing those things on purpose. It is not us, playing eve, it is you playing us. You sit there and laugh about our tears, looking for new wine in the forums and watch us not only enduring that **** you do to us. No. You even make us pay you for treading us like that.
I guess you are sitting there and think about new way to make us suffer.
ok, lets get serious: Please CCP, next time you plan something like this, and someone is saying give us more time, two weeks are to short, think about this situation and dopple your Timeline. And if that means, the deadline falls into a we are all on X-Mas-Vacation, so go ahead and add that time you need on top of it. Why didnt you anounce the 24.01.2012 on the first time. (even if you think you have more than enough time to make it perfect)
Janssen wrote: CCP Greyscale (and everyone else on this project) - some things I have noticed and appreciate:
1 - you guys are communicating a lot more - thank you. 2 - you are explaining things a lot more - thank you. 3 - I appreciate your patience here in this forum - mine has been sorely tested. 4 - I appreciate the care and responsibility you folks are taking with making sure that there is no "Great Starbase Pinata Bash of 2011".
5 - Please give us next time you make such big changes more time... I mean the original plan of swiching old fuel to blocks into two weeks, that was to short.
Kazanir wrote:In light of the massive amount of effort being required from the playerbase by CCP's development choices, perhaps it would have been much better for you to not announce a "tentative 2 week changeover" date and then, 1.5 weeks after Crucible's launch, announce that you are moving it back...another 6 weeks?
You guys have painted yourself into a corner that is full of the rage of POS managers -- already one of the most notoriously thankless and annoying parts of EVE. You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens."
Grr, I say. Grr.
Hey Dude: you are forgetting those Logistic dudes... :-) they are even more pissed... 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 |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
276
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:39:00 -
[197] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:Kazanir wrote:In light of the massive amount of effort being required from the playerbase by CCP's development choices, perhaps it would have been much better for you to not announce a "tentative 2 week changeover" date and then, 1.5 weeks after Crucible's launch, announce that you are moving it back...another 6 weeks?
You guys have painted yourself into a corner that is full of the rage of POS managers -- already one of the most notoriously thankless and annoying parts of EVE. You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens."
Grr, I say. Grr. Hey Dude: you are forgetting those Logistic dudes... :-) they are even more pissed...
If you knew who the person was who you quoted, you would understand that his statement is is assumed to think of those Logistic dudes :-)
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
112
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:44:00 -
[198] - Quote
Harris wrote:Props to you Greyscale for staying to man the forums while others are partying!
I have visions of you waving a flaming torch at the baying wolves, what with the mood the forums are in at the moment! I can appreciate the angst for the mass-POS managers but understand how you got the place you're in. .
Thank you for putting it into words...
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 |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
112
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:47:00 -
[199] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Neo Agricola wrote:Kazanir wrote:In light of the massive amount of effort being required from the playerbase by CCP's development choices, perhaps it would have been much better for you to not announce a "tentative 2 week changeover" date and then, 1.5 weeks after Crucible's launch, announce that you are moving it back...another 6 weeks?
You guys have painted yourself into a corner that is full of the rage of POS managers -- already one of the most notoriously thankless and annoying parts of EVE. You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens."
Grr, I say. Grr. Hey Dude: you are forgetting those Logistic dudes... :-) they are even more pissed... If you knew who the person was who you quoted, you would understand that his statement is is assumed to think of those Logistic dudes :-)
Beleve me, I can feel his pain... 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 |
Bor'nak
Stargazer Exploration Company Transmission Lost
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 22:53:00 -
[200] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
Im pretty sure because of this screw up ill be bringing my laptop to Christmas dinner for the MASS FREIGHTER loads of fuel ill be needing to haul cause we turned everything into fuel blacks to match your "2 week" time line... so you have still managed to fek my Christmas up this year - thanks
on a side note an easier, less "community now hates ccp" fix for this would have been originally to introduce a whole new starbase structure concept (like the thread called - beating a dead horse) instead of a simple fuel change ... CCP would have gotten praises and been showered with thanks and we would have all at least at that point expected bugs and a longer deployment time and the new system could have used your new blocks!
or wait im dreaming - pinches myself - better solution would have been to slip in an additional pos mechanic, maybe MORE roles or tower options to make individual customization and pos naming mechanics to help increase security of a pos... would be nice if you could name an sma and then assign certain people to that sma and certain others to another (same goes with cha and other pos mods) - individualize pos settings, you would still or could still use mass settings but allow those that live exclusively out of a pos the ability to customize it to what we need~
|
|
SloMoJoe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 23:34:00 -
[201] - Quote
Came to thread expecting poo flinging,
Got urine instead.
Thread still delivers. |
Vegare
Das zweite Konglomerat The Initiative.
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 00:28:00 -
[202] - Quote
Two step wrote:you guys should really consider using the extra time you now have to figure out a way to make up for all this hassle. Perhaps you might consider working on that fuel->block conversion script that you didn't have time to get done?
yesss, please :)
|
Serenity Izia
Proxy Nebula
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 00:45:00 -
[203] - Quote
What the F* You said some time ago, that 2 weeks from blueprint realase would result in switchover, and now you screw us in the Blip!
Seriously! Didnt you think that people might have made plans explicitly based from your promises? |
Assistant Slacker
Bengal Pilots Society
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 00:45:00 -
[204] - Quote
How about they make fuel blocks refinable so if you converted fuel blocks back into the POS fuel components? Maybe you would loose whatever bonus your BPO gave you in effeciency but you wouldn't need to buy more fuel It would let CCP figure out and test the new system and give people that for some reason converted everything they had into the new product the ability to convert back instead of complain that they jumped the gun and should have known this could and would be pushed back. |
non judgement
Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 00:50:00 -
[205] - Quote
Crias Taylor wrote:People are reasonable upset. Not everyone is as rich as Goonswarm and now they have to have even more float fuel made further crunching fuel supplies.-á
In short, I'm going to make mad space bucks with my stock of pos fuel. Ka-Ching.-á That might happen but I doubt it will. I think plenty of others (like myself) will now realise that they have plenty of fuel blocks that they wont need for a while. So they might start flooding the market.
I'm happy that I got a date for this but I'm a little bit annoyed that I spent time making these blocks. I guess I can use this time now to put the bpo in for more research. I should work out how much M.E. they should have. |
mkint
436
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 00:54:00 -
[206] - Quote
You know what would be an interesting experiment? Figure out how to give people a choice between blocks or not and see what % of POSes actually end up using them, and where they tend to live. Maybe include graphs that compare alliance size to how many of their POSes end up using them. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
186
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 02:23:00 -
[207] - Quote
Crias Taylor wrote:Towers usually need to fueled every 25 days. We have more than that time now. Now imagine those towers are half-filled with blocks. You now have about 12 days of fuel.
The logistics people knew they'd have to refuel the towers afterwards, much sooner than previously. They were none to happy about this, but gritted their teeth because fuel blocks would make things easier (can finally get rid of fuel loading spreadsheets).
So now you have a bunch of ill-tempered POS managers, and you tell them they'll either have to:
a) Refuel the tower about 4 more times before the changeover (remember, half fuel capacity).
b) Remove the fuel blocks and replace the PI, and plan to put blocks in over again at a later date.
This is basically poking those ill-tempered POS managers with a pointy dung covered stick.
Personally, I only manage 2 towers, and I fully expected that it would go as smooth as 40 grit paper, so I planned for failure instead of failing to plan. I really can't begin to imagine the pain of the logistics of fuelling 100's of POSes. Or the w-space dwellers (having lived in w-space for 2.5 years myself, most recently in a C5 that saw hisec about once a month).
Kudos to CCP though for donning a bib and taking everything being flung at them in here. It isn't personal, it's just EVE. |
Alec Freeman
The Dark Space Initiative Revival Of The Talocan Empire
44
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 02:27:00 -
[208] - Quote
Well. Im in a wormhole with enough fuel left in my POS to last me till Jan 4th
What the hell happened to 2 weeks!?!?!? So instead of spending christmas effortlessly changing into my stored fuel blocks i must spend it finding a hisec, going to jita and buying POS fuel. And because of this 2nd change i will probably end up buying more POS fuel than i need due to lack of trust in CCP that the change will acually happen on this day.
and did i mention i hate hisec? |
Sokar Herra
OLE Logistics Copius Spectrum
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 03:01:00 -
[209] - Quote
So, why question is whats going to happen to PI after Jan 24th? nerfed? just become a after thought? what is there for PI besides fuel for POS |
ReK42
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 03:05:00 -
[210] - Quote
Awesome. Thank you CCP.
You refuse to spend the manpower to make the transition yourself (ie: replace the fuel in all towers over down time). You instead decide to force the players to essentially fuel all of their towers two extra times. You announce that they will have two weeks to prepare after the patch.
A little over one week after the patch you suddenly push the date back by over a month and a half.
We have dozens of towers with less than 10 days of fuel right now because the rest of their bays are filled with blocks. We now need to fix all of this on extremely short notice.
**** you. |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
348
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 03:20:00 -
[211] - Quote
Innominate wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: There's a huge difference between "effort" and "money and man-hours".
i.e. It's cheaper to make thousands of players work for days than to have one dev implement a proper solution. Please CCP, I thought we were past this ****. funny goon. confuses game with real world. play vs work a new bounty system for eve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Beldeine Scarlet
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 04:08:00 -
[212] - Quote
Wow, thank you CCP for the Christmas F-you.
Hey what the hell I'll keep two extra weeks of old fuel on hand just in case I tell myself ...... then the day after I finish converting all the rest to blocks comes this lovely gift, how sweet. |
Bunny Sweetcheeks
Boundless Hypocrisy
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:11:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes.
That is one way for sure.
What about just turning off consumption for all towers 2 or 3 weeks.
Yes, free towers....
Covers the issue of having to fuel them in a panic mode and covers the issue of "compensation" for the dehidration due to tears of pain for all POS owners.
|
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:34:00 -
[214] - Quote
Rastuasi wrote:Salpun wrote:As a wh dweller who got a bpo into the wh and started makeing blocks in an anticipated switch over in 2 weeks from blue print release your pushing it back for a month just put a big kink in my plans. Will now have to pull in more fuel to carry us over to the new date. Would have been nice to have this news even 24 hours ago Could time left be changed to must be refilled on in anticipation of the change This exactly, kinda put my corp short on isk cause of this change >.>
these things take like no time to manufacture - we made enough for like a week, put them int he tower after that last patch, and then figured it best to wait until the announced date to stop fuelling the normal way.
I'd say this one is your fault guys, not CCP's. |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:43:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Regardless of the complaints, it's appreciated that you're taking the time to do it right and have it ready. People would really be shitting their pants to log on Dec. 14th and find their force field down and someone like me looting the pos pinatas that were exposed. Yeah, it's an inconvenience for some, but better than the worst case scenario could have been by a longshot. Pretty much this. If it was something where the failure case was less destructive, we'd have at least considered crossing our fingers and pushing the button anyway. Where the worst-case scenario is that every starbase in New Eden goes offline, though, we're erring on the side of extreme caution. We know this is horribly inconvenient, and it sucks, and it's wasting a lot of people's time and money, but it's better than the Great Starbase Pinata Bash 2011. Everyone here's a bit miffed that we've got to this point, but we console ourselves with the fact that this is a one-time burst of pain that's paving the way for a much smoother ride for large-scale tower operators everywhere. (Yes, I know it makes your one wormhole tower marginally more difficult to run, and I'm personally very sorry about that, but I ran half a dozen towers for six months and splitting fuel into piles to go into my hauler made me want to lobotomize myself. We shouldn't have that sort of user pain in our game.)
You know, I appreciate the honesty. It goes a long way. Good thing you guys are aware of doing all these testing things and announcing changes in advance. We wouldn't want anything destructive like loosing a null sec alliance because we didn't tell anyone we conveniently forgot to tell you that a checkbox is no longer checked. But seriously, if you knew the target was this exceedingly optimistic, you should have been saying that from the beginning. |
Mekratrig
Open University of Celestial Hardship Art of War Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:53:00 -
[216] - Quote
Firstly, thanks CCP for Incursis. It fixed so many little things that annoyed the crap out of me.
I've noticed that it had a lot of twitches, but the subsequent patches have resolved most of them, and I'm guessing that's where the time has gone for testing that you were expecting to be able to spend on POS testing.
That being said, you did say the crossover would be happening at a specific time, and it's not (due to reasons beyond your control).
In RL I make a lot of money from clients who's previous providers made optimistic promises like that that they couldn't fulfil.
The suggestion from someone back in this thread that POS's can run without fuel until the swap over date isn't a bad idea. It would stuff the economy for a few months and mess up a lot of peoples war plans, but it would be a nice Christmas present, and give a nice warm fuzzy feeling to everyone all the whiners (I'm sorry, but you did stuff up).
Just a thought.
btw: you should also mention that you should also mention that you should never use a tourniquet for snakebite as this causes more damage to the affected limb. Use a pressure bandage, starting above the wound, closest to the heart, and roll down too and over the wound site.
Advantage of being Australian. :) |
Kasulli
Gateway Mining Division
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:55:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:spookydonut wrote: All I'm hearing is excuses about the amount of effort.
Then I'm sorry, because we're having an irreconcilable communication breakdown. From our point of view this decision is concerned pretty much exclusively with risk, not effort. Pricy McPricechecker wrote:Have you considered simply doubling the capacity of fuel bays until the patch, then reverting them afterwards? That way we can all fuel block up our POS and otherwise still fuel them as normal until the patch comes along, and doing this is clearly not a big technical problem because you've already increased their capacity once.
Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though. Kazanir wrote:You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens." That's not snark, it's resignation. One of the things I've learned over the years is that sometimes there's nothing right now you can do to fix the situation, however much you'd like to. The only practical way to deal with this in the long run is to be able to say "it is what it is" and get on with something that you can make better.
That last bit is most important - look folks, they screwed up bad and really caused a headache. They didn't cause permanent damage. Logistics sux - really really sux - but the decisions IS a sound one to push back. Arguing code and 'quick fixes' is foolish and shouldn't even be approached.
Starbase code is so messy that fooling with it would almost certainly only compound the problem - and we WOULD get a worst-case scenario of offlines on a massive scale.
That being said - the fact is, Greyscale, the team made a poor call on when to inform the players. From the beginning - the idea of a two week release should never have been mentioned. From the beginning transparency should have been made clear and the BPO's should have been released with a clear statement that you were unsure if the change would happen - and that upon reaching the two-week out mark if you still were unsure, the change-over would automatically be pushed back. This would have allowed players to begin production, by choice (as originally intended) but not by force (as was the case due to poor communication). A lot of assets are now sitting, uselessly, taking up space. WH is especially hit hard by this - storage isn't exactly readily available.
Someone has already said it...but THIS RIGHT HERE is an excellent example of effort biting you in the butt. Not communication effort - programming and code. How long has the starbase code needed fixes - or an entirely new code for that matter? It is indeed extremely complex, but this is a project that should have started a long time ago and simply been dealth with so that significant improvement features (like this one) would go over smoother and easily.
Summary - Lesson Learned not just in communication, but realizing that old problems WILL come back to haunt you. On an entirely different subject - FW - what do almost all new players ask about after their first week? Militia. Why? Because your NPE and career agents STEER NEW PLAYERS TO FW by virtue of the final mission. Now figure how many players get turned off when, not knowing how bad FW sux, they join...and quit a week later. Star Base code is fast approaching - and probably passing - that same point. It needs to be revamped, and it needs to be revamped now.
Crucible is a GREAT expansion - lots of fixes and improvements. Players know you can only do so much - but your choice in priorities will determine our attitudes towards EVE Development. CQ vs the dire needs of star base code and FW is just one example of poor prioritization of EVE's needs. This frustration (that is more insult than injury) is an example of that poor prioritization and the end results.
Learn from it - you did from Incarna, now try for doing it for all of New Eden's woes. Take a good game and make it great - not by adding parts, but by fixing what is poor and making it great.
TL;DR Players - Lay Off a little - They made a mistake, could have been a lot worst, their decision however is the right one. Hammer on CCP though for prioritizing what needs to still be fixed - like Star Base Code and FW.
CCP - Learn from poor communication and prioritization. Had you fixed star base code years ago, this change-over probably would have been much simpler. Crucible is great, lots of fixes, keep up the focus on fixing EVE - because it still has broken parts like FW and the Star Base Code. You'd make a lot of people happy, hisec to WH and everything between, if the star base code was revamped such that future improvements like fuel blocks could be easily implemented and adjusted. Everyone agrees fuel blocks are great - you've just managed to totally mess up implementing it and cost a lot of people time and money (one can be recuperated, the other not). |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 05:57:00 -
[218] - Quote
Boltzy Tsero wrote:So, out of the 180 replies to this post only about 5 are positive!
CCP Greyscale, please ignore all 175 posts by trolls and griefers, and thanks for giving a DATE on when this conversion will take place.
As stated CCP have never given a date and only mention approx two weeks after Crucible regarding the fuel block change over period.
You guys need to give CCP some love for a change! You have just had the best expansion for months!.
Safe! o7
I don't disagree. They've done a phenomenal job with Crucible. The issue here though is the complete lack of information on this and then the shock at the time frame. Kudos to Greyscale for the work he has been doing in explaining, (Which helps a lot, and frankly should be edited into his post on page 1 as well as in the replies) and for trying to get the size of the tower doubled. I have one more recommendation. Drop the PI export tax to 2-3% until the switchover. Then put it to the new levels. This will help drop the price on fuel while this switchover takes place and everyone is "double fueling" without taking any ISK out of the player's hands. Then, starting on the 24th with the new fuel, increase it 3% every week back to what it is now.
That fixes both sides of the issue here. Players get to store the fuel in the tower until the switchover and you get to combat the price increase that comes with the natural market demand going up as a direct result of the switchover as well as put pressure to increase demand when the supply explodes in the first couple of weeks of fuel block operation.
This makes your logistics players happy because the time they've spent already isn't wasted. This makes the corporation bean counter's happy because POS fuel won't spike short term as their logistics players are all of a sudden saying they need twice as much as expected and the PI players should at least see some increased pressure to keep prices consistent as the tax rate rises once all of this is underway. |
Kasulli
Gateway Mining Division
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:02:00 -
[219] - Quote
Artctura wrote:Boltzy Tsero wrote:So, out of the 180 replies to this post only about 5 are positive!
CCP Greyscale, please ignore all 175 posts by trolls and griefers, and thanks for giving a DATE on when this conversion will take place.
As stated CCP have never given a date and only mention approx two weeks after Crucible regarding the fuel block change over period.
You guys need to give CCP some love for a change! You have just had the best expansion for months!.
Safe! o7 I don't disagree. They've done a phenomenal job with Crucible. The issue here though is the complete lack of information on this and then the shock at the time frame. Kudos to Greyscale for the work he has been doing in explaining, (Which helps a lot, and frankly should be edited into his post on page 1 as well as in the replies) and for trying to get the size of the tower doubled. I have one more recommendation. Drop the PI export tax to 2-3% until the switchover. Then put it to the new levels. This will help drop the price on fuel while this switchover takes place and everyone is "double fueling" without taking any ISK out of the player's hands. Then, starting on the 24th with the new fuel, increase it 3% every week back to what it is now. That fixes both sides of the issue here. Players get to store the fuel in the tower until the switchover and you get to combat the price increase that comes with the natural market demand going up as a direct result of the switchover as well as put pressure to increase demand when the supply explodes in the first couple of weeks of fuel block operation.This makes your logistics players happy because the time they've spent already isn't wasted. This makes the corporation bean counter's happy because POS fuel won't spike short term as their logistics players are all of a sudden saying they need twice as much as expected and the PI players should at least see some increased pressure to keep prices consistent as the tax rate rises once all of this is underway.
If you have stations to store in. Worm Holes.
Will WH survive? Yes - they'll be fine. But if they already got the fuel to WH, they now have to take it back to stations (risky as always when transporting) or have valuable space taken up in their WH - possibly and probably too much space so they could be adequately prepared for change-over. Everything in WH is compounded due to the need for redundancy.
Like I said though - bashing CCP doesn't help. They just need to learn from the communication error. Not a lot of dmg done, just time wasted. WH loses out the worst though.
|
supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:06:00 -
[220] - Quote
Thanks fuckin assholes, 2 weeks from the 29th to 2 months...
How fuckin hard can you fail ccp HOW HARD.
Waste idfk how much time getting fuel, bpo done up... and now... a big FU...
I am with the let them run FREE... you assholes were too lazy to code this that while in DT, fuel was turned into blocks you wanted players to worry about 50/50 then you go...
O hey 2 weeks, er, typo, we ment 2 months.
Also 24th is a tuesday... does it not make sense if you are so worried to do this on a MONDAY? or is the backlog of fail from the weekend so great monday is sucked up fixing the **** ups from the weekend? Or do you people take mondays off?
So nice all the fuel wasted turning it into blocks thinkin O 2 weeks... so like monday the 12th no latter than the 19th... now I need to go buy more.
Where is the **** you smile
I also love how I did NOTHING to go around the word filter... all words are plain text, no fancy crap... unfiltered. |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
440
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:07:00 -
[221] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Thanks for letting us know this on December 9th, two weeks after everyone asked you to postpone this change. We've all really enjoyed rushing around half-filling towers with fuel blocks all week only to now have to replace with normal fuel again for another month.
**** you very much What are you all crying for? Soundwave defused the entire situation with humour. Everything should be a-okay now.
Today I lost my common sense, It slipped away between Amamake and Rens, I think it happened in highsec, Using a Brutix to gank a Providence. -- Flunk |
LethalGeek
Sexy Building
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:16:00 -
[222] - Quote
Today I learned people actually converted all of their fuel way ahead of any official announcement of the change over date.
Would it have really been so hard to just make 2-4 days of fuel (depending on your level of downtime paranoia) and then convert the rest AFTER the switch? It takes 2-3 minutes to make 1 hour of fuel at a POS. Not really hard to play catch up with that.
Also LOL at the folks who are too broke to pay for a POS for any real length of time. L2isk fools.
Edit: I can't if everyone here is just really that upset or we're all trolling each other. It's like Poe's Law... |
Kasulli
Gateway Mining Division
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:21:00 -
[223] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:Today I learned people actually converted all of their fuel way ahead of any official announcement of the change over date.
Would it have really been so hard to just make 2-4 days of fuel (depending on your level of downtime paranoia) and then convert the rest AFTER the switch? It takes 2-3 minutes to make 1 hour of fuel at a POS. Not really hard to play catch up with that.
Also LOL at the folks who are too broke to pay for a POS for any real length of time. L2isk fools.
You're right in that hisec really has no right to complain - storage is darn near limitless in stations, so no big deal.
What you fail to realize is that alliances, or even corps, with 50+ POS don't have the option to make only 2-4 days of fuel. Considering logistics in lowsec, nullsec, and WH - and the danger therein - 2 - 4 days of fuel isn't nearly enough to cover your needs, especially when you're talking THAT MANY stations.
So again, hisec can't really complain - time spent sooner rather than later for them. Everyone else though, it's a big bummer and a problem. |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:22:00 -
[224] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:Today I learned people actually converted all of their fuel way ahead of any official announcement of the change over date.
Would it have really been so hard to just make 2-4 days of fuel (depending on your level of downtime paranoia) and then convert the rest AFTER the switch? It takes 2-3 minutes to make 1 hour of fuel at a POS. Not really hard to play catch up with that.
Also LOL at the folks who are too broke to pay for a POS for any real length of time. L2isk fools.
Edit: I can't if everyone here is just really that upset or we're all trolling each other. It's like Poe's Law...
because the message was 2 weeks after the BPO's the change would be made jees man |
Pasha Cracken
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:26:00 -
[225] - Quote
I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....
Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.
Silly people... |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:34:00 -
[226] - Quote
Pasha Cracken wrote:I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....
Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.
Silly people...
you can call em silly people or stupid people, but actually you and others who are flaming the complainers are the sheep who go along with anything CCP is saying or doing
flaming people is probably the only fun thing there is to do for some... |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:35:00 -
[227] - Quote
Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.
CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.
POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.
POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!
Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people. |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:38:00 -
[228] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote:Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.
CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.
POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.
POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!
Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people.
some words written in a blog from the devs.......
CLARIFICATION:
Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.
Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens.
After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks?????? |
Pasha Cracken
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:44:00 -
[229] - Quote
disasteur wrote:Pasha Cracken wrote:I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....
Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.
Silly people... you can call em silly people or stupid people, but actually you and others who are flaming the complainers are the sheep who go along with anything CCP is saying or doing flaming people is probably the only fun thing there is to do for some...
Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch.
Even with no definitive date set, no one should have converted all their stock. At a max, the most people should have done was to buy the bpos, research them, and produce / buy a weeks worth of the new blocks, other then that they should have continued stocking regular fuel.
Anyway you look at it, everyone has a little bit of fault. |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:44:00 -
[230] - Quote
disasteur wrote:Icarus Helia wrote:Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.
CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.
POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.
POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!
Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people. some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel. so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I still don't see a hard date in that post - and he further clarified that closer to that time they would give a certain date. currently - it is closer to that time, and they have given a certain date. also he used "approximately" before giving a time frame. something i did openly fault CCP for in my post - goading you idiots on.
Now, if CCP had given a specific date, like actually saying December 14th, then the rage in this thread would be justified. but they didn't, so it is not.
edit - I might also suggest that you do not fall into the "competent people" category, in case my post didn't do that already. |
|
LethalGeek
Sexy Building
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:46:00 -
[231] - Quote
disasteur wrote: some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems." |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:55:00 -
[232] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:disasteur wrote: some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems."
no i didnt left out a part
this is the blog i got the info
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143
the txt you referring to says... i quote We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over.
@ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point
@ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part..
Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch. |
LethalGeek
Sexy Building
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 06:58:00 -
[233] - Quote
Ok so maybe I'm a tad more experienced with How Updates In Software works and could read between the lines a little better. Darn my experiance! |
disasteur
Tellcomtec Incorporated. Preatoriani
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:00:00 -
[234] - Quote
LethalGeek wrote:Ok so maybe I'm a tad more experienced with How Updates In Software works and could read between the lines a little better. Darn my experiance!
im always suprised how many experienced people play eve... seems this game turns every noob into a technician |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:01:00 -
[235] - Quote
disasteur wrote:LethalGeek wrote:disasteur wrote: some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems." no i didnt left out a part this is the blog i got the info http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143the txt you referring to says... i quote We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over. @ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point @ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part.. Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch.
we already agree that CCP needs to clean up communications - but the point is that people took vague guesstimates as the word in stone, which I think places them far more at fault, especially if they converted their entire stocks to fuel blocks, and therefore makes them exactly the kind of people you don't want in charge of important stuff like keeping your isk farming moon goo bubbles, or jump bridge structures, or multibillion isk construction and research projects alive.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
103
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:10:00 -
[236] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote:disasteur wrote:LethalGeek wrote:disasteur wrote: some words written in a blog from the devs....... CLARIFICATION: Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time. Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens. After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.
so whats with the couple of weeks??????
I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems." no i didnt left out a part this is the blog i got the info http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143the txt you referring to says... i quote We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over. @ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point @ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part.. Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch. we already agree that CCP needs to clean up communications - but the point is that people took vague guesstimates as the word in stone, which I think places them far more at fault, especially if they converted their entire stocks to fuel blocks, and therefore makes them exactly the kind of people you don't want in charge of important stuff like keeping your isk farming moon goo bubbles, or jump bridge structures, or multibillion isk construction and research projects alive.
As the person that raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work.
I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening. |
Marcus Caspius
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:10:00 -
[237] - Quote
Hey Soundwave! Get your sh!t together and stick to the plan. You're causing issues because you don't have your house in order.
-> You tell me it gonna change! I plan and prepare. -> You change the plan again so now all me planning goes to crap 'cause your playing God! -> So a adapt and refine the fuel blocks back to raw and I loose again due to tax and waste
Wake up sweet-cheeks! Smell the roses and get you sh!t together...
|
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:16:00 -
[238] - Quote
Salpun wrote:As the person that raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work. I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening.
the kind of people who make all of their vital supplies semi-worthless based on a guesstimate date that hasn't been confirmed in any way are NOT the kind of people you want to be in charge of fuelling any important pos.
Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.
|
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:17:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:However, I'll make sure this is true. There's a fancy post-it here saying I should and post-its are law!
Especially when the post-its appear on a kanban board. Don't forget to take it off the backlog, or they'll post it on your coffin. I expect to be buried with an impressive collection of them myself. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:22:00 -
[240] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote: Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.
I haven't put any fuel blocks in any of our towers yet. I've been predicting it wouldn't happen before mid-January, but have been prepared for being wrong.
Should we consider that the difference between "proactive" and "hyperactive"?
I would have preferred an earlier date, but I'd have wanted that to be announced well in advance. It wasn't, so I'll take this instead.
|
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
103
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:25:00 -
[241] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote:Salpun wrote:As the person that raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work. I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening. the kind of people who make all of their vital supplies semi-worthless based on a guesstimate date that hasn't been confirmed in any way are NOT the kind of people you want to be in charge of fuelling any important pos. Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.
In WH's you are proactive or you die. CCP did not communicate well, they will make some changes and all will be well. I just feel bad for the guys in null with lots of posses.
Everyone took the info given and make a choice. As with CCP; they are eaither happy or mad about their choice.
Lets ease the pain a little if possible and carry one. o7 |
HoshinoRuri
Playboy Enterprises Dark Taboo
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:27:00 -
[242] - Quote
Thank you CCP greyscale for your timely and many comments on our posts. It shows a level of communication I do not see very often in the CCP devs.
Couple comments, I like that I have a hard date, I was not one that converted everything to blocks only made a 2 days run.
REALLY REALLY hating the increase in my fuel costs due to the PI changes, even with making most of it myself between me and all my alts, fueling towers is not fun and the market blowing up isn't either.
If possible maybe temporarily turn back on npc selling pos fuel to help relieve the market inflation caused by this and your previous announcements concerning POS and POCO. |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:31:00 -
[243] - Quote
ZaBob wrote:Icarus Helia wrote: Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.
I haven't put any fuel blocks in any of our towers yet. I've been predicting it wouldn't happen before mid-January, but have been prepared for being wrong. Should we consider that the difference between "proactive" and "hyperactive"? I would have preferred an earlier date, but I'd have wanted that to be announced well in advance. It wasn't, so I'll take this instead.
being prepared is good - what the people freaking out and raging did is not.
you did it right :)
personally - i made a week of fuel and waited for an exact date before making more or planning for my tower to have only x number of days left.... |
LethalGeek
Sexy Building
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:32:00 -
[244] - Quote
HoshinoRuri wrote:If possible maybe temporarily turn back on npc selling pos fuel to help relieve the market inflation caused by this and your previous announcements concerning POS and POCO.
This is so against their overall design idea for this game (More PCs, less NPCs) that the answer is 99.99% going to be "nope." |
HoshinoRuri
Playboy Enterprises Dark Taboo
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:34:00 -
[245] - Quote
Realize that but was just throwing an idea out there, the only other option is by creating buy and sell orders under phantom ccp corporations to help control supply. |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:36:00 -
[246] - Quote
Salpun wrote:Icarus Helia wrote:Salpun wrote:As the person that raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work. I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening. the kind of people who make all of their vital supplies semi-worthless based on a guesstimate date that hasn't been confirmed in any way are NOT the kind of people you want to be in charge of fuelling any important pos. Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people. In WH's you are proactive or you die. CCP did not communicate well, they will make some changes and all will be well. I just feel bad for the guys in null with lots of posses. Everyone took the info given and make a choice. As with CCP; they are eaither happy or mad about their choice. Lets ease the pain a little if possible and carry one. o7
I live in a WH. I am proactive. I didn't speculate. I am not the one freaking out that I might die because I have no fuel left... see my post before this one.
Proactivity is a trait of competent people - not what causes them to be competent. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:50:00 -
[247] - Quote
I don't even want to think about why you suggest that.
Do you want CCP messing around with PowerShell on your computer? |
VonKolroth
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 07:51:00 -
[248] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jarnis McPieksu wrote:Thank you for finally announcing a date and a date that is now known well in advance. Should make the transition smooth.
Assuming of course the actual switchover goes without any hilarious bugs... well, I'll have my fuel blocks and bags of popcorn ready...
Yeah, having it late January means everyone is also back at the office, ready to remedy if needed. The programmers responsible for the change have promised to not make any bugs, so we should be in the clear!
Because EvE is fueled on Promise Blocks. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 08:12:00 -
[249] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: That script involves, in practice, removing all the fuel in towers and then adding new fuel to the towers (you're altering types and quantities, and the final quantities have to be larger because of the number of isotopes and so on in the mix, so it's got to be effectively to be a remove and an add). The worst that happens is that the remove happens but the add doesn't and everything goes offline, and testing this requires an upgrade test which (as we've established) is risky in and of itself and takes a lot of time to prepare.
Um, this is exactly what database transactions are for. Making atomic changes are perhaps the biggest reason for using a database in the first place!
Either the remove happens and the add happens, or *NEITHER* happens. That's the 'A' in the ACID properties of a transaction. And the 'C'. And even the 'I'.
If that's not the case, then you are doing something very very wrong. But I believe I've read somewhere you use SQL Server? Ah, yes: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tranquility
So this is not a legitimate concern.
But testing? Absolutely. For one thing, if there's an error, then NEITHER the remove nor the add happens, and since you won't be accepting the old, the tower would offline.
My point here is narrow and technical, about that one specific failure mode. There are plenty of other risks to concern yourself about whenever you're working with large quantities of live data. Screwing over masses of data irrevocably, forcing a return to a backup (requiring lots of downtime and losing any data after that point), is any database admin or programmer's worst nightmare. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 08:26:00 -
[250] - Quote
I find myself very bemused by the reactions here.
People rage that "CCP has screwed us over again!", while at the same time, proclaiming loudly the great faith they put in vague statements of "a couple weeks" or "approximately two weeks".
One might almost think that the removal of learning skills a while back has somehow extended to RL.
When Cruicible was released, and no actual date was announced, red lights should have lit up your plausibility meter. Especially since the BPOs weren't there when promised!
Now, CCP Greyscale: What you should have announced was simply that you would be sure to give everyone at least a couple of weeks notice. Then, when you announced the actual date, don't you think you would have gotten a different reaction?
Learn from your mistakes, people. Pretty much what life is all about. Blame never leads to learning. Learn from your mistakes. |
|
Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 08:34:00 -
[251] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Oh, and can you allow fuel blocks in the Ore hold of the Rorqual+Orca.
that'd be freaking sweet.
Allowing the ore hold to take Ore, Compressed Ore, Ice, Compressed Ice and Fuel blocks would be an excellent extension to the Rorqal and Orca.
Do this and you are forgiven.
|
Opertone
Signal 7
44
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 08:39:00 -
[252] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?!
you oughta pee on your friend's head (/hat) |
Halcyon Ingenium
Warm Holes
64
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 09:00:00 -
[253] - Quote
Look on the bright side everyone, if you haven't already, now is the time to get that block BPO nice and researched up. Go ahead and make it perfect, you have the time. People say things like: "Oh, you make so much money. What do you need any more for?" Well, actually, *****, I never asked for your opinion. I'll let you know when I have enough money. -Gene Simmons |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
282
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 09:08:00 -
[254] - Quote
Kasulli wrote:Artctura wrote:Boltzy Tsero wrote:So, out of the 180 replies to this post only about 5 are positive!
CCP Greyscale, please ignore all 175 posts by trolls and griefers, and thanks for giving a DATE on when this conversion will take place.
As stated CCP have never given a date and only mention approx two weeks after Crucible regarding the fuel block change over period.
You guys need to give CCP some love for a change! You have just had the best expansion for months!.
Safe! o7 I don't disagree. They've done a phenomenal job with Crucible. The issue here though is the complete lack of information on this and then the shock at the time frame. Kudos to Greyscale for the work he has been doing in explaining, (Which helps a lot, and frankly should be edited into his post on page 1 as well as in the replies) and for trying to get the size of the tower doubled. I have one more recommendation. Drop the PI export tax to 2-3% until the switchover. Then put it to the new levels. This will help drop the price on fuel while this switchover takes place and everyone is "double fueling" without taking any ISK out of the player's hands. Then, starting on the 24th with the new fuel, increase it 3% every week back to what it is now. That fixes both sides of the issue here. Players get to store the fuel in the tower until the switchover and you get to combat the price increase that comes with the natural market demand going up as a direct result of the switchover as well as put pressure to increase demand when the supply explodes in the first couple of weeks of fuel block operation.This makes your logistics players happy because the time they've spent already isn't wasted. This makes the corporation bean counter's happy because POS fuel won't spike short term as their logistics players are all of a sudden saying they need twice as much as expected and the PI players should at least see some increased pressure to keep prices consistent as the tax rate rises once all of this is underway. If you have stations to store in. Worm Holes. Will WH survive? Yes - they'll be fine. But if they already got the fuel to WH, they now have to take it back to stations (risky as always when transporting) or have valuable space taken up in their WH - possibly and probably too much space so they could be adequately prepared for change-over. Everything in WH is compounded due to the need for redundancy. Like I said though - bashing CCP doesn't help. They just need to learn from the communication error. Not a lot of dmg done, just time wasted. WH loses out the worst though.
You're missing the point dude. The fuel blocks can be refined down so that's not the problem. And for storing, learn to XL-Ship Assembly Array.
The problem is the CCP generated costs, not the player ones. They've in essence pulled an ice interdiction and interfered with the market on such a level that many corps won't recover till the fallout from price hikes from player owned custom offices balances out. I personally fully expect PI to increase in price on the market, however those profits aren't being seen yet. If you decide to double your fuel and hang on to your blocks instead of refining them, you're going to be paying a premium on top of additional logistics to "double fuel" towers for another month and a half.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Cole Ontor
Mindstar Technology Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 09:09:00 -
[255] - Quote
outsoursing the jobs that affect prosponement to china will fix the xmas holida |
Herring
Infinatech
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 10:40:00 -
[256] - Quote
Honestly, while your fuel block thing is a definite step in the right direction, the right move would be to implement solar arrays so you only had to use fuel blocks when attacked and the array was destroyed, or when the moon's orbit took it out of the direct path of the system's starlight (ideally this would just mean a 80-90% reduction in fuel costs as I see it). Right now, a POS has too high of a cost to run outright (even discounting the risk of it being destroyed) for the benefit it provides.
Honestly I'd love to see them run fuelless unless attacked (when they have a solar array in place) but so many people have built up business around PI and ice, that's not reasonable or fair to those people. But they sure as hell should be cheaper to run than they are now. Overall cost to fuel wouldn't change that much as you'd see a lot more people deploying structures.
Just my 0.02
H
edit: I mean really, I could be running a large or tower or two every month or buying a plex for another account every month. No brainer. |
Aldarean
Eclipse Innovations Fabricated Confabulations
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 10:51:00 -
[257] - Quote
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.
Why couldn't this been explained at the beginning of the post. Now it sounds as if you were running around like headless chickens trying to come up with an excuse. Instead of pretending you were doing everyone a favour.
On side note, earlier this year CCP announced the reworking of jump bridges (one jump bridge per system). In that post what would have happened if the date of that going live was pushed back 6 weeks, only 1 week before it supposed to go live. All the null alliance would have threatened to quit. Like most things that appear to happen, would CCP have folded to the null alliance and ensured the original date was kept, probably.
What people are concerned about is the cost now of Fuel, so can't CCP have POS run on zero fuel, or half the fuel (exl robotics) for the next 6 weeks. |
Bakuhz
IREA Holdings Borg ImperiuM
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 11:02:00 -
[258] - Quote
this is unacceptable the release of fuel block came with a 2 week interval now you drag it tt the end of januari
thanks just what i needed to hear more PI production to fill the damn gap for once you created again. (to give more time to produce stock of fuelblocks) Seriously if you havent build the blocks by know you have failed.
|
CCFAIL
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 11:51:00 -
[259] - Quote
so you basically telling us, you instead of risking a patch before xmas, it makes more sense to **** up the while PI market?
I mean ppl where buying fuel to build fuel blocks. Now ppl are buying fuel again to refuel their towers. so effectivly ppl where buying 3 times the fuel from the market they normaly would have.
Where should that fuel come from? So prices are rising for the PI Materials as well as the ice materials makeing it impossible to afford to continue running some poses for some ppl. Which results in the T2 raw material prices to rise as well. which means that producing some stuff will become unprofitable, making the price there rise as well. ... should I continue?...
sorry, but this is worse then bringing a patch when some of the developers are not there or something, because this is a situation that is most likely going to ruin some markets in eve a lot, and thats more likely to cause ppl to quit then when a pos or two go offline, because the ppl didn't read devblogs.
|
Aluminy
Ethereal Wolves AAA Citizens
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 12:19:00 -
[260] - Quote
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:Look on the bright side everyone, if you haven't already, now is the time to get that block BPO nice and researched up. Go ahead and make it perfect, you have the time.
some people are f'n noobs - takes 4 days to get it to perfect and that is with a little PE thrown in~ L2Research
|
|
Myz Toyou
Bite me inc. Narwhals Ate My Duck
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 12:24:00 -
[261] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote: I think the timing is quite interesting, since you could have purchased your BPOs, and put them into PE research (which takes just over a month to get perfect PE and 3 minute build times) - and you will have those perfect PE BPs ready to produce with just enough lead time to still fuel a lot of towers.
This is Bullshit... perfect ME is 40 and PE is 30, both is done in a week.
|
Halcyon Ingenium
Warm Holes
64
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 12:29:00 -
[262] - Quote
Aluminy wrote:Halcyon Ingenium wrote:Look on the bright side everyone, if you haven't already, now is the time to get that block BPO nice and researched up. Go ahead and make it perfect, you have the time. some people are f'n noobs - takes 4 days to get it to perfect and that is with a little PE thrown in~ L2Research
Some people are ******* noobs, apparently with reading and comprehending English language.
People say things like: "Oh, you make so much money. What do you need any more for?" Well, actually, *****, I never asked for your opinion. I'll let you know when I have enough money. -Gene Simmons |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 12:29:00 -
[263] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote:Salpun wrote:As the person that raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work. I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening. the kind of people who make all of their vital supplies semi-worthless based on a guesstimate date that hasn't been confirmed in any way are NOT the kind of people you want to be in charge of fuelling any important pos. Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.
And if this post said the switchover would be the 14th, 2 weeks after the patch as was originally stated, you'd be screaming too.
See the problem is, for the last 10 days, CCP has left the only direction as the vague 2 week date. Fuel hundreds of POS's with a new fuel type isn't the kind of thing that can be done in 2 or 3 days no matter how good your logistics. Fuelers plan on visiting a POS once a month, not weekly. Fueling 2 or 3 POS's in WH space is the same deal. So yes, we jumped on the 14th date and got ahead of things. Why? Because if we didn't hundreds of POS's would go offline. So you're right. I don't want someone who is trying desperately to ensure that the supply of vital moon goo, jump bridges, cyno jammers and cyno beacons don't go offline by being proactive and trying to do more than 4 times the work of a normal week in the game being in charge of the alliance POS's. Nope, wouldn't want that person at all.
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
239
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 12:29:00 -
[264] - Quote
Bakuhz wrote:(to give more time to produce stock of fuelblocks) Seriously if you havent build the blocks by know you have failed. Obviously, the opposite was true. Since it takes 36 hours to build a month's fuel, there was no reason to hurry before we had a specific date. In fact, the devblog already hinted at the chance that deployment would be postponed by a few days.
Actually, CCP gave you extra room in the fuel bays, enough for almost a week's worth of blocks. If you feared a sudden transition, you could have built only that week and put it in the towers as buffer to build more blocks.
Instead you burned your bridges and converted your whole stockpile. You bet a high risk patch would be deployed on time with only a vague schedule of "a couple of weeks" as reference.
But hey, everyone who didn't do that "fails" 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 |
Myz Toyou
Bite me inc. Narwhals Ate My Duck
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 12:39:00 -
[265] - Quote
I guess main reason for CCP to delay this switch is they not in the mood to handle all the petitions and threads full of tears over lost towers and tower mods from idiots being not prepared at the original date. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
338
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 13:06:00 -
[266] - Quote
GOD DAMN YOU SOUNDWAVE
YOU'VE FUCKIN LEARNED NOTHING AT CCP!
IF PAGE ONE SAID THIS, there'd be a LOT less bitching, WTF ...
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.
WEe 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. I'm a ******* profanity filter that can catch **** and *****, but fuckin little else. -á
|
Slumber
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 13:25:00 -
[267] - Quote
Thanks for the hard work Greyscale, your dedication to making it right is appreciated. |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
37
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 14:25:00 -
[268] - Quote
Eh, any of you expected something else?
Anyway, time to take down the POS and wait this out, rather then waste money keeping it up while this idiocy is going on.
Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomine Tua Da Na Glorium |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
1122
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 14:35:00 -
[269] - Quote
Soundwave will you have my babies?
|
|
ACESsiggy
VC Academy
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 14:59:00 -
[270] - Quote
Yup, no clue what Fuel blocks are or what they're used for ... been playing the game for about a year too (on and off).
Good stuff |
|
Azurun Li
O'Rly Industries The Methodical Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 15:03:00 -
[271] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Madner Kami wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future. Well, thanks for explaining why this push-back happens and I agree on why you push it back. Next time however, I wish you let us know of such uncertainties in advance, because Schroedinger's Cat is always going to screw someone or several for that matter. Expectation management and all ;) Yup, that was our bad, we'll try and do it better next time. OK I'm going home, I'll check back in tomorrow hopefully.
Greyscale, you deserve a medal for what you're putting up with in here. |
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 16:02:00 -
[272] - Quote
What a bunch of whiny frakkin crybaby's.
It's not like it takes any GD work to get fuel to your POS's anymore. You pick the **** up, put it in your fleet of Jump Freighters which jump to your Jump Bridges and in 2-3 clicks you have fuel at your POS's.
Idiots acting like they gotta put it in a freighter and run a GD freighter op through 40 jumps of null sec to get fuel to their bases... amazing.
You dumb the game down to where our house kittens can fuel our star bases for us while we're at work because they've taken all of the travel out of the game, and they still act like it's such a hard job. |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
112
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 16:19:00 -
[273] - Quote
Neesa Corrinne wrote:What a bunch of whiny frakkin crybaby's.
It's not like it takes any GD work to get fuel to your POS's anymore. You pick the **** up, put it in your fleet of Jump Freighters which jump to your Jump Bridges and in 2-3 clicks you have fuel at your POS's.
Idiots acting like they gotta put it in a freighter and run a GD freighter op through 40 jumps of null sec to get fuel to their bases... amazing.
You dumb the game down to where our house kittens can fuel our star bases for us while we're at work because they've taken all of the travel out of the game, and they still act like it's such a hard job. We have a saying here:
If you dont know what you are talking about: Shut the frag up!
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 |
LethalGeek
Sexy Building
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 16:33:00 -
[274] - Quote
People are just mad because they have poor reading and planning skills. |
Adara Moo
Flatliners
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 16:55:00 -
[275] - Quote
Below is the bit that is really annoying:
CCP Greyscale wrote:An extra fuel bay, switching the tower to run on dual fuel types or anything else of that nature requires us to make major changes to the starbase code, which is both risky in and of itself as a major code change, and doubly risky because the starbase code is pretty failure-prone.
CCP know and we know that starbases are screwed (when they work and when they don't). We've been asking CCP to fix them for YEARS, yet CCP only works on the simple stuff and suddenly, when they actually do try and do something (aka fuel changes) their past laziness bites them on the nose.
Next time you try something with starbases, how about you grab the bull by the horns instead of wrapping a turd with tinsel. |
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 17:03:00 -
[276] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:Neesa Corrinne wrote:What a bunch of whiny frakkin crybaby's.
It's not like it takes any GD work to get fuel to your POS's anymore. You pick the **** up, put it in your fleet of Jump Freighters which jump to your Jump Bridges and in 2-3 clicks you have fuel at your POS's.
Idiots acting like they gotta put it in a freighter and run a GD freighter op through 40 jumps of null sec to get fuel to their bases... amazing.
You dumb the game down to where our house kittens can fuel our star bases for us while we're at work because they've taken all of the travel out of the game, and they still act like it's such a hard job. We have a saying here: If you dont know what you are talking about: Shut the frag up!
Is the guy who joined in '08 really telling me that I'm the one that doesn't know about forming freighter ops to carry supplies to null sec before warp to zero, before jump freighters, before jump bridges and before titan bridges? Ops that would take weeks to plan and hours if not days to execute depending on how good enemy intel was?
The current generation of capsuleers have it so easy that it's not funny. Hell, they even gave into the whining about how haaaaard it is to carry several different supplies to fuel a starbase and now they are giving it all to you in one easy to carry cube and people are still whining. *amazed* |
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 17:37:00 -
[277] - Quote
Neesa Corrinne wrote:Neo Agricola wrote:Neesa Corrinne wrote:What a bunch of whiny frakkin crybaby's.
It's not like it takes any GD work to get fuel to your POS's anymore. You pick the **** up, put it in your fleet of Jump Freighters which jump to your Jump Bridges and in 2-3 clicks you have fuel at your POS's.
Idiots acting like they gotta put it in a freighter and run a GD freighter op through 40 jumps of null sec to get fuel to their bases... amazing.
You dumb the game down to where our house kittens can fuel our star bases for us while we're at work because they've taken all of the travel out of the game, and they still act like it's such a hard job. We have a saying here: If you dont know what you are talking about: Shut the frag up! Is the guy who joined in '08 really telling me that I'm the one that doesn't know about forming freighter ops to carry supplies to null sec before warp to zero, before jump freighters, before jump bridges and before titan bridges? Ops that would take weeks to plan and hours if not days to execute depending on how good enemy intel was? The current generation of capsuleers have it so easy that it's not funny. Hell, they even gave into the whining about how haaaaard it is to carry several different supplies to fuel a starbase and now they are giving it all to you in one easy to carry cube and people are still whining. *amazed*
Oh stop being so butt hurt. He's just calling you out because Jump Freighters don't jump to jump bridges you silly putz. They jump to cynos or cyno beacons. lol
On another note: I can't believe how delicious all these tears are. All these people who thought they were so smart converting their stock pile and NOT saving enough old style fuel just in case of the "off chance" that the whole thing might just be delayed. Do none of you remember the past? Just how often has CCP made estimates on when things were going to happen and then, lo and behold a delay happens or it just doesn't happen at all. Damn people. You would think that you would learn from the past. Just a little bit. lmao
CCP: Keep up the good work. Your efforts are creating some of the most b e a utiful tears I have seen in a long time. This is all playing out as if a goon planned it and I'm loving the heck out of it. Good job. o7 |
Ore Grinder
Star-Gate Command
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 17:37:00 -
[278] - Quote
Just add a second fuel bay that takes only blocks. Keep the old one for now. After 3 months or something equally excessive, remove the old fuel bay for the old fuel. That way there is enough room for a full load of both blocks and old fuel. After the switch over, you have 2 fuel cycles to remove the old fuel if there is any left. |
ApolloF117 HUN
The 1st Regiment HUN Reloaded
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 17:49:00 -
[279] - Quote
Explain |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
29
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 19:25:00 -
[280] - Quote
Artctura wrote:Icarus Helia wrote:Salpun wrote:As the person that raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work. I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening. the kind of people who make all of their vital supplies semi-worthless based on a guesstimate date that hasn't been confirmed in any way are NOT the kind of people you want to be in charge of fuelling any important pos. Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people. And if this post said the switchover would be the 14th, 2 weeks after the patch as was originally stated, you'd be screaming too. See the problem is, for the last 10 days, CCP has left the only direction as the vague 2 week date. Fuel hundreds of POS's with a new fuel type isn't the kind of thing that can be done in 2 or 3 days no matter how good your logistics. Fuelers plan on visiting a POS once a month, not weekly. Fueling 2 or 3 POS's in WH space is the same deal. So yes, we jumped on the 14th date and got ahead of things. Why? Because if we didn't hundreds of POS's would go offline. So you're right. I don't want someone who is trying desperately to ensure that the supply of vital moon goo, jump bridges, cyno jammers and cyno beacons don't go offline by being proactive and trying to do more than 4 times the work of a normal week in the game being in charge of the alliance POS's. Nope, wouldn't want that person at all.
Fact is - they did NOT give you a date, and until they did you should have put 1-2 weeks of blocks in the towers, and then continued to fuel as normal, rather than reducing all of your stocks to useless bricks and scattering them on a hunch.
if i had a pile of 16 foot boards and was told i might need to cut all of them to 12 feet but the measurements weren't final yet,and then i went ahead and cut them all to 12 feet, and then was told told actually they need to be 10 feet once i was done cutting them to 12 feet - i would be at fault. same deal here - you guys jumped the gun - no matter how many poses you need to fuel, or where. |
|
Syphonuk II
New Legacy LLC SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 19:34:00 -
[281] - Quote
I'd had a read of the forums and done a fair amount of googling but can't see any details on the impact, if any, of sovereignty and fuel blocks.
At the moment, we get a reduction on the amount of fuel required due to holding sovereignty. Any ideas if we will still receive a bonus once changeover happens? If so, some numbers would be nice.
Thanks |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
29
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 19:40:00 -
[282] - Quote
Syphonuk II wrote:I'd had a read of the forums and done a fair amount of googling but can't see any details on the impact, if any, of sovereignty and fuel blocks.
At the moment, we get a reduction on the amount of fuel required due to holding sovereignty. Any ideas if we will still receive a bonus once changeover happens? If so, some numbers would be nice.
Thanks
Yes you do. I think its being changed to 20% rather than 25% though? I could be wrong, maybe that was just the faction fuel use bonus. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 20:54:00 -
[283] - Quote
Artctura wrote:raised the issue on the first page The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary See the problem is, for the last 10 days, CCP has left the only direction as the vague 2 week date. Fuel hundreds of POS's with a new fuel type isn't the kind of thing that can be done in 2 or 3 days no matter how good your logistics. Fuelers plan on visiting a POS once a month, not weekly. Fueling 2 or 3 POS's in WH space is the same deal. So yes, we jumped on the 14th date and got ahead of things. Why? Because if we didn't hundreds of POS's would go offline. So you're right. I don't want someone who is trying desperately to ensure that the supply of vital moon goo, jump bridges, cyno jammers and cyno beacons don't go offline by being proactive and trying to do more than 4 times the work of a normal week in the game being in charge of the alliance POS's. Nope, wouldn't want that person at all.
Sure, doing what it takes to make sure the POSes all stay online is being competent, and being proactive goes with that.
What's not competent is not planning for the possibility (and by the time of this announcement, the obvious near-inevitability) that it would not be until sometime next year. Say, converting all your fuel to blocks and having no ISK left to carry you until you can use it.
So if jumping on the 14th makes sense in your situation, by all means. In my situation, I took careful stock, made sure I would be able to fuel with blocks whenever the time came, and waited on fully committing. As the 14th got closer, I was certainly getting more nervous about a nasty surprise, but I would have stayed ahead of the curve.
There's no question this has been unnecessarily painful, but some people by taking vague time frames as certainty, made it moreso for themselves. |
Dasola
Rookies Empire Rookie Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 21:20:00 -
[284] - Quote
Glad to hear theres now confirmed date when fuel switchover will happen.
How ever im not suprised at all that ccp needed extra time for this. Hope you actyally test and hammer that code to see that its really bulletproof. Becouse your ruthless playerbase will find any bugs you overlooked.
Best of luck for everyone, hope all your POSes stay online and ccp dosent mess up as usuall.
Yes im not currently running POS myself, but am planning doing so soon. Have been delaying it becouse this fuel change... [Insert something funny or smart here] |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
367
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 21:34:00 -
[285] - Quote
Thalen Draganos wrote:No.....No.....try not. Do or do not there is no try.
Smart way to play this is to tell yourself that you will, and your customers that you probably will. The do-or-do-not thing applies very well to personal goal-setting, but customers generally appreciate broken promises even less than they appreciate vagueness.
Kasulli wrote:CCP - Learn from poor communication and prioritization. Had you fixed star base code years ago, this change-over probably would have been much simpler. Crucible is great, lots of fixes, keep up the focus on fixing EVE - because it still has broken parts like FW and the Star Base Code. You'd make a lot of people happy, hisec to WH and everything between, if the star base code was revamped such that future improvements like fuel blocks could be easily implemented and adjusted. Everyone agrees fuel blocks are great - you've just managed to totally mess up implementing it and cost a lot of people time and money (one can be recuperated, the other not).
This isn't news to us, don't worry We know we've been directing our efforts in suboptimal directions recently, and we've said as much in public. We do plan to spend more time revisiting old systems in the future. Unfortunately, we can't make this happen all at once.
ZaBob wrote:(Paraphrasing) Hey Greyscale, you're clearly not a DB programmer.
Correct |
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
711
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 22:37:00 -
[286] - Quote
So... another day, pulling the POS fuels from the PI, looking at the stockpile of Ice fuels I gathered, pulled another batch of cubes from the oven... can't figure out what all the fuss is about.
Regardless, I need to bring in ice fuels periodically, that won't change... still create the pos fuel materials with the PI, that won't changed, have more time to build a healthy reserve of fuel chunks (that did change... )
Maybe if's only my perspective, but I see this as a positive which gives me more time to be well ready for the switch. Then again, single pos to worry over, full pos PI in the hole... Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
106
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 22:39:00 -
[287] - Quote
Chribba wrote:Soundwave will you have my babies?
Giggi...ty? |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
151
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 22:39:00 -
[288] - Quote
so the fuel bay size increase, is it gonna stay after your quick fix? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
uglybass
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 00:49:00 -
[289] - Quote
Sorry skipped bout 7 pages.... To those ppl who accuse people being dumb and converting fuel since CCP did say "round two weeks" and To CCP My sugesstion is: Why not FIRST test youre future implementation/changes in game BEFORE announcing them ?! youre doing it backwards atm... |
da Rokha
DA ROKHA WELFARE COMMITTEE Motivated and Determined
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 01:31:00 -
[290] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Seleene wrote:CCP Prism X wrote:Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?! Gave you a like for this one, bro. CCP Prism should continue drinking his own urine. Everyone else should not.
wait ... I always thought that pissing on the wound that taipan bites will help? Now what? |
|
da Rokha
DA ROKHA WELFARE COMMITTEE Motivated and Determined
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 01:39:00 -
[291] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Thanks for letting us know this on December 9th, two weeks after everyone asked you to postpone this change. We've all really enjoyed rushing around half-filling towers with fuel blocks all week only to now have to replace with normal fuel again for another month.
**** you very much
hah! why not reprocessing that fuel blocks you've made? Lack of an efficient refining facility? Nice concept of a time sink ...
|
Infinion
Awesome Corp
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 09:52:00 -
[292] - Quote
It's funny how you guys can't refuel your own posses like you always have. You decided to switch out existing fuel to make fuel blocks and that's pretty much your own fault for deciding to do it that way. |
Valkerias
Society of Friends
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 11:08:00 -
[293] - Quote
Infinion wrote:It's funny how you guys can't refuel your own posses like you always have. You decided to switch out existing fuel to make fuel blocks and that's pretty much your own fault for deciding to do it that way.
Yes, it's their fault for taking CCP at their word. Especially considering how soon it was that we learned "the taxes will be DOUBLED" means "multiplied by whatever number we feel like."
|
LT Geordi LaForge
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 11:12:00 -
[294] - Quote
So, we're using Prism X's urine for POS fuel, and drink snakes if you get bitten by a fuel block. Got it! |
MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis RED.Legion
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 11:32:00 -
[295] - Quote
[quote=CCP Greyscale]OK, so here's what happened.
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. quote]
OFFICIAL NOTICE: DUE TO COMPLETELY SCREWING UP ....... CHRISTMAS LEAVE HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR "various key people" SO THIS CAN BE PUT RIGHT. |
Miss Misses
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 12:06:00 -
[296] - Quote
Thx ccp
wih this new easy blocks i will finally get my own pos because it will not be horrible to keep it running :D
just gotta wait for prices to settle now :)
PS: can we get a reply button on the forums so we need not first log in? |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
240
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 12:29:00 -
[297] - Quote
MuppetsSlayed wrote:OFFICIAL NOTICE: DUE TO COMPLETELY SCREWING UP ....... CHRISTMAS LEAVE HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR "various key people" SO THIS CAN BE PUT RIGHT. You are completely right, your Internet pixel starbases are much more important than people's Christmas plans 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 |
Serenity Izia
Proxy Nebula
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 12:36:00 -
[298] - Quote
i think it has more to do with the fact, that people now have taken their statement about not screwing up, and working to better them selves, etc. to heart. And decided to Work AHEAD on CCP's word with the 2 week aprox statement.
And most even seem to have saved a spare weeks worth, but then pushing the date so far out in the future as the did, prop made people pissed..
Afterall, they are paying for a serivce, where the guys in charge of maintaining, and expanding this service, made a promise and went back on their promise.. Only in this case, it might have / will have some pretty explosive / risky consequenses.. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
107
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 14:03:00 -
[299] - Quote
MuppetsSlayed wrote: OFFICIAL NOTICE: DUE TO COMPLETELY SCREWING UP ....... CHRISTMAS LEAVE HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR "various key people" SO THIS CAN BE PUT RIGHT.
If my boss said I needed to cancel my flight, get a new flight less than a week from christmas, and work because it would keep the company from failing, I'd yell, insist on the company paying the flights, then do it. If he said it was because we wanted to get a feature out on time to improve things, I'd dress him down and happily go on my flight.
tl;dr Smart management doesn't f*ck with vacation time without *TONS* of notice, and not even then. |
Lucia Ferragano
Not Even Light La Division Bleue
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 15:21:00 -
[300] - Quote
Anne Lou wrote:Lots of Brilliant (TM).
Also, you can send them that poisonous snake over :p
|
|
Lucia Ferragano
Not Even Light La Division Bleue
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 15:35:00 -
[301] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Stuff.
As annoyed as I can be by CCP sometimes, they've been rather humble these days, they've put what my mates and I consider a fun expansion out, and it is a very hard industry. People value their fun time way more than their work time, and are consequently very demanding.
I reserve my opinion on this particular subject, but at least, it made for good reading ^^ |
Lucia Ferragano
Not Even Light La Division Bleue
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 15:36:00 -
[302] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Stuff.
As annoyed as I can be by CCP sometimes, they've been rather humble these days, they've put what my mates and I consider a fun expansion out, and it is a very hard industry. People value their fun time way more than their work time, and are consequently very demanding.
I reserve my opinion on this particular subject, but at least, it made for good reading ^^ |
Lucia Ferragano
Not Even Light La Division Bleue
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 15:45:00 -
[303] - Quote
Lucia Ferragano wrote:WTH why is there no "double-post" check on this forum?
Edit: Why does the edit reason become silently cut?
I think someone(s) should have been working on fuel blocks instead of implementing a inhouse crappy forum :D
But then again, who am I to complain, just a random stupid user ;)
Side note, I once read an argument about game-makers not reading forums as a brain-health safety measure. It must be a bit nerve wracking to put your heart to your work and get flamed for failures, perceived failures or just regular whiner-pleasure :D
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
375
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 17:17:00 -
[304] - Quote
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.
Lucia Ferragano wrote:Side note, I once read an argument about game-makers not reading forums as a brain-health safety measure. It must be a bit nerve wracking to put your heart to your work and get flamed for failures, perceived failures or just regular whiner-pleasure :D
It gets a lot easier once you learn to stop taking any of it remotely personally |
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
111
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 17:26:00 -
[305] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:It gets a lot easier once you learn to stop taking any of it remotely personally
I really hope you haven't stopped taking the praise personally. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
199
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 18:48:00 -
[306] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:It gets a lot easier once you learn to stop taking any of it remotely personally
Just thought I'd throw something inspirational in here...
Gibran, The Prophet wrote: Work is love made visible. And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy. For if you bake bread with indifference, you bake a bitter bread that feeds but half man's hunger. And if you grudge the crushing of the grapes, your grudge distils a poison in the wine. And if you sing though as angels, and love not the singing, you muffle man's ears to the voices of the day and the voices of the night.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
288
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 20:13:00 -
[307] - Quote
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. Lucia Ferragano wrote:Side note, I once read an argument about game-makers not reading forums as a brain-health safety measure. It must be a bit nerve wracking to put your heart to your work and get flamed for failures, perceived failures or just regular whiner-pleasure :D
It gets a lot easier once you learn to stop taking any of it remotely personally
Dude, I think he was joking.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
114
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 20:27:00 -
[308] - Quote
Zagdul wrote: Dude, I think he was joking.
With some of the people on this forum, you gotta wonder, though. |
Sidelong Glances
Redemption Holdings
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 20:39:00 -
[309] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Halcyon Ingenium wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Good news. Is there a time we can use fuel blocks before this or is the switch over going to be that abrupt? Going to be abrupt. Hopefully the long leadtime will make it less painful.
Aside from that now I have a month of fuel sitting idle in blocks that I had ready for the original date, yes. Was not planning the budget on having to buy another month of fuel NOW . :grumbledygrumpgrump: It would be nice if we could use both until that magical moment the unprepared have become prepared and are ready with the rest of us.
Learn from CL&P - It's ok to be late as long as you don't promise to be early ;) |
Lucid Matrix
Dante's Productions Pink Fluffy Pussycats
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 20:58:00 -
[310] - Quote
CCP
In the future, why not fully test expansions and patches on a test server before they go live. I think this would result in the need for less forum rage. It would also anger paying customers much less, if you folks at CCP realized we don't want to pay to be ******* guinea pigs.
On another note, PI export/import cost needs a serious deduction, it's beyond insanity
P.S. Quality should speak first, not the douche making stupid deadlines. When someone imposes a dead line, kick them in the crotch hard and say, "it will go live when it's ready and working properly." |
|
Faith Sunstrider
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 21:46:00 -
[311] - Quote
Too much QQ. |
Kelvin Vanhorn
Black Slag Authenticated Darkmatter Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 22:16:00 -
[312] - Quote
Hello Greyscale!!!
Suggestion: Would it be remotely possible to have CCP tell us to keep our POS's full of the standard fuel up to the day or weekend before the switch over and when the change takes place CCP with convert all that fuel to the new Fuel Blocks.
This way all the effort players have done up to then with making the new fuel block and keeping the fuel bays full for another month wonGÇÖt be in vain, think of it as a belated Christmas gift to use for what has been taken place so far for the miscommunication.
Hopefully this would make players happy about this change and let them focus on the task of keeping their tower up and running with the new fuel blocks.
Cheers
Kel
|
Acks
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 22:23:00 -
[313] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
A bit late commenting on this thread but.....
Considering the importance you place on not hosing CCP employee holidays, perhaps a way of showing respect to your players holiday schedules would be the following:
As a holiday gift and a mia culpa, turn off POS fuel consumption for 2-4 weeks to give people time to adapt to the new realitites. This gives people a chance to:
- Produce more raw fuel
- Move more raw fuel
- Not get prison raped on market prices which will now be jacked up even more now that people know there will be an even bigger shortage.
- Not have their holiday breaks / preparation time spent to date wasted.
I for one have been very happy with recent changes. It is unfortunate that issues like this tarnish recent progress. However considering CCP's track record with the customer base the last 2+ years something more than "We are REALLY sorry, see you in 4 weeks" would be appreciated.
Disabling the fuel consumption, one would think, should be a relatively low impact code change (speaking as someone who has never looked at the POS spaghetti code)
Thanks, Acks RONA Directorate |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
116
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 23:17:00 -
[314] - Quote
Acks wrote: As a holiday gift and a mia culpa, turn off POS fuel consumption for 2-4 weeks to give people time to adapt to the new realitites.
2-4 weeks of free reactions running on as many moons as I can get my grubby paws on? I bet I could make a few dozen billion isk.... I don't think I'd sleep at all for the month, and I'd run through a couple billion in cyno frigs, LOz, Cyno mods, and JF fuel, but I'd make more in a month than I reasonably expect to this year. |
Aldarean
Eclipse Innovations Fabricated Confabulations
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 23:26:00 -
[315] - Quote
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. Lucia Ferragano wrote:Side note, I once read an argument about game-makers not reading forums as a brain-health safety measure. It must be a bit nerve wracking to put your heart to your work and get flamed for failures, perceived failures or just regular whiner-pleasure :D
It gets a lot easier once you learn to stop taking any of it remotely personally
Anyone in here who would say anyone should not have Xmas off should sort themselves out.it is an argument brought by frustration, and believe this argument should be taken with a pinch os salt.
However CCP, staffing holidays should have been planed in advance. Which means the switchover should have never been planned to take place before Xmas.
Market volatility has already been mentioned. And yes during the POS happy time it was mentioned that switchover would probably take place within 2 weeks.
You guys have made a fantastic patch, and you deserve a holiday. But you have fallen into the same trap that this expansion was trying to recover. Which was basically lack of clear communication. Without any other communication industrial pilots had to assume the time span given.
There has been too much going on at once that's made fuel market to volatile, and this is just magnifying it. There is nothing we can do about the switchover, if it doesn't work it doesn't work. But find a simple way to not punish the pilots (majority) that planned and put in the effort to prepare for this switchover. Half the fuel cost for all POSs, surely this is just a simple procedure and editing quantity numbers in POS code, and shouldnt cause any major work. Could be wrong :-) |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 00:33:00 -
[316] - Quote
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. |
Acks
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 00:46:00 -
[317] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Acks wrote: As a holiday gift and a mia culpa, turn off POS fuel consumption for 2-4 weeks to give people time to adapt to the new realitites.
2-4 weeks of free reactions running on as many moons as I can get my grubby paws on? I bet I could make a few dozen billion isk.... I don't think I'd sleep at all for the month, and I'd run through a couple billion in cyno frigs, LOz, Cyno mods, and JF fuel, but I'd make more in a month than I reasonably expect to this year.
And?
A fix to avoid exploitation if it is really needed could be to make it for current towers only. Complicates the matter but there ya go. Point of my post being that CCP's issues with their plans are not being allowed to impact their finances or holiday time off. The same consideration should be given to the players.
I only have to deal with one POS ATM but I have had to manage dozens in the past. The amount of work, fuel and isk needed to compensate for this shift is not minor.
Add in the WH factor and this gets 10x worse. Those who argue that people in a WH only have to deal with 1 POS and should not complain clearly have not really lived in a WH unless it was only with 2 or 3 other people. Most serious WH corps have multiple towers. It is necessary evil of WH living with a corp of any size.
If this were occuring during non "holiday" time it would still be a major annoyance but it would at least be much more manageable from a time / manpower perspective.
I do not feel like CCP should cancel anyones holiday break and make them stay and work. But likewise I don't think that players with a large POS investment who planned ahead and manufactured and staged new fuels should now have this dumped on them. They are faced with the choice of spending a LOT of time and isk quickly to offset this or it is "Pinata" time.
My idea may not be the right one but "Sorry see you in 4 weeks" is also far from a balanced approach to spreading the pain this "hiccup" is causing. |
hellz bringer
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 03:51:00 -
[318] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:This is horrible.
People who run POS's have been preparing for this. You've screwed over the people who already hate their jobs.
|
hellz bringer
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 03:54:00 -
[319] - Quote
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.
|
Deriah Book
Fox Clan Inari Kimon
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 04:43:00 -
[320] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: On a slightly related note, here is a quick piece of wildlife advice...blah...blah...blah
We are a small corp that makes our own fuel in the WH. So, same complaints as everyone else. Not only are you making fueling the pos more complicated and then trying to sell it like it's sex, but you throw this 6 week wrench in? Douche bag much?
But that's not my issue.
You are trying to be cute with your insipid snake bite story when my windows still don't pin, open where ever they like, and my bookmarks autofolder?
Get real man.
Douche...
|
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
105
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 04:56:00 -
[321] - Quote
Deriah Book wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: On a slightly related note, here is a quick piece of wildlife advice...blah...blah...blah
We are a small corp that makes our own fuel in the WH. So, same complaints as everyone else. Not only are you making fueling the pos more complicated and then trying to sell it like it's sex, but you throw this 6 week wrench in? Douche bag much? But that's not my issue. You are trying to be cute with your insipid snake bite story when my windows still don't pin, open where ever they like, and my bookmarks autofolder? Get real man. Douche...
Its true its a mess hopefully of tuesday with the patch windows will pin(works on Sisi), Bookmark fix will be tested and implemented not yet on Sisi but in work per a Dev, and POS fuel bays will be doubled in size to ease the pain. Entered into the development code but not yet on Sisi has to be QAed first. So things are looking up. Maybe |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 06:11:00 -
[322] - 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.
go to your job, and live there for a month. don't go home. then tell him burnout doesn't exist.
a small number of people are being appreciative or at least trying to come up with a new plan, but so many more are whining and complaining or generally being unappreciative. This though - this is grade-A douchebaggery.
he's right, this isn't really a crisis, and nobody should be cancelling their holiday plans because you had to haul some fuel because you made a ridiculous bet and lost. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
123
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 06:20:00 -
[323] - Quote
Acks wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Acks wrote: As a holiday gift and a mia culpa, turn off POS fuel consumption for 2-4 weeks to give people time to adapt to the new realitites.
2-4 weeks of free reactions running on as many moons as I can get my grubby paws on? I bet I could make a few dozen billion isk.... I don't think I'd sleep at all for the month, and I'd run through a couple billion in cyno frigs, LOz, Cyno mods, and JF fuel, but I'd make more in a month than I reasonably expect to this year. And? A fix to avoid exploitation if it is really needed could be to make it for current towers only. Complicates the matter but there ya go. Point of my post being that CCP's issues with their plans are not being allowed to impact their finances or holiday time off. The same consideration should be given to the players. I only have to deal with one POS ATM but I have had to manage dozens in the past. The amount of work, fuel and isk needed to compensate for this shift is not minor. Add in the WH factor and this gets 10x worse. Those who argue that people in a WH only have to deal with 1 POS and should not complain clearly have not really lived in a WH unless it was only with 2 or 3 other people. Most serious WH corps have multiple towers. It is necessary evil of WH living with a corp of any size. If this were occuring during non "holiday" time it would still be a major annoyance but it would at least be much more manageable from a time / manpower perspective. I do not feel like CCP should cancel anyones holiday break and make them stay and work. But likewise I don't think that players with a large POS investment who planned ahead and manufactured and staged new fuels should now have this dumped on them. They are faced with the choice of spending a LOT of time and isk quickly to offset this or it is "Pinata" time. My idea may not be the right one but "Sorry see you in 4 weeks" is also far from a balanced approach to spreading the pain this "hiccup" is causing.
The smart choice given the speed that you can make fuel would have been to get 1 week of blocks and keep the rest liquid. If you're running hundreds of POSes, I can see where that would be barely tenable, but running that many POSes is going to be nightmarish no matter how you do it, so a couple extra kicks in the nuts shouldn't hurt too much.
I currently help manage about a dozen POSes. We have a week of blocks sitting in stations, ready to be ignored until it's time to put them in a few days before the switch.
Coding, Testing etc on making the POSes not consume fuel (which currently runs on the same mechanism that runs every other timed activity [i.e. reactions]) would likely either be harder than switching early, or just pause all reactions and mining for the duration. Neither are good results. And making it only apply to currently up POSes just combines the worst of both worlds.
I say, Thank you for Crucible, have a nice winter vacation, and come back rested in January. o/
P.S. Except you, Mac Devs. I really would love a stable client for christmas...
P.P.S. Ok, Mac Devs, I'll work around it. Have a great holiday as well. |
hellz bringer
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 08:06:00 -
[324] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote: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. go to your job, and live there for a month. don't go home. then tell him burnout doesn't exist. a small number of people are being appreciative or at least trying to come up with a new plan, but so many more are whining and complaining or generally being unappreciative. This though - this is grade-A douchebaggery. he's right, this isn't really a crisis, and nobody should be cancelling their holiday plans because you had to haul some fuel because you made a ridiculous bet and lost.
maybe find a new job if you dont like it? |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 09:00:00 -
[325] - Quote
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. |
Pasha Cracken
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 09:00:00 -
[326] - Quote
I see people are still crying about the change date. |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
112
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 09:48:00 -
[327] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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. ... It gets a lot easier once you learn to stop taking any of it remotely personally
Speaking only for meself:
Despide the fact that I'm "not amused" with this Fuel Block Situation, I prefere it over "Offline Towers" or putting Code into Production you know it is buggy!
It would be nice to know what the status of your "increase the fuel cargohold for the time beeing or forever"-Project is? (something like: "working on it", "canceld", "will be deployed bevor x-mas" or "we have a better idea" is enough)
I also have a Idea how to "improve" this situation: create a contract for each tower including 30 days of Fuel and use the prices 5 days bevor anouncing this for calculate the isk we have to pay. (would be a nice ISK sink, wouldn't it?)
Nevertheless:
You all should have a nice vacation and fly save. ;) 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 |
Aldarean
Eclipse Innovations Fabricated Confabulations
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 10:26:00 -
[328] - Quote
Pasha Cracken wrote:I see people are still crying about the change date.
Yes people are, the POS fuel date was a big issue. I don't mind as got fuel organised for a good 3/4 months.
Considering that the carrier re-balance at this time was well over 100 pages, nearly 200. I don't think 17 pages are to bad.
CCP you have done fantastice job in last 3 months. And deserve a break, go forth and get hangovers. Please find a quick fix though for the POS until end of January please. |
Jokke Jr
Sons Of Pain Asshat Vendetta
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 10:36:00 -
[329] - Quote
To all the WH dwellers out there . I know out of experience it is a pain to bring the stuff in and Yes I also got Ffing mad when I heard the 24 th . But then again... it means we have something to look forward to and admit we got more time to plan it all .
Some of us might even profit from selling of the Blocks at HIGH profits. EVE won't stop due to this delay . Our POS shield might have if the code ain't right .
To CCP :
Go and enjoy your well deserved X-mas holidays. Come back with cleared heads and make us something to look forward to . This last Patch was done well , and truly made our life easier . Thanks for a Great Year . Keep going and keep involving us in what your plan to do .
side note My wife came home one evening and said . I know you have a mistress ........ a very demanding one even .......... I went **** she knows ...... but had to ask . Oh really and what is her name . She didn't hesitate for 1 sec ..... EVE was here answer .
|
Aldarean
Eclipse Innovations Fabricated Confabulations
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 10:47:00 -
[330] - Quote
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. |
|
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. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
392
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 18:04:00 -
[361] - Quote
Salpun wrote: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.
Let me check, I think I still have it set up.
[edit] Tower's still running (has some LOz and HW in it too because I've had this tower for years), and I can take blocks out fine, just can't put them back in again. |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
105
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 18:24:00 -
[362] - Quote
Its more an issue of taking the other pos fuel components out that are no longer required. While pos users are going to top off the double hanger before down time on the 24th if possible to get the added run time, those that are short on isk will want to use the fuel in the bay as soon as possible to make blocks. Thanks again for a workable solution. |
Gheent
LazyBoyz Band of Recreational Flyers STR8NGE BREW
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:03:00 -
[363] - Quote
Anne Lou wrote:Hello dear Santa! Sorry for bothering you while you must be really busy preparing a bunch of Christmas presents for all those kids around the world. I really have to do this as the elf responsible for packing and sending presents seems to have totally lost his marbles. I really think you should take away all his candies, or maybe even put him on spike - you decide yourself please, and DON'T be gentle. You see, the point is like that: When I was 5, instead of a talking doll I got a microscope and a fare inspector's kit. WTF? First of all, how are those related? Yeah, I had a lot of profit selling tickets to the WC, but still? At 6, I received a Scrabble game. Man, have you tried it yourself? At 7, it was a clockwork pigeon. Yeah, with a windup in his ass. He flew out of the window and is still flying somewhere. At 8, it was a cymbalo. Thanks, that was fun, but after 80th "Jingle Bells" in a row my parents got a real bad head, ear, and some other aches, and my grandmother shouting "JERONIMO!!!" sent my cymbalo flying after the clockwork pigeon. Man, I want it back! 9. Come on, do you really think that another microscope and a doctor's set are better than a Barby? 10. A sewing machine? Really? Even a DIY birdhouse would be better. 11. DIY birdhouse. Perfect. I liked the joke, but I'm still missing my cymbalo. 12. Oh, a talking doll! Well, that was fast, thank you. At that pace maybe at 70 I'll get a box of Durex. 13. A magician's set. Man, the only magic that happened was that the kit went after the pigeon and the cymbalo, and as a gesture of consolation I was allowed to spend the night out. 14. I wanted a skateboard. But what I got? Some ****** mackinaw coat! What should I do with it? 15. I wanted Julian to love me not that ***** Cindy. But in a last year's mackinaw coat? 16. A talking Barbie. With a pager. Oh yeah, when I'll start talking to a doll, it'll really need the pager, so that it doesn't get lost. 17. A cell phone charged with a 100 bucks. Given by an aging boyfriend, only to always know in what exactly point in Universe I am at the moment, and to be sure that Universe is not in me. 18. Orange underwear. Looks like it was made back in 1950s. Given keeping in mind almost the same idea as the cell phone. The Universe loses it's sexual power, the boyfriend is happy, I'm in a brown study. 19. Oh, a laptop and the Diablo anthology! Three months in a row I'm wearing the orange underwear, occasionally talking to Barbie, and exterminating the monsters all nights long. Boyfriend is knocked out, Universe is no more. 20. I want IT. But not of raccoon. But I get Diablo II and an advice to relax. 21. I want IT. But not of otter. What do I get? Another patch, a new mouse, and a Playstation. I'm really pissed of, and finally single again. However, together with the patch, and the lack of IT, the long-awaited freedom loses all it's attractiveness. 22. I want IT. And a new boyfriend. Not a jerk. But I get a marriage, two dogs, and a **** shovel. Only the orange underwear and Diablo stop me from suicide. 23. You bearded s**t-face, you've been spoofed! Instead of IT I get 20 pounds and morning sickness. Even the laptop is not able to compensate for that. Seems like it's reproduction time. 24. Oh go to hell, give me some sleep. 25. Wait a minute.
Now listen, you ****** guiser! Shove your ice staff into your hole, strain your brain and keep in mind that I already had my birdhouse and microscope. I don't want any talking dolls, I still sometimes talk to the last one you gave me. An if you, old stinkpot, have any bright ideas to give me something really useful and smart - you'd better make these thoughts go after my pigeon an cymbalo, cause you know air fares are really cheap these days, and it's not all that far to get all the way to your Lapland or where is it that you live. Believe me, having a fake beard torn off your face and stuffed up your hole is not that nice and pleasant.
I want IT. Yes, a fur coat. And only a mink one. No fakes, no excuses, nothing. Otherwise I'm coming after you, do you hear me? I have a really, really good idea how exactly I will massacre you. But, we'll discuss that when the Christmas comes.
PS And don't tell me I didn't warn you. I did. PPS Now dear CCP. First of all, thank you very much for reading all of this. Now you must have a pretty good understanding of how I feel, knowing that all of those long hours I spent at first flying all the way from my tidy wormhole to some forgotten station in losec after those fuelblock BPO's, researching them for several days, and manufacturing a 3-months worth of fuel into fuel blocks, only to find out it was all pointless and there is 1.5 months more to do it, and moreover, now I must again fly back to the empire to buy fuel for all that time! Who the hell do you think you are? If you said 2 weeks after BPO seeding - now please go and make a patch so that my tower starts eating fuel blocks, and turn off the regular fuel consuming whenever you wish it to happen. PPPS Santa, please look after them, okay? Or at least bring me all their presents if they won't be nice and do the patch.
This has to be the best post I've ever read on any internet forum in 15 years, ever. |
Hurrm V'Bakshi
Divine Intervention Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:18:00 -
[364] - Quote
can someone point the way to the forum thread where people are complaining about the increase of cost for running a pos on fuel blocks.
i was under impression that the only change would be that the towers will consume as if full grid and cpu are used and forgot to read the fine print. after researching the block bpos to max and manufacturing some i realized how much more the running costs increased.
in many of the materials used it is 4x the previous consumption. i agree that ice mining bots have also hearts that crave for love and we all deserve some tender care from ccp but that is ridiculous considering the increased cost of PI materials as well. block usage postponement is actually a great gift since it allows us to run our towers just a little more for less.
no cool sig here, |
Saarinn
C0LDFIRE RUDE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 20:23:00 -
[365] - Quote
Thank You CCP for obliterating my plex money i worked up to compensate the vacation time with increased fuel prices and market speculators coming out of the woodwork.
Yes its good that you postponed to avoid all our towers diaf. But not only are we putting in loads of man hours to load 6 more weeks of old fuel, and paying out the nose for it, but our wallets are getting hit pretty hard.
Especially those of us that operate towers for purposes that do not generate any income, (wormholers/supercap safety/bridge points/TCU Defense/etc).
Sure we can reprocess our fuel blocks and stuff them into all of our towers... I dont know about other people but when prices are already inflated and I'm buying up fuel in advance for a change, I didnt buy a metric ton of it that would get me all the way to Jan 24th.
The reason you're getting so much flak for this ccp has nothing to do with the changes, it's the fact that those of us that are seasoned in changes in this game, are used to using every minute we have available to be ready. We dont take chances, we have toons logged in the necessary stations before deployment to get the blueprints on release. We build up a stock of fuel as soon as we can.
So most of us were sitting on job well done until we login and see "WARNING SOMETHING WRONG WITH POSES" on the login screen. I feel sorry for the Anshar pilots burning all those topes moving fuel around, I know my jf fuel stock took a dent with all the trips importing topes and pi products.
|
ACESsiggy
VC Academy
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 23:28:00 -
[366] - Quote
Yup.. playing the game for about a year and have no clue what fuel blocks are
Cheers |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
33
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 00:38:00 -
[367] - Quote
Saarinn wrote:Thank You CCP for obliterating my plex money i worked up to compensate the vacation time with increased fuel prices and market speculators coming out of the woodwork.
Yes its good that you postponed to avoid all our towers diaf. But not only are we putting in loads of man hours to load 6 more weeks of old fuel, and paying out the nose for it, but our wallets are getting hit pretty hard.
Especially those of us that operate towers for purposes that do not generate any income, (wormholers/supercap safety/bridge points/TCU Defense/etc).
Sure we can reprocess our fuel blocks and stuff them into all of our towers... I dont know about other people but when prices are already inflated and I'm buying up fuel in advance for a change, I didnt buy a metric ton of it that would get me all the way to Jan 24th.
The reason you're getting so much flak for this ccp has nothing to do with the changes, it's the fact that those of us that are seasoned in changes in this game, are used to using every minute we have available to be ready. We dont take chances, we have toons logged in the necessary stations before deployment to get the blueprints on release. We build up a stock of fuel as soon as we can.
So most of us were sitting on job well done until we login and see "WARNING SOMETHING WRONG WITH POSES" on the login screen. I feel sorry for the Anshar pilots burning all those topes moving fuel around, I know my jf fuel stock took a dent with all the trips importing topes and pi products.
If you don't take chances, why did you over convert, and do all that work based on a guesstimate date rather than a set and certain one? |
TorTorden
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 01:56:00 -
[368] - Quote
Nevermind I'm drunk anyways. |
Joahna Gramer
Advanced Laser Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 02:11:00 -
[369] - Quote
Now, maybe i fail somewhere in my thought, then please be so kind to explain it to me, but:
If you are already able to fill in normal POS fuel and the fuel blocks at the same time, why not make the tower check if there is normal POS fuel, use this as first choice and if there is not enough of the normal POS fuel then start using the fuel blocks. It has just to check every hour cycle if there is enough of normal fuel if not then check if there are Fuel Blocks, if yes start using.
Begin Cycle: POS Fuel (yes/no) -> yes -> use POS fuel POS Fuel (yes/no) -> no -> Blocks (yes/no) -> yes -> use Blocks POS Fuel (yes/no) -> no -> Blocks (yes/no) -> no -> Tower goes offline
This would let everybody fill in the type of Fuel they want and People who already made tons of Blocks could already start using them instead of buying another Month of normal POS fuel
Regards, Joahna
PS: In order to avoid problems with the different composition of the normal POS fuel depending on the CPU/PG usage you could just already switch other to an independent base consumption just the same as in the fuel blocks (they are still CPU/PG independent, right?) |
Brynhildr Valkjeri
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 02:37:00 -
[370] - Quote
Joahna Gramer wrote:Now, maybe i fail somewhere in my thought, then please be so kind to explain it to me, but:
If you are already able to fill in normal POS fuel and the fuel blocks at the same time, why not make the tower check if there is normal POS fuel, use this as first choice and if there is not enough of the normal POS fuel then start using the fuel blocks. It has just to check every hour cycle if there is enough of normal fuel if not then check if there are Fuel Blocks, if yes start using.
Begin Cycle: POS Fuel (yes/no) -> yes -> use POS fuel POS Fuel (yes/no) -> no -> Blocks (yes/no) -> yes -> use Blocks POS Fuel (yes/no) -> no -> Blocks (yes/no) -> no -> Tower goes offline
This would let everybody fill in the type of Fuel they want and People who already made tons of Blocks could already start using them instead of buying another Month of normal POS fuel
Regards, Joahna
PS: In order to avoid problems with the different composition of the normal POS fuel depending on the CPU/PG usage you could just already switch other to an independent base consumption just the same as in the fuel blocks (they are still CPU/PG independent, right?)
For some reason, that's how I understood it to work from now till the switchover. Made a stockpile, not exactly wanting to get more non-block fuel. |
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
138
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 03:23:00 -
[371] - Quote
Joahna Gramer wrote:Now, maybe i fail somewhere in my thought, then please be so kind to explain it to me, but:
If you are already able to fill in normal POS fuel and the fuel blocks at the same time, why not make the tower check if there is normal POS fuel, use this as first choice and if there is not enough of the normal POS fuel then start using the fuel blocks. It has just to check every hour cycle if there is enough of normal fuel if not then check if there are Fuel Blocks, if yes start using.
Begin Cycle: POS Fuel (yes/no) -> yes -> use POS fuel POS Fuel (yes/no) -> no -> Blocks (yes/no) -> yes -> use Blocks POS Fuel (yes/no) -> no -> Blocks (yes/no) -> no -> Tower goes offline
This would let everybody fill in the type of Fuel they want and People who already made tons of Blocks could already start using them instead of buying another Month of normal POS fuel
Regards, Joahna
PS: In order to avoid problems with the different composition of the normal POS fuel depending on the CPU/PG usage you could just already switch other to an independent base consumption just the same as in the fuel blocks (they are still CPU/PG independent, right?)
Because there is a very good chance that trying that will make all POSes DIAF. From my understanding POS Code is terribly fragile. Remember the Free Moon Goo from POSes exploit? For over 3 YEARS, reactors didn't actually check if they were being fed inputs if they had cycled properly last time, the result: Free Moon Goo. For 3 Years. This is the type of coding POSes are run on. It's optimized for decreased server load (b/c of the hardware at the time) to such an extent that sometimes it breaks for no reason. In addition, adding this would require a test of the kind that is holding up the full switch, so this would just slow down the full switch.
I want my POSes to stay online, thankyewverymuch, CCP do all the tests you need. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
454
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 03:38:00 -
[372] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Because there is a very good chance that trying that will make all POSes DIAF. From my understanding POS Code is terribly fragile. Remember the Free Moon Goo from POSes exploit? For over 3 YEARS, reactors didn't actually check if they were being fed inputs if they had cycled properly last time, the result: Free Moon Goo. For 3 Years. This is the type of coding POSes are run on. It's optimized for decreased server load (b/c of the hardware at the time) to such an extent that sometimes it breaks for no reason. In addition, adding this would require a test of the kind that is holding up the full switch, so this would just slow down the full switch.
This x100. Any suggestion that would involve writing or changing the POS code is a non-starter, not without at least a multi-month period in which the changes could be tested and beat on on the Singularity test server. It's simply not something that is going to happen overnight. It may even be to the point where you'd have to dedicate a 6-12 month window for someone to shepherd it through the development/QA process.
Changing which fuel types get consumed by the towers - is merely a change in some data tables. Changing the size of the fuel bay (other then checking for assumptions in the code like "fuel bay can never be larger then X" or "fuel bay will never have a surplus of material") is also just a value change in a data table.
Data table value changes are cheap, inexpensive, and low risk. Changing code logic, like making towers consume either fuel blocks or the old-style fuel depending on what is available, is much higher risk and requires an order of magnitude more development time. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
140
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 03:48:00 -
[373] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Changing which fuel types get consumed by the towers - is merely a change in some data tables. Changing the size of the fuel bay (other then checking for assumptions in the code like "fuel bay can never be larger then X" or "fuel bay will never have a surplus of material") is also just a value change in a data table.
Data table value changes are cheap, inexpensive, and low risk. Changing code logic, like making towers consume either fuel blocks or the old-style fuel depending on what is available, is much higher risk and requires an order of magnitude more development time.
And with the POS code this Fragile, even cheap, low risk data table valies are high risk given the consequences. The change failed on the test they ran. Who knows what the result of the failure was, but I assume POSes Dying in Fires. That's a huge insight into the POS code.
Switching from Accept X to Accept Y broke POSes.
Failed the Test. We're waiting until January because the alternative is POSes going BIGGEST BOOM, and industry in Eve dying as we know it until well after it's fixed. |
hermerdoo
Isotope Laboratories The Laughing Men
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 06:58:00 -
[374] - Quote
That's cool. In the last WH corp we always had at least 6 months supply in case of emergency. Now this only gives more time to make and have a resonable stock of fuel blocks. Thx for the delay.
|
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
333
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 08:27:00 -
[375] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?!
I'd also recommend not to do anything Bear Grylls tell you to do, except when he recommends 5 star hotels. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Deriah Book
Fox Clan Inari Kimon
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 10:41:00 -
[376] - Quote
Salpun wrote:Its true its a mess hopefully by Tuesday with the patch windows will pin(works on Sisi), Bookmark fix will be tested and implemented not yet on Sisi but in work per a Dev, and POS fuel bays will be doubled in size to ease the pain.( entered into the development code but not yet on Sisi) has to be QAed first. So things are looking up. Maybe OK, how did/do you know this stuff?
I've never really given the forums any thought until crucible came out. I'd rather spend my time playing Eve. But in the last two weeks I've been reading quite a bit here.
From the patch notes for today and from the complete lack of information regarding said issues that I have been able to find on my own I would believe that CCP is perfectly happy with postage stamp windows spawning arbitrarily all over my desktop. I have found no mention of the bookmark feature either.
I ask because I really, really love Eve.
But this patch coming up in a few minutes may be my last... |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
105
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 11:26:00 -
[377] - Quote
Deriah Book wrote:Salpun wrote:Its true its a mess hopefully by Tuesday with the patch windows will pin(works on Sisi), Bookmark fix will be tested and implemented not yet on Sisi but in work per a Dev, and POS fuel bays will be doubled in size to ease the pain.( entered into the development code but not yet on Sisi) has to be QAed first. So things are looking up. Maybe OK, how did/do you know this stuff? I've never really given the forums any thought until crucible came out. I'd rather spend my time playing Eve. But in the last two weeks I've been reading quite a bit here. From the patch notes for today and from the complete lack of information regarding said issues that I have been able to find on my own I would believe that CCP is perfectly happy with postage stamp windows spawning arbitrarily all over my desktop. I have found no mention of the bookmark feature either. I ask because I really, really love Eve. But this patch coming up in a few minutes may be my last...
While pinning worked again for one build it must have broke more fixes then it fixed so it got pulled again.
For where i find this info I read all dev posts and stay logged in to Sisi way to much. Devs answer questions some times.
What client are you using? With all problem reports if you do not include client everyone is trying to reproduce it blind. |
Ris Dnalor
Fleet of Doom Ushra'Khan
87
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 18:32:00 -
[378] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.
Amen.
|
Minneret
Celestial Horizon Corp. Flatline.
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 01:47:00 -
[379] - Quote
I'm sure this has been brought up but can someone explain to me why fuel blocks where created to make life easier but then you put a waist factor and prod efficiency affect on the bpos? I mean compressed ore is just squished rock and doesn't have this so why does consolidated fuel block? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
455
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 04:17:00 -
[380] - Quote
Minneret wrote:I'm sure this has been brought up but can someone explain to me why fuel blocks where created to make life easier but then you put a waist factor and prod efficiency affect on the bpos? I mean compressed ore is just squished rock and doesn't have this so why does consolidated fuel block?
Why not? All BPOs have waste built into them. Some are 5%, some are 10% waste as a default. Making BPOs with 0% waste would be a bad precedent. |
|
GSCyber
Phoenix Generation 13
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 05:23:00 -
[381] - Quote
well that's all fine and dandy and all that sugar free candy, but here's my issue with the whole scenario of your roll out expectations...
If you double the fuel bay, to make room for the pez, why take it back STRICTLY when the changeover happens... My reasoning behind asking that is:
a) What happens to any remaining fuel components that are still in the bay when you shrivel it up to normal size
b) what if some random tard stuffs his full of pez the night before with only a day's worth of component fuels
c) Not sure about you, but the whole " premise " behind these fuel changes isn't to make us mine more ice product *sarcasm* but to make it " easier " for the large alliances with 1000's of posses, for the sole reason of the horde, you've changed pos fueling to be more expensive for the sake of ease of use and expediency, That being the case, why now all of a sudden do you expect these lot to count all their fuel in all their poses down to the minute so they don't lose anything on switch over day?..
I don't know how many teaspoons of salt are in the dead sea, but i gather you'd want us to count each grain by hand first as well...then charge us a 5-ú tax on each. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
394
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 09:54:00 -
[382] - Quote
GSCyber wrote:well that's all fine and dandy and all that sugar free candy, but here's my issue with the whole scenario of your roll out expectations...
If you double the fuel bay, to make room for the pez, why take it back STRICTLY when the changeover happens... My reasoning behind asking that is:
a) What happens to any remaining fuel components that are still in the bay when you shrivel it up to normal size
b) what if some random tard stuffs his full of pez the night before with only a day's worth of component fuels
c) Not sure about you, but the whole " premise " behind these fuel changes isn't to make us mine more ice product *sarcasm* but to make it " easier " for the large alliances with 1000's of posses, for the sole reason of the horde, you've changed pos fueling to be more expensive for the sake of ease of use and expediency, That being the case, why now all of a sudden do you expect these lot to count all their fuel in all their poses down to the minute so they don't lose anything on switch over day?..
I don't know how many teaspoons of salt are in the dead sea, but i gather you'd want us to count each grain by hand first as well...then charge us a 5-ú tax on each.
a) They stay in the bay, you can still take them out, you just can't put any more in until it stops being overloaded
b) See a)
c) see a) |
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 11:13:00 -
[383] - Quote
Minneret wrote:I'm sure this has been brought up but can someone explain to me why fuel blocks where created to make life easier but then you put a waist factor and prod efficiency affect on the bpos? I mean compressed ore is just squished rock and doesn't have this so why does consolidated fuel block?
You do know that...
- You can buy pre-researched BPOs on contracts fairly cheap. I think ME40 ("zero waste") prints are only about 20-30 mil ISK - You can research BPOs yourself - ME0 to ME40 is like bit over 3 days in a POS. If you need fuel blocks, you have a POS right? Anchor a lab for a while, research, take it out if not needed.
|
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
91
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 11:18:00 -
[384] - Quote
GSCyber wrote: I don't know how many teaspoons of salt are in the dead sea, but i gather you'd want us to count each grain by hand first as well...then charge us a 5-ú tax on each.
You forget that this is the new CCP, all smiling, all listening, all talking, all making sense.
So obviously they are planning something way much more hideous than even taxes ...
|
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
36
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 13:38:00 -
[385] - Quote
GSCyber wrote:well that's all fine and dandy and all that sugar free candy, but here's my issue with the whole scenario of your roll out expectations...
If you double the fuel bay, to make room for the pez, why take it back STRICTLY when the changeover happens... My reasoning behind asking that is:
a) What happens to any remaining fuel components that are still in the bay when you shrivel it up to normal size
b) what if some random tard stuffs his full of pez the night before with only a day's worth of component fuels
c) Not sure about you, but the whole " premise " behind these fuel changes isn't to make us mine more ice product *sarcasm* but to make it " easier " for the large alliances with 1000's of posses, for the sole reason of the horde, you've changed pos fueling to be more expensive for the sake of ease of use and expediency, That being the case, why now all of a sudden do you expect these lot to count all their fuel in all their poses down to the minute so they don't lose anything on switch over day?..
I don't know how many teaspoons of salt are in the dead sea, but i gather you'd want us to count each grain by hand first as well...then charge us a 5-ú tax on each.
given the old and new fuel systems, the new one is cheaper than the old system assuming you are comparing at the same component prices (like you should be).
What is making it more expensive to fuel your POS now is not the blocks themselves, but the rampant panic-buying, speculation, and customs office tax rates. An idea I had to promote small gang, and solo PVP - Targeted Cyno-Jamming Modules.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=45683&find=unread |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
153
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 15:34:00 -
[386] - Quote
Icarus Helia wrote:GSCyber wrote:well that's all fine and dandy and all that sugar free candy, but here's my issue with the whole scenario of your roll out expectations...
If you double the fuel bay, to make room for the pez, why take it back STRICTLY when the changeover happens... My reasoning behind asking that is:
a) What happens to any remaining fuel components that are still in the bay when you shrivel it up to normal size
b) what if some random tard stuffs his full of pez the night before with only a day's worth of component fuels
c) Not sure about you, but the whole " premise " behind these fuel changes isn't to make us mine more ice product *sarcasm* but to make it " easier " for the large alliances with 1000's of posses, for the sole reason of the horde, you've changed pos fueling to be more expensive for the sake of ease of use and expediency, That being the case, why now all of a sudden do you expect these lot to count all their fuel in all their poses down to the minute so they don't lose anything on switch over day?..
I don't know how many teaspoons of salt are in the dead sea, but i gather you'd want us to count each grain by hand first as well...then charge us a 5-ú tax on each. given the old and new fuel systems, the new one is cheaper than the old system assuming you are comparing at the same component prices (like you should be). What is making it more expensive to fuel your POS now is not the blocks themselves, but the rampant panic-buying, speculation, and customs office tax rates.
the main differnce is now pos burn LO and HW at max all the time, many pos's used to burn very low amounts of either prior to this. so the cost is higher when comparing none sov discounted or faction pos's CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 15:52:00 -
[387] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Seleene wrote:CCP Prism X wrote:Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?! Gave you a like for this one, bro. CCP Prism should continue drinking his own urine. Everyone else should not.
Why let only him grow overpowered. |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 23:38:00 -
[388] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote: 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".
Sorry, Einstein, I'm far from hosed (28,000 years worth of POS fuel under the old system for a small). The point was that POS fuel is costing more per hour atm then POS fuel cubes use, meaning it's costing more isk to run POS then designed. Which has a negative impact on the T2 market, jacking prices up to meet increased cost.
Has nothing to do with buying or selling cubes. Had to do with isk consumed per hour.
Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomine Tua Da Na Glorium |
Teh Frog
University of Caille Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 20:58:00 -
[389] - Quote
I saw as a gift from ccp we could get all four fuel block bpo's. Anyone know the cost of the fuel block bpo's? I cant readily check. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
151
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 23:05:00 -
[390] - Quote
Teh Frog wrote:I saw as a gift from ccp we could get all four fuel block bpo's. Anyone know the cost of the fuel block bpo's? I cant readily check.
Eve-central
I think they're 10-15, researched can be found maybe 20-25mil. Just off the top of my head. |
|
Teh Frog
University of Caille Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 23:51:00 -
[391] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Teh Frog wrote:I saw as a gift from ccp we could get all four fuel block bpo's. Anyone know the cost of the fuel block bpo's? I cant readily check. Eve-central I think they're 10-15, researched can be found maybe 20-25mil. Just off the top of my head.
Awesome. Thanks a bunch. :) |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp
154
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 18:50:00 -
[392] - Quote
fuel block bpos are 11mil each npc order. the ccp ones are just unresearched ones iirc CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Lord Orefinger
Real Life Super Heros Inc. Caped Vigilantes
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 02:30:00 -
[393] - Quote
What I hate about this is that POS towers now cost a lot more to run; is this a bug?
Before, if we didn't use a lot of Power Grid or CPU, we did not have to pay for the ozone or liquid because we basically only had to buy for what we used.
Now with this change, the amount of both is set. Using less power grid and CPU on your tower does nothing to reduce your fuel costs.
This means your paying a lot more each month to run a large tower.
WTF CCP. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
168
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 02:54:00 -
[394] - Quote
Lord Orefinger wrote:What I hate about this is that POS towers now cost a lot more to run; is this a bug?
Before, if we didn't use a lot of Power Grid or CPU, we did not have to pay for the ozone or liquid because we basically only had to buy for what we used.
Now with this change, the amount of both is set. Using less power grid and CPU on your tower does nothing to reduce your fuel costs.
This means your paying a lot more each month to run a large tower.
WTF CCP.
Welcome to what EVERYONE everyone figured out more than a MONTH ago. As it turns out, if the extra cost from Ozone or HW bankrupts you, you're probably doing it wrong. Especially since you'll be using less topes as a consolation. |
Lord Orefinger
Real Life Super Heros Inc. Caped Vigilantes
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 03:09:00 -
[395] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Welcome to what EVERYONE everyone figured out more than a MONTH ago. As it turns out, if the extra cost from Ozone or HW bankrupts you, you're probably doing it wrong. Especially since you'll be using less topes as a consolation.
I just reactivated my account; I was gone for about a year.
I can only think this will put stress on 0.0 alliances; is this CCP's way of nerfing large alliances? Or forcing them to invest in industry and not fighting? |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
168
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 03:22:00 -
[396] - Quote
Lord Orefinger wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Welcome to what EVERYONE everyone figured out more than a MONTH ago. As it turns out, if the extra cost from Ozone or HW bankrupts you, you're probably doing it wrong. Especially since you'll be using less topes as a consolation.
I just reactivated my account; I was gone for about a year. I can only think this will put stress on 0.0 alliances; is this CCP's way of nerfing large alliances? Or forcing them to invest in industry and not fighting?
If you just resubbed, I'd assume you don't run a POS, thus "WTF CCP." seems an odd comment
It adds less than 10% of the total fuel cost, and the decrease in topes (and robotics if you're in sov) combined with the ease in fueling the POSes (I for one *ALWAYS* forget the coolant) probably make up for it (consider the 3-5s anchor/online timers as a part of the change, and POSes just got an enormous buff). |
Vaako Horizon
Casual Slackers Daily Operations
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 10:20:00 -
[397] - Quote
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.
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.
This means that, until January 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.
"exclusively"... Am I to understand that blocks can be used by POS'es at the current date? ( as in can they run on both atm? ) |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
106
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 10:25:00 -
[398] - Quote
Vaako Horizon wrote: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.
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.
This means that, until January 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. "exclusively"... Am I to understand that blocks can be used by POS'es at the current date? ( as in can they run on both atm? ) They can be placed in but not consumed |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
461
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 13:28:00 -
[399] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Welcome to what EVERYONE everyone figured out more than a MONTH ago. As it turns out, if the extra cost from Ozone or HW bankrupts you, you're probably doing it wrong. Especially since you'll be using less topes as a consolation.
Specifically, old vs new Consumption (assuming a ME40 BPO of the fuel blocks and Production Efficiency V skill and that you were maxing out on HW/LOz before):
Coolant - 2/4/8 to 2/4/8 Enriched Uranium - 1/2/4 to 1/2/4 Mech Parts - 2/3/5 to 1/2/4 Oxygen - 7/13/25 to 5/10/20 Robotics - 1/1/1 to 0.25/0.50/1.00 Heavy Water - 38/75/150 to 38/75/150 Isotopes - 113/225/450 to 100/200/400 Liquid Ozone - 38/75/150 to 38/75/150
So Mech Parts consumption went down. Oxygen went down. Robotics was even or down. Isotopes went down.
If you were running your towers in a maxed out configuration, small towers are now about 34% cheaper. If you weren't maxed out previously, you'll still see some savings even with the increased HW/LOz usage. (And if you can't figure out how to profit from that, then you need to rethink why you're running a small tower.)
Medium towers got about 18% cheaper per month. Again, even if you weren't maxed out on HW/LOz usage, you're still going to end up with a tower that is 5-10% cheaper to run compared to the old fuel types.
Large towers only got about 6% cheaper. So if you weren't maxed out on LOz usage, then you probably broke even with the change. Saving in one area, spending more in another area. |
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 15:53:00 -
[400] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Why are you tackling these inconsequential survival myths? What about drinking my own urine? I should be drinking my own urine while the snake bites me, right?! No, you should not drink your own urine when snakebitten, you are doing it wrong. You should instead urinate on the snakebite, as the nitrates in the urine neutralize the poison.At least, it works that way when you step on sea urchins.If you step on a Sea Urchin, urinate on it, or ask a friend to. Or you can urinate on the snake, that might make you feel better, but you might die from the snakebite anyway. |
|
Dante Chusuk
Sicarius. The Kadeshi
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 12:03:00 -
[401] - Quote
I've been wondering if Soundwave also has some wildlife tips on The Canadian Trialthon. |
svetlana
Constellation Guard
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 10:30:00 -
[402] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:...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. ...
?how is a bacteria infection that might kill you if left untreated for a month, comparable to snake poison that WILL kill you in less than an hour?
?if you suck out the poison, you are not supposed to swallow it.
?why can't you do both, suck out the poison AND call for help and go to a hospital. . .
?are you suggesting that if your loved one were bitten with deadly poison that you stand back and get on your cel phone: "sorry honey, I don't want to risk sucking out the poison because I might get hurt, and anyways, my saliva might infect the bite long after you are already dead from the poison. it's true because i got that advice from a video game." You must really love that person.
? don''t believe what you see in movies, believe what you see in video games instead?
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1049
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 23:23:00 -
[403] - Quote
svetlana wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:...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. ... ?how is a bacteria infection that might kill you if left untreated for a month, comparable to snake poison that WILL kill you in less than an hour? ?if you suck out the poison, you are not supposed to swallow it. ?why can't you do both, suck out the poison AND call for help and go to a hospital. . . ?are you suggesting that if your loved one were bitten with deadly poison that you stand back and get on your cel phone: "sorry honey, I don't want to risk sucking out the poison because I might get hurt, and anyways, my saliva might infect the bite long after you are already dead from the poison. it's true because i got that advice from a video game." You must really love that person. ? don''t believe what you see in movies, believe what you see in video games instead? You're not getting this advice from a video game, you're getting it from a video game *designer* named CCP Soundwave, who's put himself in the enviable position of having given medical advice to complete strangers.
Here's a medical reference with instructions for treatment of snakebites. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/168828-treatment
And here's a guide that includes the proper methods and indications to attempt venom extraction (protip: Putting your mouth on an open wound is NEVER the right answer in emergency medicine). http://www.cobras.org/cob_7.htm |
ShipToaster
90
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 00:32:00 -
[404] - Quote
I think I could take a lion 1v1 unarmed but I think a tiger would be too much.
Any advice on fighting lions and tigers? And bears?
Edited.
The only pissing involved in this scenario would be me pissing myself. The only contact I want to have with eve university is if I can have them all ****** to death by space robo donkeys.
Griefing CCP - Bounties for E-Uni Ganking: action continues. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=343354#post343354 |
DeathBeforeDishonour
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 02:18:00 -
[405] - Quote
Has there been an update on the consumption of fuel blocks per hour for the various POS sizes ? All I can see is that it is still 1/2/4 per hour for small/medium/large towers. Is that still the case ? |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1115
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 02:48:00 -
[406] - Quote
DeathBeforeDishonour wrote:Has there been an update on the consumption of fuel blocks per hour for the various POS sizes ? All I can see is that it is still 1/2/4 per hour for small/medium/large towers. Is that still the case ?
Yes there has. Bout a month ago. Read Dev blogs. |
Cali Zindonas
Rudel Taktik Exodus.
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 23:15:00 -
[407] - Quote
Information is spread out everywhere in this thread. How will the fuel block affect faction towers?
edit - nm found it.
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143 |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
186
|
Posted - 2012.01.15 14:54:00 -
[408] - Quote
Yeah I know 10 days to go, but:
CCP: Is the 24th a fix date or are there any chances this date will change?
Can we rely on that 24th or not?
Best regards
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
1215
|
Posted - 2012.01.15 14:57:00 -
[409] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:Yeah I know 10 days to go, but:
CCP: Is the 24th a fix date or are there any chances this date will change?
Can we rely on that 24th or not?
Best regards
They said that they do need to run a test first. So, who knows. |
IsTheOpOver
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 02:41:00 -
[410] - Quote
Quote: This means that, until January 24th, your fuel bay sizes will be doubled, which should allow you to compensate for the unfortunate deployment of the fuel block switchover by just dumping another month's worth of fuel into your bay...
fixed.
I hate this fuel block change a lot. Completely unnecessary and making my tower fuel costs soar. Just make the towers use both fuels infinitely. What? people can't figure out how much fuel to put in? Trivial compared with trying to operate the manufacturing interface.
At least BFF seems to be doing some good things for the game. Helps offset this terrible change with POS fuel. |
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1216
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 04:40:00 -
[411] - Quote
IsTheOpOver wrote:Quote: This means that, until January 24th, your fuel bay sizes will be doubled, which should allow you to compensate for the unfortunate deployment of the fuel block switchover by just dumping another month's worth of fuel into your bay...
fixed. I hate this fuel block change a lot. Completely unnecessary and making my tower fuel costs soar. Just make the towers use both fuels infinitely. What? people can't figure out how much fuel to put in? Trivial compared with trying to operate the manufacturing interface. At least BFF seems to be doing some good things for the game. Helps offset this terrible change with POS fuel.
Manufacture: Pres Button > Buttan Yell if not balance. Current: Load > POS Yell if not balance... in 3 weeks. dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin. |
IsTheOpOver
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 06:43:00 -
[412] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Manufacture: Pres Button > Buttan Yell if not balance. Current: Load > POS Yell if not balance... in 3 weeks.
Is this english? |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1219
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 06:53:00 -
[413] - Quote
IsTheOpOver wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Manufacture: Pres Button > Buttan Yell if not balance. Current: Load > POS Yell if not balance... in 3 weeks.
Is this english?
Roughly.
Making POS Blocks: You are informed of any imbalance in fuels when you make the blocks.
Filling POSes piecemeal: You are informed when that item is in desperate need of new refreshments, and not signicantly before. dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin. |
themaker1971
Neutral Industries L8 Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 05:04:00 -
[414] - Quote
Without going though 20 pages which I don't have the time for, If my tower (with its enlarged fuel bay) has too many fuel blocks and then the switch happens, what happens to the extra blocks that will now not fit in the reduced fuel bay? |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
186
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:00:00 -
[415] - Quote
themaker1971 wrote:Without going though 20 pages which I don't have the time for, If my tower (with its enlarged fuel bay) has too many fuel blocks and then the switch happens, what happens to the extra blocks that will now not fit in the reduced fuel bay? Nothing... they will used as normal.
you can not put anything in that fuel bay (since it is full) but you can put things out of the fuel bay...
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 |
themaker1971
Neutral Industries L8 Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 03:37:00 -
[416] - Quote
Perhaps I was not clear. Say the enlarged bay is 100m3 PRE the 24th and that bay will revert back to 50m3 on the 24th at DT. If I have lets say, 80m3 of fuel in it and the 24th DT rolls over, do I suddenly loose the 30m3 difference? |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
179
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 03:55:00 -
[417] - Quote
themaker1971 wrote:Perhaps I was not clear. Say the enlarged bay is 100m3 PRE the 24th and that bay will revert back to 50m3 on the 24th at DT. If I have lets say, 80m3 of fuel in it and the 24th DT rolls over, do I suddenly loose the 30m3 difference? No if you have it full you have double the ammount of days of fuel to use. |
themaker1971
Neutral Industries L8 Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 04:17:00 -
[418] - Quote
Salpun wrote:themaker1971 wrote:Perhaps I was not clear. Say the enlarged bay is 100m3 PRE the 24th and that bay will revert back to 50m3 on the 24th at DT. If I have lets say, 80m3 of fuel in it and the 24th DT rolls over, do I suddenly loose the 30m3 difference? No if you have it full you have double the ammount of days of fuel to use.
Mmm, how can 80m3 of fuel fit into 50m3? |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
179
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 04:19:00 -
[419] - Quote
themaker1971 wrote:Salpun wrote:themaker1971 wrote:Perhaps I was not clear. Say the enlarged bay is 100m3 PRE the 24th and that bay will revert back to 50m3 on the 24th at DT. If I have lets say, 80m3 of fuel in it and the 24th DT rolls over, do I suddenly loose the 30m3 difference? No if you have it full you have double the ammount of days of fuel to use. Mmm, how can 80m3 of fuel fit into 50m3? magic |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
619
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 04:50:00 -
[420] - Quote
themaker1971 wrote:Perhaps I was not clear. Say the enlarged bay is 100m3 PRE the 24th and that bay will revert back to 50m3 on the 24th at DT. If I have lets say, 80m3 of fuel in it and the 24th DT rolls over, do I suddenly loose the 30m3 difference?
If the bay is overflowing with fuel, you simply cannot put any more in until you either remove fuel or until you burn off enough fuel that it goes below the capacity of the fuel bay.
The temporary doubling of the fuel bay was done so that we could pack 4 weeks of old-style fuel plus 4 weeks of new-style fuel inside existing towers to prep for the changeover.
Now that we're closer to the date, I'm running with 2 weeks of old-style fuel, with the rest of the tower crammed full with about 6 weeks worth of pellets. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
515
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 17:20:00 -
[421] - Quote
Salpun wrote:themaker1971 wrote:Salpun wrote:themaker1971 wrote:Perhaps I was not clear. Say the enlarged bay is 100m3 PRE the 24th and that bay will revert back to 50m3 on the 24th at DT. If I have lets say, 80m3 of fuel in it and the 24th DT rolls over, do I suddenly loose the 30m3 difference? No if you have it full you have double the ammount of days of fuel to use. Mmm, how can 80m3 of fuel fit into 50m3? magic Bah, that's exactly what I was going to say. |
|
Zleon Leigh
67
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 13:06:00 -
[422] - Quote
Can't wait to see all the POS's fall down on the 24th... Give 3/10 switchover works. Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
Dilaro thagriin
Brothers Intensive Fighting Team Air
30
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 13:29:00 -
[423] - Quote
DaiTengu wrote:I've been out of the logistics loop for awhile, since every time I got within 100km of a POS I've wanted to suck the end of a .45.
However, IIRC, CCP mentioned they were going to do a hybrid system so a POS could consume both regular fuel and fuel blocks for a limited time period.
Today, talking to my masochistic friends that currently do logistics, I find out this isn't the case. I was wondering what all the fuss was, and now I know.
CCP is handling this in the worst possible way. At least set up some sort of hybrid system so people can convert to fuel blocks easily. You're being absolutely ******* ******** about this.
**sigh** you were told wrong.
they were NEVER going to be consuming both types, they just made it so that you could put both types into your fuel bay. so it would consume normal fuels until the change-over, and fuel blocks afterwards.
and to quote an earlier response, yes, Goon tears... oh so sweet. |
Zleon Leigh
68
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 17:22:00 -
[424] - Quote
Dilaro thagriin wrote:DaiTengu wrote:I've been out of the logistics loop for awhile, since every time I got within 100km of a POS I've wanted to suck the end of a .45.
However, IIRC, CCP mentioned they were going to do a hybrid system so a POS could consume both regular fuel and fuel blocks for a limited time period.
Today, talking to my masochistic friends that currently do logistics, I find out this isn't the case. I was wondering what all the fuss was, and now I know.
CCP is handling this in the worst possible way. At least set up some sort of hybrid system so people can convert to fuel blocks easily. You're being absolutely ******* ******** about this.
**sigh** you were told wrong. they were NEVER going to be consuming both types, they just made it so that you could put both types into your fuel bay. so it would consume normal fuels until the change-over, and fuel blocks afterwards. and to quote an earlier response, yes, Goon tears... oh so sweet.
Yeah, CCP made it harder on the players rather than do a small bit of coding. Sure, np, make the player move materials twice rather than have to think for a bit.
Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1248
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 17:28:00 -
[425] - Quote
Zleon Leigh wrote:Dilaro thagriin wrote:DaiTengu wrote:I've been out of the logistics loop for awhile, since every time I got within 100km of a POS I've wanted to suck the end of a .45.
However, IIRC, CCP mentioned they were going to do a hybrid system so a POS could consume both regular fuel and fuel blocks for a limited time period.
Today, talking to my masochistic friends that currently do logistics, I find out this isn't the case. I was wondering what all the fuss was, and now I know.
CCP is handling this in the worst possible way. At least set up some sort of hybrid system so people can convert to fuel blocks easily. You're being absolutely ******* ******** about this.
**sigh** you were told wrong. they were NEVER going to be consuming both types, they just made it so that you could put both types into your fuel bay. so it would consume normal fuels until the change-over, and fuel blocks afterwards. and to quote an earlier response, yes, Goon tears... oh so sweet. Yeah, CCP made it harder on the players rather than do a small bit of coding. Sure, np, make the player move materials twice rather than have to think for a bit.
As has been discussed before, insisting that CCP allow both fuels would have meant no fuel block change. POS code is stupidly fragile, and just because you can figure out the pseudocode doesn't mean it's easy/possible to implement on a database with plenty of legacy issues. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Zleon Leigh
68
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 19:27:00 -
[426] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
POS code is stupidly fragile
and there we have it... roughshod code development produced shoddy code. Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1253
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 20:15:00 -
[427] - Quote
Zleon Leigh wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
POS code is stupidly fragile
and there we have it... roughshod code development produced shoddy code.
The fun part about complex, long running game design, is that it's hard to adequately forecast the costs of making seemingly sensible cost saving decisions early on.
Imagine you're CCP in 2003. Is it worth spending a lot of time making POSes robust and extensible, or do you spend that development time working on things that might get your game afloat in customers?
Legacy code sucks. It sucks even more when you can't just write something new and patch in an emulator to support the legacy code. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Lilly Shiroimozu
SyNgeN-Z
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 00:58:00 -
[428] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
This is incorrect, there is only one poisonous snake I am aware of , the tiger keelback snake, Rhabdophis tigrinus which sequesters it's poison from eating toads. Poisonous generally refers to things which will kill you if you eat them, such as mushrooms, toads, and cheap prostitutes.
There are however many VENOMOUS snakes for which your advice is sound.
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1255
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 04:21:00 -
[429] - Quote
Lilly Shiroimozu wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
This is incorrect, there is only one poisonous snake I am aware of , the tiger keelback snake, Rhabdophis tigrinus which sequesters it's poison from eating toads. Poisonous generally refers to things which will kill you if you eat them, such as mushrooms, toads, and cheap prostitutes. There are however many VENOMOUS snakes for which your advice is sound.
Oh, man. Someone with a sharper eye for pedantry than I. I think Ruby's fallen in love. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Fred Kyong
EWH NanoTex NanoTex NCore Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 10:43:00 -
[430] - Quote
DeathBeforeDishonour wrote:Has there been an update on the consumption of fuel blocks per hour for the various POS sizes ? All I can see is that it is still 1/2/4 per hour for small/medium/large towers. Is that still the case ?
Right now I am abit lost in the calculation of future fuel consumption.
In the fuel block description they talk about 10/20/40 per hour. Not 1/2/4 per hour. I did the rough math, but when it is 40 per hour, then fuel prices will raise by about 400% ?
Right now I have 4500 fuel blocks 40 blocks per hour x 24h = 960 blocks a day 960 blocks a day x 7 days = 6720 blocks per week
My 4500 blocks will maybe last abit more as 5 days
Checking the market 4500 blocks fly for about 79 mill. This is 9.87% over market price...sure abit expensive.
I think before I payed about 150 mill for about 1 month of fuel? Something?
Hopefully my calc has some errors or the Fuel Block description has a typo. |
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1259
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 11:08:00 -
[431] - Quote
Fred Kyong wrote:DeathBeforeDishonour wrote:Has there been an update on the consumption of fuel blocks per hour for the various POS sizes ? All I can see is that it is still 1/2/4 per hour for small/medium/large towers. Is that still the case ? Right now I am abit lost in the calculation of future fuel consumption. In the fuel block description they talk about 10/20/40 per hour. Not 1/2/4 per hour. I did the rough math, but when it is 40 per hour, then fuel prices will raise by about 400% ? Right now I have 4500 fuel blocks 40 blocks per hour x 24h = 960 blocks a day 960 blocks a day x 7 days = 6720 blocks per week My 4500 blocks will maybe last abit more than 5 days Checking the market 4500 blocks fly for about 79 mill. This is 9.87% over market price...sure abit expensive right now.... I think before I payed about 150 mill for about 1 month of fuel and if I had to buy it? Something? Hopefully my calc has some errors or the Fuel Block description has a typo.
1 run off the BPO makes 40 blocks. So the inputs listed make 40 blocks. The inputs listed are similar to the current inputs for a large POS for 1 hour. The new fuel requirements for a Large POS for 1 hour is 40 blocks.
Small POSes get a boost due to using less robotics. Nearly empty and unevenly CPU/PG POSes are getting a little more expensive.
Call the doctor, I think I have deja vu all over again
Again
Again
Agin
(You last paid 150m a month for a large POS around ~2 years ago) Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Fred Kyong
EWH NanoTex NanoTex NCore Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 11:12:00 -
[432] - Quote
Oh Oh! I think I will knock all towers down! Get them out |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1259
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 11:17:00 -
[433] - Quote
Fred Kyong wrote:Oh Oh! I think I will knock all towers down! Get them out Wat? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
72
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 12:09:00 -
[434] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Fred Kyong wrote:DeathBeforeDishonour wrote:Has there been an update on the consumption of fuel blocks per hour for the various POS sizes ? All I can see is that it is still 1/2/4 per hour for small/medium/large towers. Is that still the case ? Right now I am abit lost in the calculation of future fuel consumption. In the fuel block description they talk about 10/20/40 per hour. Not 1/2/4 per hour. I did the rough math, but when it is 40 per hour, then fuel prices will raise by about 400% ? Right now I have 4500 fuel blocks 40 blocks per hour x 24h = 960 blocks a day 960 blocks a day x 7 days = 6720 blocks per week My 4500 blocks will maybe last abit more than 5 days Checking the market 4500 blocks fly for about 79 mill. This is 9.87% over market price...sure abit expensive right now.... I think before I payed about 150 mill for about 1 month of fuel and if I had to buy it? Something? Hopefully my calc has some errors or the Fuel Block description has a typo. 1 run off the BPO makes 40 blocks. So the inputs listed make 40 blocks. The inputs listed are similar to the current inputs for a large POS for 1 hour. The new fuel requirements for a Large POS for 1 hour is 40 blocks. Small POSes get a boost due to using less robotics. Nearly empty and unevenly CPU/PG POSes are getting a little more expensive. Call the doctor, I think I have deja vu all over again Again Again Agin (You last paid 150m a month for a large POS around ~2 years ago)
This, I think I paid 350-450 mill for a months fuel on a large pos the last time I had to fuel it about 4 months ago
|
Fred Kyong
EWH NanoTex NanoTex NCore Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 18:05:00 -
[435] - Quote
Doing my math again
Calculation Fuel Costs (large tower):
Large Tower: 40 Fuel blocks per hour x 24h a day = 960 fuel blocks a day 960 fuel blocks a day x 7 days a week = 6720 fuel blocks a week 6720 fuel blocks a week x 4 weeks = 26.880 fuel blocks a month
Right now the price for an Amarr Fuel Block is about 18.500 ISK on the market (~0% under/ over market price)
18.500 ISK x 960 Fuel Blocks a day = 1.776.000 ISK a day x one week = 124.320.000 ISK a week x 4 weeks = 497.280.000 ISK a month (in words 497.28 MILL ISK)
Fuel consumption based on tower size per month:
Large Tower per month: 497.200.000 ISK a month Medium Tower per month: 248.640.000 ISK a month Small Tower per month: 124.320.000 ISK a month |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
386
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 18:57:00 -
[436] - Quote
Fred Kyong wrote:Right now the price for an Amarr Fuel Block is about 18.500 ISK on the market (~0% under/ over market price) 16,500 in Jita, actually. 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 |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1264
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 03:42:00 -
[437] - Quote
Fred Kyong wrote:Doing my math again
Calculation Fuel Costs (large tower):
Large Tower: 40 Fuel blocks per hour x 24h a day = 960 fuel blocks a day 960 fuel blocks a day x 7 days a week = 6720 fuel blocks a week 6720 fuel blocks a week x 4 weeks = 26.880 fuel blocks a month
Right now the price for an Amarr Fuel Block is about 18.500 ISK on the market (~0% under/ over market price)
18.500 ISK x 960 Fuel Blocks a day = 1.776.000 ISK a day x one week = 124.320.000 ISK a week x 4 weeks = 497.280.000 ISK a month (in words 497.28 MILL ISK)
Fuel consumption based on tower size per month:
Large Tower per month: 497.200.000 ISK a month Medium Tower per month: 248.640.000 ISK a month Small Tower per month: 124.320.000 ISK a month
That's roughly right, though you're missing a significant figure in your day cost. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
634
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 05:18:00 -
[438] - Quote
Assuming a perfect ME BPO (ME 40), and Production Efficiency V (no waste) and prices as follows:
Coolant - 9340 Enr Uranium - 10060 Mech Parts - 7635 Oxygen - 235 Robotics - 67060 Charters - 2500
Heavy Water - 125 Helium (Amarr) - 500 Hydrogen (Minmatar) - 635 Nitrogen (Caldari) - 555 Oxygen (Gallente) - 1000 Liquid Ozone - 480
You get the following prices per 30 days (including the price of a fuel block at zero mark-up):
Amarr: 93 / 184 / 367 - 12744 ISK/u Caldari: 97 / 193 / 383 - 13313 ISK/u Gallente: 129 / 257 / 511 - 17753 ISK/u Minmatar: 103 / 204 / 406 - 14098 ISK/u
Which puts the cost of a large tower at around 370-405M per 30days (510M for Gallente).
The current market prices for POS fuel blocks are heavily speculation - those who didn't plan ahead will end up paying patch week prices for their fuel. If you had bought a few weeks ago, you'd have paid 13-15k per pellet.
And, unless the underlying material costs go up dramatically, it won't be long before prices crash right back down to 5-15% above production cost. Since PI-materials are trending downward and isotopes have been basically flat, that's not likely to happen.
(The rest of us are sitting on at least 3-6 months worth of fuel blocks that we made back when material cost for a pellet was about 13500, which was a bargain at the time and probably will be a bargain for the next few months.) |
Taipion
Operations Control United Pod Service
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 16:36:00 -
[439] - Quote
uhhm
Did anyone realize yet, that this is actually a step backwards?
You still need all the different items to fuel a tower, but on top of that you have to build something out of it before it works! (or you pay someone else to do so, by buying blocks directly) |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
197
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 16:54:00 -
[440] - Quote
Taipion wrote:uhhm
Did anyone realize yet, that this is actually a step backwards?
You still need all the different items to fuel a tower, but on top of that you have to build something out of it before it works! (or you pay someone else to do so, by buying blocks directly) Actually: No, it isnt.
It is the best improvement with the current Starbase system.
Fueling Towers is now a nobrainer: Fill Amarr Fuel Blocks into Amarr Towers, end of story.
Ok, you still have to haul 140.000 m^3 per month/Tower
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 |
|
Taipion
Operations Control United Pod Service
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 17:08:00 -
[441] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:Taipion wrote:uhhm
Did anyone realize yet, that this is actually a step backwards?
You still need all the different items to fuel a tower, but on top of that you have to build something out of it before it works! (or you pay someone else to do so, by buying blocks directly) Actually: No, it isnt. It is the best improvement with the current Starbase system. Fueling Towers is now a nobrainer: Fill Amarr Fuel Blocks into Amarr Towers, end of story. Ok, you still have to haul 140.000 m^3 per month/Tower
Those who can read, have a clear advantage.
You either pay a fee for someone to build it (=buy in market) or build it yourself.
So where is this an improvement now?! |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
197
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 17:14:00 -
[442] - Quote
Taipion wrote:Neo Agricola wrote:Taipion wrote:uhhm
Did anyone realize yet, that this is actually a step backwards?
You still need all the different items to fuel a tower, but on top of that you have to build something out of it before it works! (or you pay someone else to do so, by buying blocks directly) Actually: No, it isnt. It is the best improvement with the current Starbase system. Fueling Towers is now a nobrainer: Fill Amarr Fuel Blocks into Amarr Towers, end of story. Ok, you still have to haul 140.000 m^3 per month/Tower Those who can read, have a clear advantage. You either pay a fee for someone to build it (=buy in market) or build it yourself. So where is this an improvement now?!
How many POSes do you maintain? 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 |
Taipion
Operations Control United Pod Service
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 17:31:00 -
[443] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:Taipion wrote:Neo Agricola wrote:Taipion wrote:uhhm
Did anyone realize yet, that this is actually a step backwards?
You still need all the different items to fuel a tower, but on top of that you have to build something out of it before it works! (or you pay someone else to do so, by buying blocks directly) Actually: No, it isnt. It is the best improvement with the current Starbase system. Fueling Towers is now a nobrainer: Fill Amarr Fuel Blocks into Amarr Towers, end of story. Ok, you still have to haul 140.000 m^3 per month/Tower Those who can read, have a clear advantage. You either pay a fee for someone to build it (=buy in market) or build it yourself. So where is this an improvement now?! How many POSes do you maintain?
3 Right now, and no, it does not make a difference, especially if you manage way more towers, you have to build the blocks yourself, which means you have to own all the separate materials! Refueling each POS might seem easier, but its maybe 10-20 seconds per POS that you can safe, if you were doing it right allready before there were blocks. On the other hand you have additional work by building the blocks. The Hauling is no less, and you shold not need to refuel a POS more than every 2-3 weeks at most.
So again, where is the improvement?
It-¦s just added work, or cost, or both. |
SCuDeR
DOCS RUFF RIDERS Free Beer.
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 18:50:00 -
[444] - Quote
A large tower holds 28000 blocks, which is 29D 4H. Guess CCP figures that is close enough to 30 days. |
BugraT WarheaD
Astromechanica Federatis
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 19:41:00 -
[445] - Quote
I don't know if it was said before but something was really sad when incursions in high sec haven't blob of sanshas around stations and stargate. that would be epic, meaningfull and if sanshas pops contantly it will be fracking cool. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
532
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 21:49:00 -
[446] - Quote
SCuDeR wrote:A large tower holds 28000 blocks, which is 29D 4H. Guess CCP figures that is close enough to 30 days.
We were actually tuning towards 28 days, plus a day or so of "slop room", on the basis that having your refuelling job for a given tower always fall on the same day of the week should make for a more user-friendly schedule. |
|
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
198
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 21:53:00 -
[447] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:SCuDeR wrote:A large tower holds 28000 blocks, which is 29D 4H. Guess CCP figures that is close enough to 30 days. We were actually tuning towards 28 days, plus a day or so of "slop room", on the basis that having your refuelling job for a given tower always fall on the same day of the week should make for a more user-friendly schedule.
More userfriendly would be: Reduce the fuel block size to 10% so we dont have to haul 140k of **** per month... from station to Assembly array, back to station and then to the Tower. 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 |
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 23:17:00 -
[448] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:SCuDeR wrote:A large tower holds 28000 blocks, which is 29D 4H. Guess CCP figures that is close enough to 30 days. We were actually tuning towards 28 days, plus a day or so of "slop room", on the basis that having your refuelling job for a given tower always fall on the same day of the week should make for a more user-friendly schedule. More userfriendly would be: Reduce the fuel block size to 10% so we dont have to haul 140k of **** per month... from station to Assembly array, back to station and then to the Tower.
Actually, being able to supply your tower is part of the difficulty you are supposed to encounter and handle in w-space. If you arent talking about w-space, then its even easier to do so.
Reducing it would make supply runs just... a cakewalk. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1272
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 01:26:00 -
[449] - Quote
Taipion wrote:
So again, where is the improvement?
It-¦s just added work, or cost, or both.
At each of the dozen or so POSes I maintain, I have to look at my out of game app, Shift-Click-Drag ~8 items and type wildly varying numbers in for each item. I then need to double check to make sure I got it right.
Now, I do the math Once in Jita, again when I split it into JF loads, and then I run the BP and I'm done with math.
That's not even counting the number of times I've forgotten coolant (and for me, it's always coolant) when headed off to a remote POS. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Transport Sheep
Hamsters ate my Waffles
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 10:57:00 -
[450] - Quote
Could we get a number on the amount of towers, mods destroyed due to them not having blocks and thus turning offline?
|
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
290
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 11:57:00 -
[451] - Quote
Transport Sheep wrote:Could we get a number on the amount of towers, mods destroyed due to them not having blocks and thus turning offline?
https://twitter.com/#!/CCP_Diagoras
"4 days ago 69.07% of starbases were online, today at 16:20 that had dropped to 64.95%. That's a thousand less online towers."
...and few days earlier
"As of 10:30 this morning, there were 29,662 starbases deployed, of which 20,489 are online."
So I'd say at least several hundred silos and hangars met their doom... |
YAP1
SaY Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 22:28:00 -
[452] - Quote
Is there anyone else that turned all fuel they had into blocks when it was 4/per hour Also when the bpo/bpc gave you 4 units |
Pierced Brosmen
Priory Of The Lemon
30
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 22:48:00 -
[453] - Quote
YAP1 wrote:Is there anyone else that turned all fuel they had into blocks when it was 4/per hour Also when the bpo/bpc gave you 4 units
It never was 4 per hour/run on TQ. That was the initial number put forward by CCP in a dev blog, but was changed to 40 based on player feedback, long before Crucible and the fuel block BPCs were released. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
645
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 22:51:00 -
[454] - Quote
YAP1 wrote:Is there anyone else that turned all fuel they had into blocks when it was 4/per hour Also when the bpo/bpc gave you 4 units
Well, that would be a neat trick because the "4 per batch" BPOs never made it to the live server. By the time they hit the live server back in Crucible 1.0, the BPOs were producing 40 pellets per batch.
|
YAP1
SaY Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 22:52:00 -
[455] - Quote
not in the blog in game i made the fuel i had into blocks when you got 4 per run instead of 40 per run like now which also was 4 per hour now 40 per hour for the same mats |
YAP1
SaY Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 22:55:00 -
[456] - Quote
scrapyard they were out when it was meant to be 2 weeks to the change over so please do not make out that i would be dishonest |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1282
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 01:05:00 -
[457] - Quote
YAP1 wrote:scrapyard they were out when it was meant to be 2 weeks to the change over so please do not make out that i would be dishonest
He might be too polite to call you a liar, but I'm not. Check the date on the 40/hr blog, compare it to the release of the BPOs (which were released after Crucible 1.0) and you'll see why what you claim is impossible, and we can safely call you a liar. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
536
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 10:17:00 -
[458] - Quote
I'm looking at the relevant changes right now, and the 4 per hour version of the BPOs should never even have made it to SiSi, unless we were doing something weird with our branches at the time. It was certainly never on TQ. |
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra Gallente Federation
292
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 12:03:00 -
[459] - Quote
It was never on TQ, the misguided individual is sprouting crap.
I know because I logged on within 30 secs of server going up with the BPOs on sale and delivered one of the first cloaky hauler loads of BPOs to Jita that day (mmm, tasty profits) and on that day made first blocks - and the BPO made 40 blocks per run.
So unless he somehow hacked himself an unreleased BPO not yet sold by NPCs, he's full of it. In fact, scratch that, he's full of it.
The only thing that may have been "broken" by this change was some spreadsheet/calculator that was based on wrong data.
|
Zleon Leigh
76
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 01:04:00 -
[460] - Quote
Still wondering about the stealth economy intervention slammed on by CCP... Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one page] |