|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 41 post(s) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3550
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 13:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello people,
With Singularity open for feedback we would like to hear what you have to say about the new features coming for Crius. This particular thread is to discuss manufacturing changes, mainly:
- Cleaning Market groups
- R.A.M. / R.D.B. damage removal
- Extra material removal
- New industry UI
For more details, please refer to the first and second blogs about this topic. Starbase improvements will be discussed in another thread. |
|
|
CCP Claymore
C C P C C P Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 17:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hey Nanaki,
These seem a little low, we are looking into it.
Cheers. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Memory for input output locations.
It does this, but on a per-type and facility basis. So manufacturing blueprint X at facility Y will remember your input / output locations.
Steve Ronuken wrote:Updating the sheet when you change the input location, not just when you change the output location.
I have a bug registered for this, will get it fixed before TQ.
Steve Ronuken wrote:Not changing the ordering of the inputs, depending on the blueprint. (thermic disapation amp has extras at the top, then datacores and interface. Small tractor beam is interface, datacores, extras)
This has to do with the number of items in each group, but I'll chat to our UI guy to see if it can be made more consistent.
CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:I'm getting that the cost to install is invalid.
This is mentioned in the known issues thread, I submitted a fix today so we should hopefully see it working tomorrow. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
340
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 13:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Question for people who find the blueprint list too inclusive (large as a result), are the filters at the top insufficient? We are exploring ways of filtering down to BPCs vs BPOs, but currently you could filter down to blueprints within a specific container or location quite easily.
Also on a more general note since people are bringing it up, one of the things that should come within the next round of updates is what we are dubbing a visualization mode, which will be indicated much more clearly than it currently is.
The idea is that any element that is just for visualization of a "what if" scenario will be red on the UI and can be reset. For example for:
Quote:Quintessen wrote:
(1)
I can select a blueprint on my hanger floor and bring up the industry UI for it even when I'm not in a station that has an industry facility. After faffing around with all the various options, I get an error popup when I try to start the job. It would be better to get an error before the industry UI appears. I'm torn between this and just not giving the option to perform that action on the blueprint. The former at least allows the player to understand why it's not allowed. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
340
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote:
Also on a more general note since people are bringing it up, one of the things that should come within the next round of updates is what we are dubbing a visualization mode, which will be indicated much more clearly than it currently is.
The idea is that any element that is just for visualization of a "what if" scenario will be red on the UI and can be reset.
The 'Visualization Mode' will allow us to change the installation, then?
Yes. Current plan is, Facility, Blueprint, Teams, ME and TE.
Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
Takumi Kishunuba wrote:Would it be possible to get the invention preview UI to display the number of runs as the resulting bpc as well as the me/pe levels? That will probably be one of the main reasons for decryptors now.
Yes this is a bug which I just fixed today, should go out to SiSi tomorrow. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Not sure where this goesGǪ.
I can't see anywhere how to set tax on production lines in stationGǪ
I can't see production lines at all, I mean, I can produce something, but I can't see how many jobs, i can't restrict jobsGǪ
Basically, other than ptting jobs into build, i can't interface with the production lines of the outpost at all
Setting tax on outposts still needs to be done. We will have it in for the Crius release. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
716
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 21:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Theng Hofses wrote:When dealing with 20k plus BPOs/BPCs, the entire industry system gets stuck in a huge search process for what seems to be an eternity and then you seem to have no reasonable way of finding the BPO/Cs you are looking for. You guys seem to have a lot of work to do before you release that unless I am missing something big time. Admittedly, I gave up after only 10 minutes of trying
Mentioned in known issues, we have some performance optimization work to do so the 10k+ blueprints users don't have a terrible experience. We want you guys to have fast / filterable access to all of your blueprint data. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3560
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 16:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
Multiple Mus wrote:When searching for BPO/BPCs using the drop down menu for facility it wont show BPO/BPCs in a POS anchored Corp Hanger, is this intentional?
Are you sure the filter was set to "owner by my corporation" under the blueprint tab?
|
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 23:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Selaria Unbertable wrote:PS: The UI does not remember input/output locations for post arrays, propably for offices neither. It would be nice to at least have a setting to allow this, for I use the same corp hangar divisions for materials/outputs all the time. And setting those up again and again is against your goal to reduce the amount of unnecessary clicking, am I right
Known issue which I am fixing right now infact CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 23:15:00 -
[12] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:How about it only show BPs out to your trained Scientific Networking skill so you won't see BPs that you can reach?
Also maybe add some kind of highlighting if you are in the same station.
We could maybe add a filter for that, but seeing blueprints you can't install is useful information IMO. You can then just fly in range to install the job. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 23:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
Selaria Unbertable wrote:Also, currently the S&I window does not grey out activities not provided by either station or POS array. Meaning I can try to start a copy/ME/TE job in an assembly array, which of course generates an error.
We are updating the UI to reflect this. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 23:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
That is the old show info data which is now incorrect, have a look on the Industry tab instead for the correct details.
We will be removing that tab shortly (we left it in for now to help us debug this transition)
EDIT: Oh and yes T2 blueprints have had some adjusting this week, I'll check with Greyscale tomorrow to see if everything should be in place now. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 23:18:00 -
[15] - Quote
DissentersWillAbhor wrote:Personally, I would lke the BPO/BPC list to be on the right or left of the (too) large interface so that we can see more than 10 BPO/BPCs at once? Also, could you implement mutli-select for delivery? I really don't want to have to click twenty times with the "new optimized" system when the "old clickfest" of a system had deliveries in 2 clicks and a ctrl+A.
There is a deliver all button, we will probably add shift select + deliver too. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 09:14:00 -
[16] - Quote
Scout Vyvorant wrote:I tried some invention from a station.
While short, at the moment, my feedback is I truly miss the filtering between BP originals and copies stored at a certain location.
Also the inability to resize the industry ui is giving me issues in lower resolution and window size scenarios (example: a mac book), is there a plan to make it resizable or giving the option to make navigable like an internet page?
We are going to add an option to filter original vs copy, and are experimenting with horizontal re-sizing. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 09:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Shiganaru wrote:*shudders*Relevant Pictures - Scorch M BPC - ML 6, PL 14Industry Tab - MaterialsStation ( 1 Run)Station (10 Runs)Ammunition Assembly Array (1 Run)Question #1 - Would I be correct in assuming that Stations give about 7% reduction in materials, while an ammunition assembly array at a POS will give a 30% reduction? (Facility Effeciency) If so, we definitely need this information posted somewhere on what each facility gives. Issue #2 - Apparently there is some behind the scenes rounding that causes an inconsistency between the amount of materials required for doing 1 run versus 10 runs of the same BPC. If I am correct, currently it works like this:
- Retrieve Base Amount of Materials for One Run
- Multiple by # of Runs
- Apply Reductions
- Round Up to Nearest Whole Number
However, for consistency between runs, you should do it like this:
- Retrieve Base Amount of Materials for One Run
- Apply Reductions
- Round up to Nearest Whole Number
- Multiply by # of Runs
Suggestion It would also be really nice if we could export a "bill of materials" from the Industry Window to use for quotes / record keeping. The information is already all there, just give us a button to copy the information to clipboard in XML / CSV format. Especially since we may not be able to rely on linking a BPC in chat for quotes on how much materials would be required for a job.
This change to the calculation was done on purpose. For multiple runs you can use the partial leftovers from one run to build the next, so the rounding is done at the end.
The industry window has a tooltip on the little blue / orange circle left of the blueprint in the center which shows a full list of the materials. You can right click this to copy pasta it into excel
Adding the same copy functionality with the base values on the show info screen sounds like a good idea too. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
722
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 11:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Shade Millith wrote:Completely unable to do anything to do with industry on the test server. Either in station or at a POS.
Copying - Unable to install job due to the following reasons: FACILITY_ACTIVITY The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Error.FACILITY_ACTIVITY (5,) Error.MISMATCH_COST (134, 111) Error.MISMATCH_TAX (13, 11)
Manufacturing - Unable to install job due to the following reasons: FACILITY_ACTIVITY The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Error.FACILITY_ACTIVITY (1,) Error.MISMATCH_COST (67082, 55306) Error.MISMATCH_TAX (6708, 5531)
ME research - Unable to install job due to the following reasons: FACILITY_ACTIVITY The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Error.FACILITY_ACTIVITY (3,) Error.MISMATCH_COST (639, 527) Error.MISMATCH_TAX (64, 53)
TE research - Unable to install job due to the following reasons: FACILITY_ACTIVITY The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Error.FACILITY_ACTIVITY (4,) Error.MISMATCH_COST (2281, 1880) Error.MISMATCH_TAX (228, 188)
Can you try clearing your cache?
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Clearing_the_cache_and_settings#In-game_.28All_platforms.29
Also the FACILITY_ACTIVITY error is a debug message but it basically means you cannot do blueprint research at the station where your blueprint is. We have an update to the UI coming today / monday which helps explain this more clearly. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
722
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 13:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
Droidyk wrote:Clearing cache didn't help with starting personal jobs. I was able to start corp jobs before I cleared the cache but now it shows the cost mismatch and insufficient funds even there. While the error still remains on any personal job I try to start.
Ok thanks for the info, I will have a dig through your logs to see what might have gone wrong. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3560
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 14:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
Nope. This problem happened once already during internal development, looks like it'll have to be cleaned with fire once again. |
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3560
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 14:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Shiganaru wrote:Issue #2 - Apparently there is some behind the scenes rounding that causes an inconsistency between the amount of materials required for doing 1 run versus 10 runs of the same BPC. If I am correct, currently it works like this:
- Retrieve Base Amount of Materials for One Run
- Multiple by # of Runs
- Apply Reductions
- Round Up to Nearest Whole Number
However, for consistency between runs, you should do it like this:
- Retrieve Base Amount of Materials for One Run
- Apply Reductions
- Round up to Nearest Whole Number
- Multiply by # of Runs
The rounding after the number of run is by design. It's to allow Assembly Arrays, that have a small ME reduction to give bonuses to blueprints which rhave a low number of materials.
Edit: blarg Nullarbor beat me to it. |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
342
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 15:07:00 -
[22] - Quote
Just as a note, since it's been a couple of days since any developer has replied, but we are watching this thread closely and CCP Nullabor is working really hard to try and fix:
Error.MISMATCH_COST
The team also recently (Wednesday) went through the feedback raised here and are working on planning it into the remaining development time. Remember to check the client regularly as we are updating daily (except the weekends usually), so there is usually a fix or some new tweak in to test.
Also we see numerous people reporting that certain information is not updating on changes. We have a few bugs to fix here as the UI should reload automatically for most changes. Please keep reporting issues though (either here or via bug reports) when you see something is broken. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2402
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
Hi everyone,
We've finally tracked down and (internally) killed an issue with T2 build requirements having too much T1 stuff in them, due to a misunderstanding of the weirdness of the "recycled" flag. I'm going to verify it's all good tomorrow and then submit it. Entirely my fault, nothing to do with Nullarbor who I may have mistakenly fingered as the culprit earlier :)
-Greyscale |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 16:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Not sure where this goesGǪ.
I can't see anywhere how to set tax on production lines in stationGǪ
I can't see production lines at all, I mean, I can produce something, but I can't see how many jobs, i can't restrict jobsGǪ
Basically, other than ptting jobs into build, i can't interface with the production lines of the outpost at all Setting tax on outposts still needs to be done. We will have it in for the Crius release. Any update on this? Still don't see anything on SiSi
Still not done. People were implementing this today, should be in by the end of the week.
Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 17:01:00 -
[25] - Quote
On a more general note, we are still working our way through a number of tweaks, fixes and final feature implementations.
I have been tagging a number of comments in this thread as either defect work to be fixed, iteration stories on the project for Crius or future plans, going to go over them very soon with CCP Optimal and CCP Arrow.
We are hoping to by some point late next week to clean up these thread, consolidate all the known issues into a new thread and let you guys know when we are winding down in preparation for release (I.e. line in the sand). As it stands the team is burning away at the remaining features and defects so keep checking back regularly to see if your specific issue has been addressed. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 10:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:There needs to be a bpo/bpc filtering system when looking at blueprints tab in the industry UI. Especially when looking in List view its hard to tell them apart.
The UI doesnt update nearly as much as it needs to, even when you jump it doesnt update to the station you are in and the blueprint list set to "current station" shows you the blueprints in the station you were last in.
Sure you have made tons of updates to make this fancy good looking UI, it saves a ton of clicks for sure but it doesnt give me any new information. I want a UI that can at least help me a tiny bit to know which option is better for me.
I want a estimated profit by comparing your average unit price of input and output minus production fees, its all there and would be super easy for you to implement.
This should not only be there for manufacturing but the super complex invention system could really need some simple built in math for the resulting blueprint.
These points get raised fairly often so let me address them specifically.
- We will add a filter to allow you to view only BPO's or BPC's if you so with
- Related to BPC stacks, we have an iteration planned that would stack BPC's in the view into a single entry, then allow you to do some cool stuff with it, unfortunately not going to make it for Crius
- There are numerous open defects regarding how often the UI refreshes. We have yet to address those, but will do so before release.
- We made a conscious decision about obfuscating the estimated price of the input and output because we don't want to discourage people doing small scale Industry (if you mine minerals yourself or with friends, you might consider them "free"), and medium to large scale Industrialists are probably calculating their costs outside in dedicated spreadsheet, we can't reasonably compete with
- After Crius both Reverse Engineering and Invention are next on our list for some significant love, this includes UI and gameplay
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Can you give us an idea on the feature set?
Will it be like POCO tax, where we can control tax by station owner settings?
Also as a general point. We probably won't get the settings window for Outposts in before the weekend, but the intention is for it to be closer to the POCO settings window you know and love. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
CCP Claymore
C C P C C P Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
Z1gy wrote:cannot install job due to this error
Unable to install job due to the following reasons: The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Error.MISMATCH_COST (19, 13) Error.MISMATCH_TAX (2, 1)
help would be appreciated
Can you provide more information? What system were you in? If it was a FW system then this is a known issue and will be fixed on the next build to hit sisi.
Please submit a bug report and include my name in the title. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
Note also that we have updated the known issues thread. So it should be up to date as of today.
Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3668
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 16:38:00 -
[29] - Quote
Update about a particular point we forgot to mention which concerns Tech II blueprints (original or not).
Most Tech I materials have been removed from Tech II blueprints. More precisely, minerals that are not morphite and components that are not Advanced Components or Advanced Capital Components have been removed. Planetary Commodities have not been touched.
This does not apply to Tech I items required for Tech II manufacturing, those are staying and still have exceptions to the Material Efficiency and skill bonuses so that, for example:
- A Paladin should never require require 2 Apocalypses to build
- Large shield Extender II should never require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build
In some cases blueprint requirements have been modified to make sure price is not fluctuating too much. For example if we are removing too many materials out of a Tech II blueprint requirements we would be increasing some Tech II components a bit to compensate.
This change has been done in order to clarify the production process between Tech I and II items since most of the time, the very minerals that were required in a Tech II blueprint were already present in the Tech I item required in that same blueprint. Example: tritanium was already present inside the Apocalypse to build a Paladin. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2433
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 21:47:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Let's seem where to start.... Just participated in the masstest. 1. Was able to create a Capital Turret copy job of 1 copy, but 40 runs. Job will take (edit, can't read a countdown clock) 4 days, 20 hours to run. Given that the UI explicitly states max run is 20, what gives? 2. Though I know it won't be acknowledged by an dev, because it means actually following through with a comment made by greyscale, here goes. greyscale, how about commenting on this?: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4790983#post4790983
1. Which bit of the UI? Showinfo is I believe still inaccurate, you'll want to check the actual industry UI for real numbers. If you mean capital turret hardpoints, I believe we bumped the runs on those up so you could do a week's worth of bulid in one go.
2. See above, and also note if you haven't already that the displayed percentage is material reduction, not remaining waste. There is no explicit "waste" in the new system. |
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2433
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 10:37:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Let's seem where to start.... Just participated in the masstest. 1. Was able to create a Capital Turret copy job of 1 copy, but 40 runs. Job will take (edit, can't read a countdown clock) 4 days, 20 hours to run. Given that the UI explicitly states max run is 20, what gives? 2. Though I know it won't be acknowledged by an dev, because it means actually following through with a comment made by greyscale, here goes. greyscale, how about commenting on this?: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4790983#post4790983 1. Which bit of the UI? Showinfo is I believe still inaccurate, you'll want to check the actual industry UI for real numbers. If you mean capital turret hardpoints, I believe we bumped the runs on those up so you could do a week's worth of bulid in one go. 2. See above, and also note if you haven't already that the displayed percentage is material reduction, not remaining waste. There is no explicit "waste" in the new system.
Update to this comment: after further poking we've identified that the update script is using old math which doesn't map properly; in particular, blueprints with an ME of 2 or 3 were being under-upgraded. This is getting fixed and should be fine for TQ. Thanks for the heads-up :) |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2433
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 13:07:00 -
[32] - Quote
Luci Lu wrote:can you give us the new stats pretty please? ^^
1->5 2->7 3-4->8 5-9->9 10->10 |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2435
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 11:45:00 -
[33] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Let's seem where to start.... Just participated in the masstest. 1. Was able to create a Capital Turret copy job of 1 copy, but 40 runs. Job will take (edit, can't read a countdown clock) 4 days, 20 hours to run. Given that the UI explicitly states max run is 20, what gives? 2. Though I know it won't be acknowledged by an dev, because it means actually following through with a comment made by greyscale, here goes. greyscale, how about commenting on this?: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4790983#post4790983 1. Which bit of the UI? Showinfo is I believe still inaccurate, you'll want to check the actual industry UI for real numbers. If you mean capital turret hardpoints, I believe we bumped the runs on those up so you could do a week's worth of bulid in one go. 2. See above, and also note if you haven't already that the displayed percentage is material reduction, not remaining waste. There is no explicit "waste" in the new system. Update to this comment: after further poking we've identified that the update script is using old math which doesn't map properly; in particular, blueprints with an ME of 2 or 3 were being under-upgraded. This is getting fixed and should be fine for TQ. Thanks for the heads-up :) Thanks for the attention. Sorry for being so blunt, but this is important, and you did not seem to believe me with your initial reply. BTW, I have fiddled with the combinations and permutations of the max runs/copies when copying capital component BPO's. The UI will accept up to 7 copies at once, each 40 runs, for a duration of 31 days. 40 runs per copy is definitely the max cap on runs per copy, even for capital BPO's. If you are going to allow this kind of carnage of the capital BPC market, so be it. (280 runs of capital components versus the 50 today in roughly the same time) Nothing I can do to stop you. But at least fix the UI so it shows maximum runs at 40 rather than 20 (right above the BPO icon). BTW, I can also do 3 copies of 1 run Archon's, in the same 31 day period. Clearly, you have set this up so the max runs / copies is based on approx a 31 day cap, rather than quantity of runs/ copies.
Insider info: angry posts never make us more likely to read something compared to the same content presented as a calm post, and usually make us somewhat less likely to pay attention. People's judgements tend to be clouded when they're emotional, which means an angry post is generally likely to be less accurate than a calm one.
As you can see in this case, that doesn't mean that we ignore them entirely (and I have learned through significant pain that sometimes the "noise" is the signal in this regard, cf anomalies), but there are rational reasons for treating them with a more skeptical eye. In this particular case, if you'd just said "Your math doesn't add up: [math]" I would have read it and gone "holy **** my math doesn't add up", and I would've fixed it :) (Note also that none of this means you need to be nice, and indeed that always puts me on guard :P)
WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)
Luci Lu wrote:yay nothing changes, if you're not massively bulk building.
doubt greyscale cares about small cap producers :)
I care about everyone, to at least some degree :) What's the problem you're concerned about?
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I am also looking at my invented BPC's on TQ. Most are -4, -4. I see they have been converted to 6% ME, 14% TE, on Singularity
I also see that their raw material requirements, for the items that remain, are up 50-60%. Is that going to stay that way, or is that efficiency formula also broken like researched BPO's?
This sounds like it's probably correct. 6/14 is essentially "bonus" stats due to the way we're doing the conversion; jobs that previously yielded -4, -4 (ie no decryptors) will in future yield 2, 4.
Also worth noting that the "efficiency formula" isn't broken, it's specifically the DB script that changes old blueprint values to new blueprint values was using the wrong number for ME2/3 blueprints. All the server code is working correctly :) |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2435
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 14:40:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)
Update: Nullarbor just fixed this so it shows the maximum number of runs you can do without breaking the 30-day rule. For copies this only calculates for one-run blueprint copies, it's too much work this close to get that working dynamically, but it's a much clearer number now :)
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2435
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 15:21:00 -
[35] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)
Update: Nullarbor just fixed this so it shows the maximum number of runs you can do without breaking the 30-day rule. For copies this only calculates for one-run blueprint copies, it's too much work this close to get that working dynamically, but it's a much clearer number now :) So ultimately, with Crius, the cap on runs on a single capital BPC has been removed, and the 30 day hard cap is the only rule that affects copying. I have no real opinion on whether multiple 5 run Cap BPC's are inferior to a single Cap BPC that has 40 runs, but I would think it is a lot easier for a builder to plug in one BPC and let it run, if time is not a factor. Then again, given how cheap BPC's are going to be, and mfg slots are a thing of the past, why not simply create 20 two-run BPC's and build from them concurrently, if you have a vast army of mfg alts. You can pump out Capital Components, and ships, way faster. remember that another one of CCP's weird maths things going on is that long multiple run manufacturing jobs get some material modifier that makes each run take less materials the more runs being manufactured. Im not sure what the month long runs cap for manufacturing capital parts is, but if if you manufacture more at a time the cheaper it becomes, so the 40 run might be better then the 20 runs in that way. I havent run the math.
It was only ever a cost reduction, not a material reduction, and in any event we dropped it as it ended up not delivering enough value to justify the complexity and work. New blog coming out this week with final info on everything! |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2442
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 22:19:00 -
[36] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I am also looking at my invented BPC's on TQ. Most are -4, -4. I see they have been converted to 6% ME, 14% TE, on Singularity
I also see that their raw material requirements, for the items that remain, are up 50-60%. Is that going to stay that way, or is that efficiency formula also broken like researched BPO's? This sounds like it's probably correct. 6/14 is essentially "bonus" stats due to the way we're doing the conversion; jobs that previously yielded -4, -4 (ie no decryptors) will in future yield 2, 4. Also worth noting that the "efficiency formula" isn't broken, it's specifically the DB script that changes old blueprint values to new blueprint values was using the wrong number for ME2/3 blueprints. All the server code is working correctly :) I'm having trouble parsing what this means about what happens to any existing T2 bpcs I have right now, after patch. Do they get converted over as-is, so they retain their penalties and are essentially useless, or do they get converted so that if I have a -4,-4 bpc now, I will have a 2,4 bpc post-patch?
Dev blog explaining this will be out later in the week, they will not be useless. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
759
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 23:45:00 -
[37] - Quote
Marc Rene wrote:Doesn't give you the baseline job cost Presents the system cost index as a sliding scale and does not show the value numerically
Will try to ninja this in tomorrow.
Marc Rene wrote:Doesn't show, or isn't applying, the discount for multiple stations providing that service in the same system
We consider this part of the base cost, since you cannot really affect it. That's just the cost for installing in that system.
Marc Rene wrote:Tax in a station is not taking standings into account and/or is not displaying the standings discount.
Do you mean in nullsec outposts? Player owner outposts are the only place that standings will effect the tax rate, as configured by the station owner. All NPC stations have a flat 10% tax and standings do not change it.
CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
759
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:45:00 -
[38] - Quote
Marc Rene wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Marc Rene wrote:Tax in a station is not taking standings into account and/or is not displaying the standings discount. Do you mean in nullsec outposts? Player owner outposts are the only place that standings will effect the tax rate, as configured by the station owner. All NPC stations have a flat 10% tax and standings do not change it. I meant in NPC stations, not applying a standings discount doesn't seem consistent with the way the market fees work or the lore, and I think further devalues mission running.
Greyscale has explained this in other threads I believe, but the general idea is that standings achieved through PVE should not be required to be competitive at industry because you are forcing those people to play a different part of the game.
Now if we had a way of earning standings through industry then maybe we would bring something like that back, but that is a discussion for another day. For now we are removing the grind, you'll just have to be clever about what and where to build instead. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
759
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:48:00 -
[39] - Quote
Marc Rene wrote:Not sure if it just me, but it also appears as if the wheel interface to select the number of runs is no longer working.
This is a known issue, it disappeared a couple of days ago but CCP Optimal is bringing it back.
BTW we are removing the interaction with the circle area, it will now just visualize the number of runs instead. It was distracting people from the best way to modify the runs which is to focus the runs edit field and use the scroll wheel on your mouse, or just type the number in. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:31:00 -
[40] - Quote
As a heads up, we are going to clean up a bunch of these threads, by locking them and consolidating the discussion into fewer threads.
The release is now less than 5 days away and people are working incredibly hard to wrap up the final features and defects. So expect Singularity to be back up (fingers crossed) later today with a close to final build and the known issues thread to get updated with the final things we know about (not many outstanding at this point).
That being said, development will not stop with the release and we will have to push things either into updates or bigger release depending on the risk, but expect continued improvement and work to happen on all Industry fronts up to and well beyond Crius on the 22nd.
Patch notes should go live before the weekend together with a blog summarizing many of the changes you can and cannot expect in this release. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3673
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:00:00 -
[41] - Quote
Unsticked and locked.
Please post feedback in the Crius consolidation thread, and don't forget we have a known issue thread as well. |
|
|
|
|