Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |
|
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. |
|
you're primary
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 13:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hey,
I tried installing a personal manufacturing job in jita 4-4, and i got the following error:
Quote:Unable to install job due to the following reasons: Insufficient funds to pay job cost
Error.ACCOUNT_FUNDS (0.0, 290222)
I currently have 13b in my wallet on sisi.
Regards,
Primary
|
Nanaki
ZERO T0LERANCE RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 16:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
so the first impressions are pretty decent , though a drag and drop into that window would be awesome
but than there is this http://i.imgur.com/XsBBvyD.jpg when i tested the manfacturing itself i threw in an bpc i had left over well thats an cheap provi :D is that intended as testing enviroment? or a known bug?
|
|
CCP Claymore
C C P C C P Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 17:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hey Nanaki,
These seem a little low, we are looking into it.
Cheers. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones
|
|
Jinn Aideron
35
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 17:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
First impressions
The Good
- General idea of unified UI is still awesome! Great.
- That radial production runs selector? Fun idea! Wonder if you'll manage to keep it, or if "common player" Y's inability to grasp this will lead to it being axed soon.
The Bad
- That same radial production runs selector? It's still active in the center, making unstable, large changes within a few pixels mouse-movement, natrually. Better only have it active at an radius interval from the center point, giving your a 'ring' encompassing both sides of the run numbers' UI representation arc.
- Seizure inducing flux compensator graphics when you have an empty BP slot.
I understand you want to have a visual cue here. But it's useful 1(!) time over the player's entire EVE life, compared to drawing his eyes away from the actual content below at every single instance after this first opening of the industry window.
- Job duration as DD:HH:MM:SS - give us better separators than this for Days, Hours, Minutes, Seconds.
- Not resizable horizontally? Very reminiscent of the 1990's. You have table rows below, and lots of variable width columns. Don't do that then! Have the fixed dimensions upper half instead align center, or similar, on window oversize.
Thanks for the preview on Sisi!
Stealth deletes are bad. |
Noriko Mai
1380
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 17:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
- The brighter area around this circle thing looks odd. It looks different from every other window in the game.
- The fancy box/lines thing around the required skill is very odd (under the cirlce). It looks like a slot where you can drag stuff into or out of it.
- The "Input Material Location / Output Location" rows are clickable (found it out by accident). This is a very odd idea.
If I click the Input Material Location and get the default inventory window, I assume that I can select the container where I have the materials. Which is not possible. It's possible over the drop-down menu below. Same for Output Location. If you present me a new window with a tree view of my hangar with all the containers in it, then I assume I can select it in some way. But I can't.
|
Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Gentlemen's Agreement
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 17:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Like the new UI, but have some feedback:
- Toggling between "active teams" and "teams to bid on" is done in bad way. It might be me that is stupid, but I actually didn't realize what "team chartering" bouncing up above the team listing actually did...so little changed in the actual listing I figured it didn't do anything at first. Add some button "Teams to bid on" and "Active teams".
- Add a small pop-up on the team's bonii that describes the "diamond" as material gain and the hourglass as time gain.
- Possible bug. When trying to copy a BPO try to type an insanely high number of runs per copy. The total time will adjust for that insane amount, but the UI will reset the number to the maximum allowed runs per copy without adjusting the number accordingly. End result is either a timer that shows that the total job will take much longer than it will...or the job will take too long (I haven't tried to actually start the copying job yet).
(Mentioned in the Research feedback thread as well since it might be back end stuff.)
|
Tam Althor
lll tempered sea bass Brothers of Tangra
33
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 18:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
well I was going to post feedback, but the forum decided to eat the post, so screw it, fix your **** |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
97
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 18:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jinn Aideron wrote:First impressions The Good
- General idea of unified UI is still awesome! Great.
- That radial production runs selector? Fun idea! Wonder if you'll manage to keep it, or if "common player" Y's inability to grasp this will lead to it being axed soon.
The Bad
- That same radial production runs selector? It's still active in the center, making unstable, large changes within a few pixels mouse-movement, natrually. Better only have it active at an radius interval from the center point, giving your a 'ring' encompassing both sides of the run numbers' UI representation arc.
- Seizure inducing flux compensator graphics when you have an empty BP slot.
I understand you want to have a visual cue here. But it's useful 1(!) time over the player's entire EVE life, compared to drawing his eyes away from the actual content below at every single instance after this first opening of the industry window.
- Job duration as DD:HH:MM:SS - give us better separators than this for Days, Hours, Minutes, Seconds.
- Not resizable horizontally? Very reminiscent of the 1990's. You have table rows below, and lots of variable width columns. Don't do that then! Have the fixed dimensions upper half instead align center, or similar, on window oversize.
Thanks for the preview on Sisi!
All of the above, but bolded the one I thought most annoying to translate into proper time scales I would understand.
|
Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Gentlemen's Agreement
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 18:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
Interesting implicit filtering going on in the team tab. :)
If I have a blueprint selected in the UI there is no way I can view teams that do not give any bonii to that specific blueprint. In order to be sure I can view all the teams available I have to start the UI clean without any blueprint selected.
There should be a toggle in the UI for "show only teams that give bonus to selected blueprint" and "show all teams". |
|
Lord Alex2
Packet Loss Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 18:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Noticed a bug in the industry interface, to reproduce: 1. Right click use blueprint 2. Choose "duplicate a bpo" 3. Job runs max number (or any) - I used 20 4. Runs per copy keep adding numbers
http://i.imgur.com/MZcFJva.png
Outcome, job duration, job cost keep scaling up into infinity
The interface on Blueprint: Information was horrible under Industry tab so I redesigned to be more intuitive and give more information to the user (shamelessly copied from Industry interface)
http://i.imgur.com/pRKmRqa.png |
Jinn Aideron
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 19:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
Last comment for today.
Radial run selector again.
It makes sense to have it, as is now, proportional to maximum number of runs left on a BPC, but this falls flat with BPOs (infinity). As you already noticed, we know, because there is nothing going on with BPOs if you try to use this interface on them. Consequently, nobody is going to commit this to muscle memory because the particular interface element will only work unreliably, part of the time. Mouse wheel it is instead, keyboard it is instead. Same old.
If you'd find a sensible reference to make BPO runs proportional as well, it'd be much more useful.
What would be a good upper reference to make BPOs work the same as BPCs?
Possibly the maximum allowable runs with present resources. Or something else. But there should be something, so this interface element will work all the time, not just in some cases.
Stealth deletes are bad. |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
39
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 19:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Input dropdown shows all can's in corp hangars. Scrolling by them all is a bit of a pain, could you make those collapsible, or maybe even make this selection window larger? I don't want to have to scroll thru a list for every input I make.
I'm with the previous poster on the unable to resize horizontal thing, it was the very first thing I tried when I pulled up the ui. Everyone likes their stuff different sizes. I blame CCP for spoiling us :)
Corp Blueprints list - shows bp's in cans that you can't build from anyway. Not a major deal, as you can filter on this one, but wow if you have a couple cans full of 1500bpc, it makes for a pretty big list at first!
Will keep testing,.
Thanks! |
Noriko Mai
1380
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 19:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lord Alex2 wrote:The interface on Blueprint: Information was horrible under Industry tab so I redesigned to be more intuitive and give more information to the user (shamelessly copied from Industry interface) http://i.imgur.com/pRKmRqa.png And the icons are totaly blury, too.
Edit: The Manufacturing/Invention/Copying/etc lettering should be moved in the below fiel as the top header. ATM it just looks bad having a newline for this. |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
268
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 20:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Contextual Menu of Skills contains several entries that shouldn't be there. Reprocess and Train/Inject when that skill is trained to 5 already. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
559
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 20:14:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nanaki wrote:so the first impressions are pretty decent , though a drag and drop into that window would be awesome but than there is this http://i.imgur.com/XsBBvyD.jpg when i tested the manfacturing itself i threw in an bpc i had left over well thats an cheap provi :D is that intended as testing enviroment? or a known bug?
Regarding this screenshot: Why is there so much wasted white space (black space in this case (the preview "window"))? Was the estimated profit part cut to accommodate the big black space? |
Ondores Lies
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 20:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
Time left shows as 0 on jobs but is incorrect and does not allow delivery.
Screen |
xartin
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 20:35:00 -
[18] - Quote
The new Industry UI VERY badly needs a filter option to allow for quickly finding specific blueprint originals or copies.
Having to mouse scroll through 1200 blueprints in a corp hangar is NOT an enjoyable experience.
The current industry UI implementation does not provide a usable method to quickly locate a specific blueprint original or copy without having to look through every available blueprint matching the search description in alphabetical order.
http://i.imgur.com/DeLByS8.png |
DexterShark
The Night Watchmen The Bastion
32
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 21:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
The industry window has a large fixed width, so is not re-sizable to fit with my existing window layout, and it is non-stackable.
Are there any plans to make the Industry window size more flexible at all? |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
402
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 21:35:00 -
[20] - Quote
I'm getting that the cost to install is invalid. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3406
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 21:53:00 -
[21] - Quote
The ability to define custom filters for the blueprints would be ideal.
Filters such as:
Tech 2 Blueprint copy X runs. (greater than, less than) Facility ME level TE level Type (armour, shield, ship, etc, component.) inverse versions of the above. activities possible. ('I only want to see blueprints I can invent from')
Also:
Memory for input output locations. Updating the sheet when you change the input location, not just when you change the output location. 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)
(Small tractorbeam also fails to invention, with no possible output)
Job durations don't appear to be affected by modifiers in the ui. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:04:00 -
[22] - 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 -
[23] - 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 |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3406
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
Just for a tweak:
A compress contents context menu entry on compression arrays. And a refine contents context menu entry in reprocessing arrays.
I should have realised it's a context menu item on the contents themselves, but I was hunting for a little time. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Multiple Mus
Hounds of War. Hashashin Cartel
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:40:00 -
[25] - Quote
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?
Also when testing out the invention tab when switching between decryptors i couldn't see the run modifier on the outcome area.... was this just me not looking in the right area?
If i am inventing from a Rifter BPC the job cost changes when i switch between the Wolf and Jaguar outcomes should this happen (they both use the same materials during invention)?
Other then that I'm loving the new look |
cia informant
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
Are these numbers right? http://puu.sh/9o28p/7b8635a83f.jpg
If so I am really sad that a major part of my isk making would be practically killed with the run time being quadrupled. I can't imagine with all the changes that the margin is suddenly going to quadruple as well. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3407
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 23:23:00 -
[27] - Quote
In an design lab: Jobs which have run down their time do not show as complete.
(Ahh. adjusting the columns a lot shows me an enddate column that's not complete. the status column indicates no time left)
UI issues: changing the width of column headings (on the jobs tab) has no effect on the text in the column unless you click onto a different tab, click back, and wait a moment. It's not wide enough to see all the details, with no scroll bar available. you can shrink it down, but them you're loosing some text, on the blueprint name, and possibly the facility. While you can select all the text, you can't copy it to paste elsewhere.
I have a bug in with a screen shot. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Takumi Kishunuba
Ulrich Cadalene Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 00:07:00 -
[28] - Quote
I move blueprints from one pos array to another and it doesn't seem to update the blueprint browser. Relogging seems to force a resync though. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3407
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 00:08:00 -
[29] - Quote
The inability to deliver multiple jobs at a time is somewhat annoying.
As is no feedback if the invention job is successful or not.
The start button shouldn't show up on the history.
History is incomplete. (I'm seeing 3 completed jobs when I've just delivered 9. There's still no indication of invention success or not, just the blueprints showing up in the output hangar (which isn't the one I specified. It's the first hangar in the array)
(I'm actually having trouble getting to the history. it's /very/ sporadic about what shows up. now it's blank) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
352
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 00:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
Okay - Feedback on new UI
I am in the new industry screen trying to manufacture from a BPC in G-D0N3 in null sec - a Minmatar Station
Some general remarks: I like the overall feel of the screen I really like the skills showing up on the manufacturing jobs and control range (nice touch !)
Things not working: - Like others I am getting the insufficient funds error (not a big deal) i plodded around on the screen anyways
- The central dial - I must say i did not realize at first how this worked about selecting the number of runs. I did not find it intuitive at all - i spent time looking for a "+" or "-" key near the value or just typed it manually. I would suggest that a button near the value is much better than the dial thing. I think it looks 'cool' but it is hard to select say 3 out of the 5 run BPC or whatever your trying to do easily. I would find it far easier selecting with buttons. Tried it again - yup I do not really like the dial thing ... sorry.
- there are two arrow circles immediately to the left of the central dial - when i hovered over them they gave me the individual mineral amounts/cost of the item being built. On the bottom it says "total estimated price" however i do not see anywhere that it is actually summarized with a total - just the individual amounts.
- in the Outcome window - you do get a "total estimated cost" valuation - however is this total mineral cost? total mineral + station fees ? Can it be broken down ?
- Input hanger and Output hanger have only one option which is personal hanger - even though i have corp offices rented at this station and role/access to them
- the tab for sorting of blueprints you have "invention copies" which is fine if all of my copies were somehow tagged as invention however not all copies are invention copies. Some of my BPCs that I own are for actual production - not having a way to say show me all my BPCs that are ship BPCs is a bit annoying. I can see all my BPOs. Maybe there is a way to tag a BPC as 'invention' so that they can be filtered out. Though i do see the manual type box - i can always go there and search for say "tornado" find the one I am looking for. Just seemed odd the auto sort feature says invention copies when not all are for that purpose.
- Team section - would be nice to be able to search for a team with a specific skill your looking for - also i dont get the wording for the skills "engineering systems" what is covered by that? What specific items would it benefit?
- Bidding on team - this makes no sense at all - the first field is "Search for Solar System" ??? The second field is enter an amount to bid. I finally got it to do something by doing the following: 1 - type in solar system and then hit enter (wait) it will then acknowledge your solar 2 - place bid you cannot use the mouse to go to the bid field nor can you hit tab - both of which I would normally do....hitting enter has always been something i try to avoid as it "commits" things.
That's it for now - interesting so far - looking forward to the account payment bug being squashed so i can do some building.
|
|
Dread Nanana
Action Super Dupper Test Corp
10
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 01:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The inability to deliver multiple jobs at a time is somewhat annoying.
There is a button to deliver all jobs, but there isn't seem to be one to deliver only selected ones.
|
Xercodo
Xovoni Astronautical Manufacturing and Engineering
3567
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 01:56:00 -
[32] - Quote
The reprocessing window REALLY needs a list view for our spreadsheets :3
Also I'd that the renaming be "Refining" for all activities because reprocessed doesn't really make that much sense for ore :/
Unless you logic is that it was already processed once by the mining laser, and thus is being reprocessed to get the inner stuff. The Drake is a Lie |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 02:22:00 -
[33] - Quote
A lot of the 'what if' type features discussed in dev blogs seem to be missing: Ability to drag and drop a non-owned blueprint onto the indy screen. Attempting to select a different installation in the industry screen doesn't seem to do anything. This one is pretty critical given the relationship between cost and location.
Also, when I select 'Corp Owned Facilities', it shows me 2 stations owned by Federal Defense Union. My indy alt is also in RITES, so this seems like a bug. Once my POS anchors I'll be able to see if its facilities show up like I'd expect them to.
Also getting a lot of flashing of the window under windows 8, directX 11, windowed mode. Opening the settings window is particularly bad. This is with the window size set to screen resolution on my primary monitor. Maximizing the window (so that the windows toolbar isn't covering the bottom of it) seems to help a bit.
|
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
36
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 02:58:00 -
[34] - Quote
A few comments:
- 'Not input items required' should be 'No input items required.' http://i.imgur.com/6IpLTTu.png
- Must close / reopen industry dialog before being able to deliver completed job.
- For 200mm Autocannon invention, don't see where to select the T2 BPC to invent, and it is not selected by default. http://i.imgur.com/PK45ssV.png
|
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
70
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 03:40:00 -
[35] - Quote
For the test server:
Change mineral costs to 1 ISK so people can test large build quantities without having to drop billions for large amounts of tritanium |
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
415
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 04:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
I cannot install jobs with blueprints that are in cans. I'm getting:
"Cannot use this blueprint from its current location" Error.INVALID_BLUEPRINT_LOCATION (,)
Job Duration on the primary screen isn't matching up with what's showing up in the actual job window.
There doesn't appear to be a way to remove the currently selected blueprint.
Most tooltips aren't actually showing the estimated price.
Job Cost tooltip isn't including taxes
The UI indicates that you can deliver ships to the Item Hangar, but really shouldn't it be delivered to the ship hangar? General confusion in that the Ship Hanger isn't real, but a view on the Item Hangar.
There is no way to filter out security level in the facilities tab.
There is no way to only show facilities that have multiple activities (e.g. copying and invention)
There is no way to filter on facility type.
No way to see the due date for jobs in the jobs screen.
No way to filter on just BPOs or just BPCs on the blueprints screen.
Please make is to that multiple blueprints of the same exact statistics stack on the blueprints screen. Currently I may have 200 BPCs or the exact same blueprint and I have to scroll a ton just to get past them. Most of them have the same statistics. Though stacking has its own problems. Perhaps a checkbox that toggles between stacked and unstacked. Or just something that allows us to not have to scroll quite so much.
Please show via icon the current facility's activities so that they are shown when viewing a blueprint at that facility. Perhaps where the facility information currently is or somewhere on the bar with the buttons that toggle the activity shown. A little blue underline bar under the ones that are available would be appreciated. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
752
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 04:19:00 -
[37] - Quote
Is there a way to make the new industry window smaller? it takes up a huge amount of space on my laptop and the only thing that adjusts is the list part at the bottom. |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 04:41:00 -
[38] - Quote
Arana Mirelin wrote: For 200mm Autocannon invention, don't see where to select the T2 BPC to invent, and it is not selected by default. http://i.imgur.com/PK45ssV.png[/list]
I found 150mm and 200mm autocannons (and a few other modules that slip my mind) aren't inventable right now - I got an error indicating that there was no valid output. Other modules with only one possible output do not require selection. |
RZN
Terra Incognita Black Core Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 04:58:00 -
[39] - Quote
I would like to start out by saying I am an industry noob. Being that these changes are target at noobs I felt I should share my impressions.
General UI The main interface is very pretty and feels as though someone spent an inordinate amount of time making it pretty. As pretty as it is, it is not very user friendly. Furthermore, the center focal point of the interface is a large circle that doesn't seem to give enough useful information to account for the space it consumes.
The short list
- Favors Icons over text. (I have no idea what the icon for Tritanium looks like.)
- The exclusive use of tool tips for detailed information makes it hard to get a grasp on what is required.
- Massive waste of screen space.
- Does not resize.
- The lower blueprint list can be a bit cumbersome when dealing with a large number of blueprints.
- No indication of what blueprint is loaded.
Manufacturing I really like the outcome window and the jobs display. The facility, input and output windows are not intuitive and took a minute to figure out why it could not find the minerals. Over all the interface is lacking vital information. Again icons are pretty but do not help me figure out what I need, a break down of time and materials required per run would be a far more useful use of screen space.
Research Again the upper pain is mostly wasted space and would be far better served displaying research Time/Material vs. build Time/Material (for the none spread sheeters) or at the very least explain what Time/Material Efficiency does. The Outcome window tells me nothing I did not already know. Facility is nice to know I guess.
Copying Same issues as Research.
Invention Waiting for copies to finish because of the 0 isk bug.
Blueprint list The list seems very informative and I really like the ability to click the icons in the activities column to load the blueprint. Advanced filters or selectable containers would go a long way to help sort large amounts of blueprints.
Facilities Only suggestion i have is make corp pos facilities more obvious.
Jobs Add the ability to deliver only selected jobs.
Teams I have no clue what's going on here.
I think if the designers had smaller screens and their tool tips taken away we would have a much more useful interface to work with.
Over all I give the interface a noob friendly rating of 2.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
67
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 04:58:00 -
[40] - Quote
When i start up Industry UI and select a BPO, the default input/output are selected for me and the minerals are not indicated as being present because they aren't
I select the input for my minerals and nothing happens
I have to select an output OTHER than the default to get it to see the minerals, then back to the default in order to have the output go there. |
|
babyblue
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 07:07:00 -
[41] - Quote
If you're the UI designer and get upset when people criticise your work, it only means you care about it, so it's all good.
With that in mind and after playing around with the UI on SiSi a little yesterday, I'd like to offer some criticisms.
One of the principles I use when designing a UI is to try to prevent the user from performing an action I know a priori is an error. With the current UI on Tranquillity for example, I can select a blueprint to build with, choose the installation, enter the number of runs and then click Ok. Only after engaging in this clickery will I be told that I've reached the maximum number of jobs I can perform with my skill level. The situation is worse for invention of course, where decryptors and meta-items also invite the user to click. This is laziness on the part of either the designer or the developer generating the underlying model. If you haven't cached the information required to answer the question before I attempt the job, then you need to. The new UI exhibits this issue in abundance. Specifically:
(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.
(2)
On the industry UI, the eye is directed towards a circular widget in the middle of the pane. It's not at all clear what the purpose of this widget is or how it works. Although to an extent it is discoverable, it simply doesn't work from a design point of view. It's quite hard to manipulate a circular widget with a mouse in any case. I would change it for a vertical slider, with scale ticks. If it needs to be a logarithmic scale, that's fine too.
(3)
With respect to (2) I think the eye should be directed towards selecting the job type. The icons at the bottom are too dull and need a glow border or something to direct the user's attention to them. Even a title would help. This is of course from the point of view of someone who encounters the UI for the first time and has bothered to try to "discover" how it works.
(4)
Again another issue with selecting parameters the software knows a priori cannot be performed. I can use the circular widget to try to submit a job that goes over the maximum allowed time, only to be told this isn't possible after I've clicked submit. The underlying model should have all the information needed to restrict and present the available choices here so I never have to see that error message again. If it doesn't, again, lazy programmer.
(5)
It's not clear to me what the purpose of the Big List of Blueprints is. It seems to generate a list containing every single blueprint in my entire inventory. Well, I've got around 1,000 originals and four times that number of copies, organised into neat categories inside small containers. In a lot of UIs a list that large is next to useless without some quite advanced accompanying search and filtering functionality. A tree structure would be better of course.
(6)
From (5) it's clear that the ability to multi-select a set of blueprints, perhaps all the same, and perform the same action on them with the same properties, would be extremely useful. Starting 10 invention jobs, for example, by selecting 10 BPC but only having to input the details once, would massively reduce the T2 building clickfest that is the current system.
Apologies if any of these things have been covered or if they're on the snagging list. I spent literally 10 minutes last night in there and these are my initial observations. More to follow I'm sure. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
559
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 08:22:00 -
[42] - Quote
babyblue wrote: (5)
It's not clear to me what the purpose of the Big List of Blueprints is. It seems to generate a list containing every single blueprint in my entire inventory. Well, I've got around 1,000 originals and four times that number of copies, organised into neat categories inside small containers. In a lot of UIs a list that large is next to useless without some quite advanced accompanying search and filtering functionality. A tree structure would be better of course.
This so much. I own a big number of BPC from Data/Relic sites which I will likely not use any time soon and thus put them in a can named "Useless". Now I see all of them in the industry window, cluttering the list and requiring me to scroll through all of them. It even goes so far that it makes the scroll stutter while the game tries to load all the data. This is unacceptable.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
559
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 08:55:00 -
[43] - Quote
continuation from this post.
And another thing: What happens with the bids of systems who did not win the auction? Is this money sunk or returned to the respective players? If it is sunk, why should anyone bid for teams and waste money?
And yet another thing: In which wallet and where exactly do I see the money drained for the bid? My personal wallet flashes, but I don't see any money movement neither in the Journal nor in the Transactions tab. |
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
415
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 12:25:00 -
[44] - Quote
babyblue wrote:If you're the UI designer and get upset when people criticise your work, it only means you care about it, so it's all good. (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. (4) Again another issue with selecting parameters the software knows a priori cannot be performed. I can use the circular widget to try to submit a job that goes over the maximum allowed time, only to be told this isn't possible after I've clicked submit. The underlying model should have all the information needed to restrict and present the available choices here so I never have to see that error message again. If it doesn't, again, lazy programmer. (5) It's not clear to me what the purpose of the Big List of Blueprints is. It seems to generate a list containing every single blueprint in my entire inventory. Well, I've got around 1,000 originals and four times that number of copies, organised into neat categories inside small containers. In a lot of UIs a list that large is next to useless without some quite advanced accompanying search and filtering functionality. A tree structure would be better of course. (6) From (5) it's clear that the ability to multi-select a set of blueprints, perhaps all the same, and perform the same action on them with the same properties, would be extremely useful. Starting 10 invention jobs, for example, by selecting 10 BPC but only having to input the details once, would massively reduce the T2 building clickfest that is the current system. Apologies if any of these things have been covered or if they're on the snagging list. I spent literally 10 minutes last night in there and these are my initial observations. More to follow I'm sure.
(1)
For this, I think its important that users be able to see what the numbers would be for a blueprint activity even if the facility isn't there. I think it should be clearer immediately what activities are supported, though, once you're in the UI. I do get your point, though.
(4)
Probably not lazy, just it was a lower priority than the other items on the list.
(5)
I agree with the need to organize and disagree with the benefits of a tree view. Other forms of filtering are going to be more critical here as is the ability to reduce the total number of objects you're having to deal with. The change to BPC invention mechanics should help here.
(6)
Multi-select would increase the complexity of this screen quite a bit, probably be computationally expensive and potentially quite confusing to the user. I also think it would be better to wait until after the invention and reverse engineering mechanics switch up to see how it changes. Also I shudder to think about doing multi-select across different input or output locations. From my perspective the solution they came up with for speeding up invention by remembering the last thing you did is better than multi-select. |
Olari Vanderfall
Z3R0 RETURN MINING INC. Illusion of Solitude
111
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 12:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
I only had a little time to mess with things, but here are my initial thoughts.
Damn that window is huge. I play on a laptop and it eats up a lot of real estate.
No way to filter copies vs originals. Boo.
Like I can select POS labs.
Teams confused me. Is the solar system listed where they are? How do they come to my system?
Other question : If you're manufacturing in a POS on TQ, where does the BPO go when mirrored on SISI? I can't find some of my BPOs. |
Rust Connor
Industrias PapaCapim
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 12:33:00 -
[46] - Quote
Amazing interface. I'll list problems i found after reading the whole thread.
Suggestion: now that ME is calculate for the whole batch, couldnt you put the materials unita with and without rounding so we can quickly play with run numbers? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
67
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 12:38:00 -
[47] - Quote
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 |
Takumi Kishunuba
Ulrich Cadalene Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 12:55:00 -
[48] - Quote
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. |
babyblue
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 13:26:00 -
[49] - Quote
Quintessen wrote: (1)
For this, I think its important that users be able to see what the numbers would be for a blueprint activity even if the facility isn't there. I think it should be clearer immediately what activities are supported, though, once you're in the UI. I do get your point, though.
I thought about this and consider the "what if" scenario to be a different thing to actually building it. It's the kind of thing that's taken care of at the moment with out of game tools, such as those Steve Fuzzworks has produced. As far as I'm concerned that's fine. If you want to "what if" something then tell the UI you're "what iffing" it. Just leaving everything totally open with no constraints increases the click-stress. Eve is already horrendously clicky and this has been a forum whining issue since 2003.
Quintessen wrote: Probably not lazy, just it was a lower priority than the other items on the list.
I hope I took care of that with my disclaimer at the bottom.
Quintessen wrote: I agree with the need to organize and disagree with the benefits of a tree view. Other forms of filtering are going to be more critical here as is the ability to reduce the total number of objects you're having to deal with. The change to BPC invention mechanics should help here.
It doesn't have to be a tree view of course. Just something other than a massive list containing thousands of entries which is completely useless to any serious industrialist.
Quintessen wrote: Multi-select would increase the complexity of this screen quite a bit, probably be computationally expensive and potentially quite confusing to the user. I also think it would be better to wait until after the invention and reverse engineering mechanics switch up to see how it changes. Also I shudder to think about doing multi-select across different input or output locations. From my perspective the solution they came up with for speeding up invention by remembering the last thing you did is better than multi-select.
It's actually not all that hard to implement. If I select 10 blueprints and want to do ME research on all 10, up to level 5, the system can auto-fill 10 available slots. If there aren't 10 available slots then it'll tell me. I'll make it easier for the developer: Only do it if all of the blueprints have identical properties. I'm not sure what they're going to do for invention so I'll hold fire on this. All I know is when I'm putting a build on of T2 items, usually a 1,000 module run, running 3 characters with 10 slots each, I have to go through the same sequence of clicks THIRTY TIMES for each run of 300, and do that 3 times to get to 1000. Yes that's something I forgot to add: Remember the previous values. That would reduce clicks by one order of magnitude.
But that gives me a new idea: If you have two or more identical blueprint copies, the ability to merge them into a single copy should be considered. So for example, 2 x 10 run -4 (old stats) Suitcase II blueprints can become 1 x 20 run -4 Suitcase II blueprint. |
Qoi
Exert Force
10
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 13:29:00 -
[50] - Quote
A single big list of blueprints is pretty useless for anyone having serious amounts of blueprints. It only works for people with a few dozen blueprints, which doesn't include most industrialists.
The icons for Manufacturing, ME Research and TE Research are virtually indistinguishable on the jobs tab until you get out your magnifying glass. Please let them have distinct shapes!
Also why do the Industry and the Reprocessing icon have the same shape? This is just unprofessional. |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
340
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 13:50:00 -
[51] - 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 |
|
BoBoZoBo
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
426
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 13:55:00 -
[52] - Quote
I am also playing with the new industry interface and am loving it.
Two things off the bat:
1) Please allow a drag/drop action so I can place BPs in my hangar directly into the industry window. When you complete an action or just open the window with nothing selected, you get a very enticing square graphic with nice little inviting blue running lights.
It is practically BEGGING for you to drag and drop a BP into it. Was very sad not to be able to. It seemed like such a natural action, I tired it again a few times in the hope it was just buggy.
2) Industrial sounds based on action. I heard some, but it needs to be taken up a notch.
Other than that, looks awesome! Great work so far guys.
Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 13:58:00 -
[53] - Quote
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? |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
340
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:01:00 -
[54] - 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 |
|
Chris Thiesere
IonTek LLC
10
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:09:00 -
[55] - Quote
Is there a possibility to select a separate input source for each input type (items/minerals/etc)? |
Noriko Mai
1381
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:18:00 -
[56] - Quote
The Confirm Tooltip for stoping manufacturing jobs is a bit inconvenient. "Canceling a job will not result in input materials being refunded nor job cost being refunded." Just say: "Materials will be lost and job cost will be retained!" |
Noriko Mai
1381
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:18:00 -
[57] - Quote
AAAHH. FORUMS!! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
559
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:22:00 -
[58] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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:
The filters are no problem and good as they are. What is problematic in my opinion is the massive list upon first opening the Industry window. I don't see any use of the current list. You can only show so many BPC/O before you need to scroll and chances are high that the BPC/O I am looking for is not among the initial 10-15 entries. Instead, the massive list causes delay and stuttering when you scroll. Instead of the list, you should show a hint (similar to other windows where you have to select some option before you see actual content) to select a BPC/O location to view these. Fortunately, the Industry window remembers which can/hangar you selected last and shows only BPC/O from this one upon opening the window again, so this long list is only a one-time occurrence (unless you actively set the filter to all entries or when patches mess up the game). |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:33:00 -
[59] - Quote
The 'Job Duration' indication seems a little weird. From what I can see it's currently counting in
DAYS : HOURS : MINUTES : SECONDS or 113:08:06:48.
Which is really weird to be looking at. Could this be tweaked to read a little clearer, like this:
Job Duration: 113 days + 08:06:48
Or something like that. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
706
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:34:00 -
[60] - Quote
cia informant wrote:Are these numbers right? http://puu.sh/9o28p/7b8635a83f.jpgIf so I am really sad that a major part of my isk making would be practically killed with the run time being quadrupled. I can't imagine with all the changes that the margin is suddenly going to quadruple as well.
I didn't need to read any further. I also found this exact same issue. Those build quantities are wrong no matter how you do the math. I found this issue all over the place. Wonky and obviously incorrect material requirements are everywhere.
400 isotopes is perfect. 151 LO and HW are not. 9 Coolant is not. Everything else is. This is mathematically impossible if all quantities were modified by the same factor. The way rounding works the largest quantity in the list of materials should be the last to express any wastage.
Currently an ME 15 fuel block blueprint will have all perfect materials except for 1 additional unit of isotopes. This BP converts over to a perfect ME10% BPO. So why am I showing more waste than before on the smaller stacks, and perfect on the largest one?
BP materials quantities need an overall investigation. Almost every BP has incorrect quantities and inconsistent base material conversions. I could forgive if it were simply rounding issues at low quantities. But with large stacks this shouldn't be happening to the tune of 2-3% of base.
Teams: WRT the teams, I find that the cost modifier being expressed exactly the same as the ME and TE modifiers (integer percentage) to be very confusing. +6% for the team to get a 2% efficiency increase is not intuitive. It makes it look like I'm paying 6% to get 2%, which would make no sense at all.
I know it actually means an additional 6% only on the system index cost (or something to that effect) because I read the devblog. But budding/new player industrialists won't know that and will likely just shake their head and go "wtf is this obviously broken content? Someone's an idiot." and never use teams.
A tooltip or something to clarify would help greatly in this case. (If there already is one, I don't know how I missed it.)
UI Activity icon order needs a little tweak imo. ME and TE should be swapped. Up until now ME has always been listed before TE. But on the interface TE research comes before ME. Please swap those two around for consistency. It will avoid confusion.
Show info on BPs needs a little love. Finding the relevant info for research is an eye-bending spreadsheet data "Where's Waldo" exercise. Can we put in some sort of horizontal ruling to better separate ME/TE/Invention/etc sections? Big bold section headings or something plainly and visibly different would be awesome. Thx.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
|
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
415
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:38:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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.
First, this was mis-attributed to me. Honest mistake, but I don't want to take credit for someone else's comment.
Second, yes, I think BPO vs. BPC is necessary. I would also like an option for filtering out perfect ME and/or perfect TE blueprints so I can easily find what still needs researching. Also I would really recommend stacking items of identical statistics (i.e. item, type, ME, TE, and location) in the UI. The advantage being that it will probably reduce the number of blueprints in the stack by a huge factor. Perhaps you could add a column or show a number in the lower right of the BP icon. It wouldn't even need to be accurate past a certain point. E.g. it could just say 100+ at that point. Others may disagree on that last point. |
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
415
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:43:00 -
[62] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:The Confirm Tooltip for stoping manufacturing jobs is a bit inconvenient. "Canceling a job will not result in input materials being refunded nor job cost being refunded." Just say: "Materials will be lost and job cost will be retained!"
How about:
No inputs costs or materials will be refunded. |
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
415
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:44:00 -
[63] - Quote
Qoi wrote:A single big list of blueprints is pretty useless for anyone having serious amounts of blueprints. It only works for people with a few dozen blueprints, which doesn't include most industrialists.
The icons for Manufacturing, ME Research and TE Research are virtually indistinguishable on the jobs tab until you get out your magnifying glass. Please let them have distinct shapes!
Also why do the Industry and the Reprocessing icon have the same shape? This is just unprofessional.
I concur that it would be nice if the reprocessing icon where reminiscent of the industry icon, but not quite so similar. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:46:00 -
[64] - Quote
Also why is a REDUCTION in material cost indicated by +10% and vice versa? I don't understand the logic here. A reduction should be indicated with a minus sign and use of extra material should be indicated with a plus sign. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Noriko Mai
1381
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 15:04:00 -
[65] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Also why is a REDUCTION in material cost indicated by +10% and vice versa? I don't understand the logic here. A reduction should be indicated with a minus sign and use of extra material should be indicated with a plus sign. It's because waste is bad (-1) and indicated as extra cost (+X%). So it's -1 * +X = -X. Then comes the "reduction" with +10%. This leads to -X * +10% = -X*1.1. Errhm wait... mhh. I'm lost know |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 15:42:00 -
[66] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Also why is a REDUCTION in material cost indicated by +10% and vice versa? I don't understand the logic here. A reduction should be indicated with a minus sign and use of extra material should be indicated with a plus sign. It's because waste is bad (-1) and indicated as extra cost (+X%). So it's -1 * +X = -X. Then comes the "reduction" with +10%. This leads to -X * +10% = -X*1.1. Errhm wait... mhh. I'm lost know EDIT: Wait. I think I have it know. Reduction is good. Good == positive == +. It's like reducing your speed by 10%. X kph * 0.9.. mhh thats not +10%....
Seriously though, if the material level on a blueprint lowers the material cost with a percentage then that should be reflected on the industry window by taking the base material and LOWERING it with said percentage. A plus sign has no business there unless you use a T2 BPC. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Jinn Aideron
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:16:00 -
[67] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:... Also I'd that the renaming be "Refining" for all activities because reprocessed doesn't really make that much sense for ore :/ ... By now they'd be better of just naming it the mother-of-generics "processing", and boot the re- altogether! Just look at all the confusion over ore, scrap, recycling.
Processing works for anything. Including undesirable Amarr tourists...
Stealth deletes are bad. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:23:00 -
[68] - 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 -
[69] - 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 |
|
EMT Holding
EMT Holding Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:47:00 -
[70] - Quote
Not read through here to see if this has been fixed but the first time I select a different hangar for the input materials on a blueprint, the input counts don't update even if the materials are present in that hangar.
I can also research a blueprint past the maximum ME value. The "start" button is lit up and I pressed it. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1450
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 17:30:00 -
[71] - Quote
I have a few things:
- i often use eve with multiple clients, all of them in 1024x768 window mode, the window is simply too big for that - ME/TE are shown as positive values. that feels wrong. they reduce things, so they should be negative - the filter options for teams are lacking, at the very least, allow filtering for ME/TE - the bidding thing for teams isn't that great, the search requires confirmation via enter. - i was trying to find out which teams i am bidding for right now. could not find that info
something different:
- my control tower BPOs have disappeared
GRRR Goons |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
296
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 17:50:00 -
[72] - Quote
- Invented module/ship BPCs are requiring multiple T1 item variants as manufacturing input. It should be 1 per run. |
Arkumord Churhee
Bavarian Unstressed Mining Mob Synergy of Steel
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 18:31:00 -
[73] - Quote
Before I start, i'm kind of a semi-professional industrialist, using production and invention fairly often. God, it's such a clickfest! Some (or rather, most) of my points have already been mentioned in other posts, nevertheless i want to let you know what concerns me the most about the new interface. Let's go!
(1) I think it would be a good idea to have 2 modes... one "Experimental Mode" where you see all your blueprints everywhere, that lets you play with the numbers (pretty much what we have now), and a "Production Mode" that is for real use. I'd imagine it only shows the blueprints you can actually use from your current position considering skills AND facilities at the current location, showing tooltips about what can and can't be done when hovering over the activity symbol (e.g. you can produce from this blueprint as you have Supply Chain Management 5, but won't let you invent as you only have Scientific Networking 2). When doing that, make the activity symbol red if you don't have the necessary skills / no facilities at the blueprint location.
(2) A "Personal Assets"-like blueprint location categorization would be really helpful to see where a blueprint actually is (especially in systems with multiple stations AND long names)
(3) Pretty please, let us stack copies that share the same stats. I guess it's a major code change, but it will save SO MUCH space and clicking, especially when inventing. Also, if you do this, let us select how many of the stack to use on the current jobs. Example: "Invent 5 of my 20 Hobgoblin I BPC stack". Could also be a wheel-like thingy like you did in the central blueprint slot, but i think an input box would suffice. Come to think about it, a counter on how many BPC's with the same stats are in the same location would already be a great help and much less of a code change, i guess. On the other hand, if these changes about how inventions works go through, i'd guess after a while the overall number of BPC's will go down quite a lot, as you can get multiple (in fact, hundreds) of T2 BPC's from a single max-run T1 BPC, so people won't usually have more than 20-30 max-run copies of the same BPO, which would be a little more manageable (but still a scroll-heavy thing if you produce many things)
(4) It'd be great to have an overall choice of "Fancy" for the people only using industry once in a while, or "Fast" for the people who make a living with industry. "Fast" including tables instead of icons, more filtering options, etc. But at least show the name of items next to their icons. I can't tell apart minerals by their icons, and hovering over them is tedious. Also, if you click a blueprint, then scroll away from that blueprint in the selection area, you have no indication of what that blueprint is other than the symbol in the central slot. This is annoying, especially when it comes to ammo blueprints, which i imagine some vision-impaired players won't be able to tell apart. To top it off, while everything in there has a tooltip, the most central thing in the industry UI, the blueprint in question, does not have one.
(5) Let's pretend you're a noob. You see an hourglass with "+20%" written next to it. So, 20% more time, right? Well, it means the opposite. Make it say "-20%" (and accordingly change "Time Efficiency" to "Time Needed" or something along that line) and it's perfectly clear what it means.
(6) The "required skills" icon below the central blueprint slot really looks like something interactable. This might be confusing and unintuitive to some people when all it does is showing a tooltip. Maybe try choosing something more decent? Or even just leave out the "brackets" surrounding the green symbol, that might already do the trick.
(7) It says "job runs" when researching, and i feel it should be something along the lines of "levels to research". It even says "levels remaining" over the blueprint slot. "Job runs" might again be confusing to some.
(8) The run selection wheel changes quite rapidly when hovering the mouse on the central blueprint slot. As mentioned before, this is annoying and i propose a "dead zone" around the slot itself. Furthermore, i think on BPO's the run selection wheel should scale to the maximum number of runs possible in a single job until it hits the time limit.
(9) A thing i DO like is the clear display of how many jobs you have running. Sadly, the interface denies me starting any actual jobs to test it out (insufficient funds bug), but it still is a huge improvement over clicking through 11 production jobs only to get a mere info box saying "that last one clickfest you did there was totally unnecessary". I hope there is another clear visual effect when you've actually reached the maximum jobs (such as the start button turning red).
That may have sounded harsh in some points, but i want to say you did an amazing job. Even in it's current state, it's better than the old interface. Keep up the good work!
Also, if you haven't noticed, english isn't my primary language, so please excuse any spelling errors or grammatical mistakes. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
65
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 20:00:00 -
[74] - Quote
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 |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
716
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 21:21:00 -
[75] - 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 |
|
xartin
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 22:49:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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.
Followup to my previous post
One thing that is missing in the new industry UI blueprint list that would help anyone make some sense of the list is the "Blueprint Group" filter.
http://i.imgur.com/iygk2DB.png
I was online on sisi doing some further review testing and noticed that filter option in the blueprint list was missing. I very frequently use that to focus on researching a category of blueprint original types such as projectile weapons or frigates, battleships ect
This really needs to be re added somewhere.
While i appreciate ccp's effort to attempt to update the industry menu's and processes in eve you guys are essentially trying to fix something that was not broken. So far what i've seen has failed to replace what has currently existed on the live server for 6+ years. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
422
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 23:37:00 -
[77] - Quote
I very like that when having a manufacturing (for example) job active in UI and going into bidding on a team I have all non affecting bonuses grayed out, but I would love to be able to just sort the affecting teams to the top of the list
Also I would like to be able to have more filters on team specialization when bodding (say i'm looking for Cruiser, Heavy Interdictor specialist) Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Sales Alt negrodamus
SalesAltCorp
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 23:44:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
then put in some quality filters, and maybe let us use containers. |
Wydo
Loc-Nar Support Services
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 01:18:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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.
Other folks done a good job outlining what filters should and should not do.
My suggestion is that the initial window opening start with the "filter all" as the default. It is the first tab afterall. In this way I do not have to watch my poor compie have a seizure whenever I open the Industry window and load up my universal BPO/BPC supply. We should still retain the option to see that level of detail, but only if we request it/set filters appropriately.
On the industry window -- When inventing a T2 BPC, there is an hourglass and a diamond symbol for time and material efficiency percentages for the BPC outcome. Is there a way to include what the expected ME, TE and Runs of the Output BPC will be in that window. That other information is ok, but it is sort of obnoxious. I would prefer a way to tell immediately that I have not accidently chosen the wrong decryptor, and to know what ME/TE/Runs I can expect as the result of a successful invention. |
Evil Brock Nelson
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 01:19:00 -
[80] - Quote
Just adding on top of what everyone's already said previously
1. When viewing blueprints in list mode, this is what I got. I have no idea what the blue bars under TE and ME means. Can we use actual numbers instead of animating blue bar? I get that the blue bar is meant to be a visual representation of how much ME and TE the blueprint has. But in the list mode, it should not be about visual representation but just text.
2. Can we swap TE and ME column around so that its ME, TE in that order, same thing for activities icon. Currently on TQ, its ML and PL in that order. The show blueprint info shows ME and TE in that order, so why swap ME and TE on the Industry UI when its presented as other way around in every other UI? |
|
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 01:32:00 -
[81] - Quote
In 'Team Chartering' mode, is there a way to filter for teams you've already bid on?
Will there be functionality to pay for team bids from corp funds? |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
290
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 02:17:00 -
[82] - Quote
A few UI nits:
1) in the English client, the words "Outcome" and "Output" (ie, "Output Location") are used interchangeably. I suggest using the same word consistently, in other words, replace Outcome with Output.
2) The Job Duration timer is unintuitive. It took me a few moments to figure out it was in MM:DD:HH:SS format, and even afterwords it's just a jumble of numbers that you need to stop and mentally separate versus just parsing it at a glance. I suggest looking into displaying this as "01m 03d 22h 55s" , similar to the Skill Queue countdown timer.
3) Since there still appears to be a time duration limit of ~30 days on jobs, I suggest that the Job Duration clock's numbers turn red and stay that way until the user dials in a job whose length is under the limit rather than finding out that you hit the length limit only after you set everything up and hit Start. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1507
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 02:48:00 -
[83] - Quote
Did a little testing with the UI and manufacturing in general.
In general, I like the new layout but (and I really don't want to sound like a jerk here...) it seems like all you did was reorder everything that already exists. Some stuff is new, but mostly it's just a moved feature. Anywho, here are a few things I noticed that I would like to see changed/fixed.
- Showing all the BPs and their locations is great (viewing cans is nice) but I would REALLY like the ability to do a search based on the selections made. The filter is fine, but if I know what I want to build, can't I just type it in and see it for all locations?
- The Filter on the BP list is ok, but it's the basic one from the old industry UI. Can we get something like what is in the inventory window? It seems like that shouldn't be too far of a stretch. I really would like the option of selecting my own defined filters.
- The Use Blueprint, when selected outside of the industry window and when the industry window is open, doesn't focus the industry window to the 'used' blueprint.
- Use Blueprint is nice, but I thought there was some discussion about allowing a 'Use Blueprint - Max Runs' option? T2 blueprint copies are usually run for max runs (think modules, ammo) and this would reduce unnecessary clicking.
- For Facilities - Corp owned facilities seems to show any facility that I might have positive standings with., but those aren't corp. They aren't even alliance. Can we get more options here? Perhaps the fleet window is a place to look? Show stations based on standings could be an option. Also, maybe corp and alliance? What about an option for 'POS Facilities'?
- Jobs - It seems we lost the Owned by Corp, started by Me option. I don't want to typically see all my corp mates' jobs. Also there is no way to refresh the list? I'd rather this be a button refresh since some corps have hundreds of jobs running and an immediate load would lag the client until it loads.
- Manufacturing vs. Research - Why can I manufacture with a blueprint in a can and materials in the hanger but I can't do time research on the same blueprint in the can? It states - Cannot use this blueprint from it's current location. Same with copying.
- Copy times are still crazy long for some items - was this changed yet?
- Clicking on a facility doesn't bring up any text in the information window for the facility.
- Moved a bpo from a can to the item hanger and the Blueprints list did not update with the change of location - the moved bpo was not visible from the blueprints list when selecting the itme hanger.
- Refining UI - the icons and text are too small. I can barely read anything. Can this scale with size of window? Also, just showing the base numbers is not helpful. The old system you can see how much you are losing and...if you have your implant in! I shouldn't have to hover over all of them to see the differences. Can we get a better list with the icons?
- Reprocessing - Why do you allow the option to reprocess a blueprint? It gives a little red crossed out circle, but why bother? Can you remove this as an option if it's unnecessary? This was same type of thing that cluttered up the old UI.
Still getting this error, as reported before as well. Blueprint is in a can, but says I have all the materials to build it. Also tried in item hanger and still doesn't work.
Quote:Unable to install job due to the following reasons: Insufficient funds to pay job cost Cannot use this blueprint from its current location The job cost has changed
Error.ACCOUNT_FUNDS (0.0, 32885) Error.INVALID_BLUEPRINT_LOCATION (,) Error.MISMATCH_COST (28578, 32885)
That's all I have for now. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1507
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 02:51:00 -
[84] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:A few UI nits:
1) in the English client, the words "Outcome" and "Output" (ie, "Output Location") are used interchangeably. I suggest using the same word consistently, in other words, replace Outcome with Output.
2) The Job Duration timer is unintuitive. It took me a few moments to figure out it was in MM:DD:HH:SS format, and even afterwords it's just a jumble of numbers that you need to stop and mentally separate versus just parsing it at a glance. I suggest looking into displaying this as "01M 03d 22h 45m 55s" , similar to the Skill Queue countdown timer.
3) Since there still appears to be a time duration limit of ~30 days on jobs, I suggest that the Job Duration clock's numbers turn red and stay that way until the user dials in a job whose length is under the limit rather than finding out that you hit the length limit only after you set everything up and hit Start. The Job Duration timer's tooltip information should reflect this state in detail, and suggest the user reduce runs or research amount to get it under the set limit.
I would also grey out the Start button, since, like lack of skills or sufficient input materials, a job length that would surpass the allowed time limit would prevent the job from successfully starting. A side effect of doing this is that you would eliminate the current modal dialog window which pops up in such a circumstance.
4) The little "skills required" widget at the bottom-center is nice, but it's visually framed in such way that it's implied that it has an active function associated with it. I spent a little time clicking on it to see if it did anything before finally realizing that it's purely informational. Great feedback. I agree with all. The job duration is really confusing. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
563
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 06:42:00 -
[85] - Quote
The skill tool tip obscures the run input box in the new window. Normally, this wouldn't be an issue because TTs disappear as soon as your mouse courser leaves the TT-origin, but this TT, among a couple others in the new indu window allows interaction and thus stays put. This requires yet another mouse movement to make it disappear. Inconvenient.Gäó |
shaun 27
PERPIDE Ineluctable.
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 07:32:00 -
[86] - Quote
Not sure if someone has mentioned this but when i press use blueprint option(blueprint in design lab) The industry tab doesn't load up ie ui, I have to manually click the industry tab on the left to open it up. Is this intended because id love it to open the industry tab when i select use blueprint option on blueprint and not manually click on the industry tab on left side.
shaun |
Qoi
Exert Force
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 08:00:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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. I didn't see before that you could filter down to individual containers, that is indeed extremely helpful. I can't see the container names in the drop down though?
Having two additional drop down menus, one for the groupName and one for the typeName (the typeName one only becomes active when you selected a blueprint group) would be very much appreciated! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
563
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 08:10:00 -
[88] - Quote
shaun 27 wrote:Not sure if someone has mentioned this but when i press use blueprint option(blueprint in design lab) The industry tab doesn't load up ie ui, I have to manually click the industry tab on the left to open it up. Is this intended because id love it to open the industry tab when i select use blueprint option on blueprint and not manually click on the industry tab on left side.
shaun
Same happens to me with station facilities. Sometimes the indu window opens when I use right click -> Use Blueprint, sometimes it doesn't. When it does not, I get a strange series of sounds (creeking-baoom or creeking-pling-zoosh) at the first try with a BP, but no feedback at all for subsequent attempts.
Also, sometimes the Indu Window icon in the task bar opens the window with 1 click (as it is supposed to), sometimes I need a double click. |
Jaden Soniel
Almalexia Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 09:40:00 -
[89] - Quote
Hello,
So, after my account got reactivated i got a chance to try out the S&I changes. I do S&I every day in TQ so i was very excited to take a look at it in SISI.
Overall i'm satisfied by the changes. There are bugs and glitches at the moment ofcourse, but what works, those seems to be good. I only do copy, invention, and manufacturing in a starbase though, so my opinions are only related to those changes. I have to finish some copiing and invention, before i can comment on the changes related to the copiing, invention, and manufacture times, but for now they look promising as well.
I do have an idea about the new industry UI. Almost half of the indy window are taken up by the blueprint information. At first i liked the look of it, since it's been done well. It's pleasing to the eye, plus it shows a lot of information that i could find usefull when studiing the bps. But when i'm done with that, i'm more interested about the lower half of the indy window, since thats what i will interact the most during my day to day industry activities. Therefore my idea is that there could be implemented something similar than the compact mode of the inventory windows. Pictures sometimes worth a hundred words, so i made a picture to illustrate my idea.
http://i.imgur.com/RTbVRPe.png?1
So after pressing the little icon on the top, the window would start to shrink to the state that is on the right side of the picture. I would love to hear what the people, who work on this in the dev team, think about this.
Thanks, Jaden Soniel |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
563
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 10:55:00 -
[90] - Quote
When you want to produce things, you can enter a number of runs below the used blue prints. Aptly, the text box title is "Job Runs". However, when you want to research a blueprint the title stays the same, even though above it is stated as "Levels remaining". |
|
Drak d'Amral
Pandora Developments Boese Onkels
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 15:43:00 -
[91] - Quote
could you make it possible that i can select 10 blueprints and produce/invent/copy all of then in one click?
so what i mean is, i have tons of BPC in my hangar, and i need to start every day a lot of invention (10 per char), so it would be very nice, if can select 10 bpc, and install 10 jobs at the same time ( so 10 times the same sort of job) it would be less klicking and more time for fun
thx |
Neroo Tal
Order of the Golden Dawn
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 15:43:00 -
[92] - Quote
Just a request can you make the time say "d hh:mm:ss" instead of just "dd:mm:ss" So if I have a job taking 1:23:45:55 It would just appear as 1d 23:45:55 It's subtle but I think it'll improve readability |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3560
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 16:45:00 -
[93] - 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?
|
|
Selaria Unbertable
POS Mortem Renegades Of Silence
36
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 17:32:00 -
[94] - Quote
Just build a POS in my home system to see how it all works together. I have onlined 2 manufacturing arrays and two labs, one hyasyoda and one design lab. The latter does not show up in the list unless I put some bpcs (or something at all) into it.
Also, the reprocessing and compression arrays cannot be used unless 3.000m close to them. Didn't you want to change this? I can access their storage, but neither compress nor reprocess while out of range. Kind of annoying.
All in all, I'm quite satisfied with the changes so far. Praise the UI designer, or at least let them out of their dark cellars for a couple of hours |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
402
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 17:48:00 -
[95] - Quote
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. |
Selaria Unbertable
POS Mortem Renegades Of Silence
36
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 18:10:00 -
[96] - Quote
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. |
Qoi
Exert Force
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 18:35:00 -
[97] - Quote
Please allow me to see how many Science jobs i have remaining at the same time as showing me how many Manufacturing jobs i have remaining in the industry window and please display that information all the time and not just when a blueprint is selected. :-)
In the Show Info window the Material Efficiency level is shown first and then the Time Efficiency Level, in the industry window it is reversed.
It is not obvious how the activity selection buttons affect what is shown in the teams tab. When i select certain activities, the teams tab is empty, sometimes it is not.
When bidding on a team, i have to press enter to get suggestions for the system name, that is very unintuitive.
When bidding on a team, the mouse wheel changes the bid by 1 ISK, a step of 10,000 ISK sounds more reasonable given that the minimum bids are in the 100k range. Otherwise my mouse wheel will be broken before i reach the target ISK amount!
Please change the sign in front of the TE/ME modifiers, it is -10% material usage, not +10% :)
The top part of the industry window is crazy big, please add a compact mode so that you can use it comfortably on the minimum system requirements (1024x768 ), or even look at other things while having the industry window open! *gasp*
I have no idea what that thing in the industry window is that is around my Required Skills but it scares me.
The "Stop" button on the jobs tab should look much more dangerous, some evil red colour maybe. And the start button has the same colour as the deliver button, maybe make it green?
The "next" arrow on the top right corner of the industry window doesn't work.
Thanks for bringing the old Neocom icons back, they are so much nicer
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
563
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 18:46:00 -
[98] - Quote
Is the Ark, and possibly the other JF, supposed to have the normal cap parts as materials for construction plus the actual Providence as Extra Materials? |
DissentersWillAbhor
T.S.O.E Research And Development TSOE Consortium
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 19:20:00 -
[99] - Quote
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. |
peroxide chase
Mayer Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 20:09:00 -
[100] - Quote
in todays patch they added many new material requirements to t2 BP's (i tested with BPO's) See my post here for a SS example, its across the board with all items except ammo it seems, build requirements are still ~35% higher than TQ as well.
|
|
Noriko Mai
1381
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 22:41:00 -
[101] - Quote
Market changes:
Ammunition:
- The icons infront of the size categories are pointless. They implicate that the corresponding size has only charges of that kind. (Red Crystal = Aurora, green crystal = conflagration, etc...)
Apparel:
- The new category icons are just very small pictures of one item in that category and are barely to recognise. Please use pictograms instead. Like you did for the races in the ships category, which are very nice
Just search for "pictograms clothes" and you get the idea. [1]
Ship Equipment:
- Civillian Modules have a person as an icon. This suggests it has something todo with crew modules, crew itself or this billions of different NPCs you get in missions.
Pilot's License Extension (PLEX)
- This category has a subcategory with exactly the same name. It's is kinda pointless.
The 'Quafe' YC 116 T-Shirt is still in the wrong market category. It either belongs to Apparel > "gender" > Tops or the other T-Shirts belong to Special Edition Assets > Special Edition Apparel
EDIT: And thank you very much for adding the space between YC and 116. Who ever did that (it's already on TQ), I and my totaly normal OCD love you |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
69
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 22:45:00 -
[102] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:Market changes:[ Pilot's License Extension (PLEX)
- This category has a subcategory with exactly the same name. It's is kinda pointless.
EDIT: And thank you very much for adding the space between YC and 116. Who ever did that (it's already on TQ), I and my totaly normal OCD love you
This has been on TQ for quite some time |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 23:14:00 -
[103] - 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 -
[104] - 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 -
[105] - 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 -
[106] - 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 -
[107] - 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 |
|
Evil Brock Nelson
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 01:49:00 -
[108] - Quote
A bug...
http://i.imgur.com/lA1UoEk.png
In the active job window, when you click on the Job Runs in the middle of the UI, it keeps changing between 0 and 1. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
354
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 02:48:00 -
[109] - Quote
Aha! So this is where you hid the UI feedback!
Issues/feedback so far:
- Looks nice, but as suspected no way to resize it... boo.
- What happened to the optional material list view?
- Invention output does not show the output runs. [Fixed]
- Show info on a BPC has two categories which display the same information.
- I thought the bidding on Teams UI was broken until someone told me I had to press "Enter' after typing in the system name.
- The History does not show cancelled (halted?) jobs.
- The History doesn't show any jobs.
- Resizing the column headers screws up the column text.
- No indicators whether an invention was successful or not upon delivering jobs.
- Input/Output gets reset with every job!!!
- Halt/Stop is misleading, cancel seems more appropriate as you cannot resume it later and lose all materials.
- Under filters, "Universe" seems more appropriate than world.
P.S. Where is the invention changes thread? I mus have missed the memo but these inventions changes are extremely significant and need to be discussed. |
Shiganaru
Ignis Aeternus Imperium
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 04:14:00 -
[110] - Quote
*shudders*
Relevant Pictures - Scorch M BPC - ML 6, PL 14 Industry Tab - Materials Station ( 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 wou |
|
Scout Vyvorant
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 05:29:00 -
[111] - Quote
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? |
stoxxine
OLVI industries Inter Malleum et Incudem
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 06:56:00 -
[112] - Quote
Jaden Soniel wrote:Hello, Therefore my idea is that there could be implemented something similar than the compact mode of the inventory windows. Pictures sometimes worth a hundred words, so i made a picture to illustrate my idea. http://i.imgur.com/RTbVRPe.png?1
This would also help people on laptops etc. Disclaimer: The above was probably written drunk or by a friend on my pc or a hacker. No warranty for any misinformation provided. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 09:14:00 -
[113] - 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 -
[114] - 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 |
|
Noriko Mai
1382
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 10:29:00 -
[115] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Noriko Mai wrote:Market changes:Pilot's License Extension (PLEX)
- This category has a subcategory with exactly the same name. It's is kinda pointless.
EDIT: And thank you very much for adding the space between YC and 116. Who ever did that (it's already on TQ), I and my totaly normal OCD love you This has been on TQ for quite some time Not on TQ in my client... |
Arkumord Churhee
Bavarian Unstressed Mining Mob Synergy of Steel
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 11:27:00 -
[116] - Quote
Little additon to my last post:
I found myself trying to click in the inner black circle around the blueprint slot to change the # of runs fairly often. It's not very intuitive to click within the blue/orange circle as it's incredibly close to the blueprint itself.
Also, i'm noticing a considerable amount of lag when selecting a new blueprint (about 1 second usually, up to 4 sometimes) without any visual response that my click was indeed registered. Might be slightly infuriating.
The "insufficient funds" bug persists, but i found that if i play with the run numbers when copying blueprints, i can get it to say that the job cost is 0 isk, and these jobs are actually startable.
With another copy attempt (Hobgoblin I BPO, Max. Runs in both input boxes) i get told that: Insufficient funds to pay job cost The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Please fix, i want to try it out further! |
Shade Millith
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 11:31:00 -
[117] - Quote
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) |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
722
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 11:58:00 -
[118] - 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 |
|
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 13:15:00 -
[119] - Quote
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. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
722
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 13:30:00 -
[120] - 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 -
[121] - Quote
Nope. This problem happened once already during internal development, looks like it'll have to be cleaned with fire once again. |
|
War Fairy
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 14:17:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Shift select + deliver can be done with the current system. Not having it in the new system would be a downgrade. |
War Fairy
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 14:19:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Thank you!
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3560
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 14:22:00 -
[124] - 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. |
|
Qoi
Exert Force
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 16:04:00 -
[125] - Quote
I'm sure you are aware of this, but some comments on the changed material requirements.
You forgot the 100x multiplier on items requiring Robotic Assembly Modules. Well, and you also forgot to take the previous damagePerJob into account?
For Tech II Items, you should only multiply the materials that were previously affected by waste with 1.5, the old extra materials should just be multiplied by 1/0.9 (and rounded correctly, not rounded up "just because"). |
Qoi
Exert Force
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 16:43:00 -
[126] - Quote
Looking at the new Titan Base Material Costs makes my OCD tingle:
Quote: 111 Capital Shield Emitter
222 Capital Propulsion Engine
333 Capital Computer System 333 Capital Sensor Cluster
444 Capital Construction Parts
556 Capital Armor Plates 556 Capital Capacitor Battery 556 Capital Clone Vat Bay 556 Capital Corporate Hangar Bay 556 Capital Doomsday Weapon Mount 556 Capital Jump Bridge Array 556 Capital Jump Drive 556 Capital Power Generator 556 Capital Ship Maintenance Bay 556 Capital Turret Hardpoint
Why 556 instead of 555? How can you be so cruel? Can you please fix this, you had the chance of something beautiful here |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
715
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 16:58:00 -
[127] - Quote
I just noticed that the 'Planets' tab has moved out from the industry window and has set up its own little button burried deep in the Neocom menu, adding yet another button to my sidebar if I wish to have easy access to it. Why can't planets simply be a tab in the industry window like olden times? My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Sijbrands
Sunwise Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 17:43:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.29Also 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.
After clearing the cache I still have the error
Unable to install job due to the following reasons: Insufficient funds to pay job cost
Error.ACCOUNT_FUNDS (0.0, 200)
|
Qoi
Exert Force
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 18:00:00 -
[129] - Quote
Sijbrands wrote: After clearing the cache I still have the error
Unable to install job due to the following reasons: Insufficient funds to pay job cost
Error.ACCOUNT_FUNDS (0.0, 200)
Make sure your active corp wallet has enough funds to start the job. Even if its not a corp job. |
Sijbrands
Sunwise Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 19:18:00 -
[130] - Quote
Qoi wrote:Sijbrands wrote: After clearing the cache I still have the error
Unable to install job due to the following reasons: Insufficient funds to pay job cost
Error.ACCOUNT_FUNDS (0.0, 200)
Make sure your active corp wallet has enough funds to start the job. Even if its not a corp job.
Funds are fine, tried different stations in highsec, they all gave me the error. (server is going offline for 20 minutes, cleared all cache files again) |
|
Shiganaru
Ignis Aeternus Imperium
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 19:30:00 -
[131] - Quote
@CCP Nullabor and @CCP Ytterbium:
Well, if it is by design, fine. . . but it seemed odd and potentially unfair to someone who does only 1 run at a time, compared to someone who runs 100s of runs at a time. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
565
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 22:03:00 -
[132] - Quote
Where do I see the team that I won for my system? Concord told me that I won a team auction, yet there's nothing to select in the system. The team does not show up in the overall list nor in the team list for the system. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
74
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 22:32:00 -
[133] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Noriko Mai wrote:Market changes:Pilot's License Extension (PLEX)
- This category has a subcategory with exactly the same name. It's is kinda pointless.
EDIT: And thank you very much for adding the space between YC and 116. Who ever did that (it's already on TQ), I and my totaly normal OCD love you This has been on TQ for quite some time Not on TQ in my client...
http://imgur.com/vZhjZ2h
I am not sure what client you are using, but that was taken not 5 minutes ago on TQ |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2671
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 00:08:00 -
[134] - Quote
i am wondering will there be a UI notification for finished jobs? For example like we get for for skills or mails? eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
74
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 00:19:00 -
[135] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:i am wondering will there be a UI notification for finished jobs? For example like we get for for skills or mails?
No, please no, I beg you no
If there is, please make it able to be turned off |
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
23
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 07:05:00 -
[136] - Quote
I'm a little bothered with the conversion of ME and TE.
A ME2 BP will be converted in a ME6 BP (from what i see in the sisi client)
preME2 was 3.3% waste and postME6 is 6%
So for a 1000 material needed
Previously, you needed 1033 material. Now it's 1111.111111111...... x0.94 wich is 1044,44444.
Replace the word material with Capital part and you get my point.....
Unless the BP is perfect ME, manufacturing is more expensive in this SiSi build.
Shouldn't preME2 be a postME7 ? (1111.11111111 *.93 = 1033.333) |
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Northern Associates.
23
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 08:56:00 -
[137] - Quote
Right now on Live sever we are able to start copy jobs based on max time (30days) on Singularity the maximum number of max run copies we are allowed to start is 20 that means that we are now forced to login every ~10 days instead of 30..
I'd very much like to see it stay the same based on time not based on number of copies.. I understand that it means you have to adjust your stupid slider that none needs or wants but right now its terrible. |
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 09:17:00 -
[138] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:i am wondering will there be a UI notification for finished jobs? For example like we get for for skills or mails?
edit: a flashing industry button on the neocom for example
I agree, the notifications would be really helpful, especially when finishing something quicker like inventions. |
Oxide Ammar
137
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 10:40:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Why can't BPO/BPCs organised in window like the one in market ? the same categories like in the market with 2 tabs one for BPO and one for BPC under each tab it list the whole BPs with columns showing ME/TE/ No. of Copies/Location ....etc.
Example:
- Ship Equipment -- Propulsion --- Afterburner ---- 100MN Afterburner I BPO ---- 10MN Afterburner I BPO
and another tab showing BPC at same level....same like when you browse between BPOs in market tab, as soon as you go to lowest level it show you the BPOs under that category till you click on one it jumps you to sell/buy orders with columns showing price/location...etc.
You should follow same concept. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing. |
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 11:48:00 -
[140] - Quote
I would like to point out something about the different activity icons in the industry window. After the last patch they became probably too large and aren't that consistent with the rest of the window. The size of these icons was better in previous patch. Could you make them a bit smaller again, tho I like the update of the orange lines to the activity icons to show which activities are available or not for particular BP.
Current version: Screenshot (good but probably too big) Previous version: Screenshot (better in arrangement and size) |
|
Selaria Unbertable
POS Mortem Renegades Of Silence
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 12:49:00 -
[141] - Quote
Just tried to build an Orca in a large ship assembly and getting this error:
Quote: Unable to install job due to the following reasons: The job cost has changed
Error.MISMATCH_COST (33973122, 27974130)
And yes, I did clear the cache and tried again, same result. Also, it seems that output locations are not correctly used, some of the parts I build ended up in corp divisions I did not enter. Very strange...
Another thing that bothers me is the Job cost tooltip, which is currently not very informative. Are you planning to extend it in a way as was shown in dev blog entry a while ago? |
Noriko Mai
1383
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 14:25:00 -
[142] - Quote
Stations now have a tab called "Materials"?! |
Jinn Aideron
39
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 18:42:00 -
[143] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:Stations now have a tab called "Materials"?! A lot of things have, which is pretty cool. Get a 'feel' what's in something w/o searching for their BPs in the market first. For manufacturing as well as processing. Will be interesting to see how far they take it!
Stealth deletes are bad. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 22:59:00 -
[144] - Quote
Haven't had time for extensive testing, but immediately got an idea for the horrible list view at the bottom:
Could you please allow us to create personal filters the same way as we can do in the regular inventory panel? Meaning a player managed list of filters that are able to access properties, locations and requirements of blueprints and capabilities and materials of the current installation. Then let us specify one filter as the default one and gone should be the loading times or hassle with thousands of list entries to be scrolled.
Examples:
- T2 ship BPCs the character can build
- T1 BPOs which can be build with the materials in the current source location (container/hangar)
- T2 BPCs with a full run build time up to 3 days
- etc... (you get the idea)
This way everybody could create for each character a specialized set of named filters to quickly (and only) see the blueprints he/she really needs.
In case you cannot free the required space in the left of that list area, simply add one button to access the filter management view and one dropdown menu to the lists header bar.
I can think of a few other solutions on how to improve that list issue, but this one might very well be one of the most flexible and user friendly ways of doing it.
Ah, and pleaseeeeee give us an option to completely disable all kinds of stupid animations in the industry panel. Blinking borders/shapes and growing ME/TE bars in a table belong in mobile phone apps or kid's games, not in an interface that is associated with usage patterns highly depending on time efficiency! Wasted developer resources imho, better to be spent on real usability improvements (like my proposal above) ;) |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3600
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 23:13:00 -
[145] - Quote
A couple of things.
Soldarius wrote:Teams: WRT the teams, I find that the cost modifier being expressed exactly the same as the ME and TE modifiers (integer percentage) to be very confusing. +6% for the team to get a 2% efficiency increase is not intuitive. It makes it look like I'm paying 6% to get 2%, which would make no sense at all.
I know it actually means an additional 6% only on the system index cost (or something to that effect) because I read the devblog. But budding/new player industrialists won't know that and will likely just shake their head and go "wtf is this obviously broken content? Someone's an idiot." and never use teams.
A tooltip or something to clarify would help greatly in this case. (If there already is one, I don't know how I missed it.)
Seconding this very loudly. There's a lot of new complexity in industry, which is a good thing... as long as it's all very, very clear. In this case the most beneficial thing to do would be to clarify in the tooltip that salary cost is a multiplier on job install cost.
Furthering that "as long as", what is the bar on the "System Cost Index" actually showing? Is it relative cost (if so relative to what)? Actual percent cost to install? It isn't really clear, so it could do with a tooltip explaining it. The dividers or "blocks" on the bar also look uneven, not sure if that's intentional.
And then a couple of points for discoverability, leading a new player to find industry: We've got this new "Materials" tab on actual items. Dunno if it's here to stay or not, but if it is, throw the blueprint for an item onto it as well. If a blueprint doesn't exist because it's only invented, indicate that too. Someone exploring the info on his ship then discovers he could build it too, and can from there either show info on the blueprint and find out how it's built, how invention works, etc. And, if it's not there to stay, add a tab with this information anyway. Building just one step further on that last point, add a button to open the industry window to blueprint show info screens. And finally, "Industry ISIS", in a sense. Add a tab (or add to existing tabs, whichever) for blueprints which shows what skills and items could be useful for a build or job. It already tells you you need Industry I for some Tech I item - include that there's a bonus from Material Efficiency, that Research helps you research ME faster, that Science helps you copy faster, etc, and for invention, include info that decryptors are a thing and are useful. [/list]
The idea, basically, is that the new UI does a pretty good job (at least from my jaded eye...) of explaining stuff, but it couldn't hurt if other things helped lead a player in and 'prime' them with some of what they'll need. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Brainless Bimbo
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 23:30:00 -
[146] - Quote
General: Noticed that stuff that cannot be reprocessed has reprocess in select/dropdown menu, stuff like tags civi ships that are currently thrash only.
would like to see every station with base 33% efficiency with standings raising it to the 50 (or 53) % level at 10 standing (+2 per lvl) with scrap metal processing being added on top, standing have to have more impact than just tax costs.
Manu UI: Selection of location to current station does not stick, u change station and it remains at the station you just left not the current station u arrived at as in present system
A clear all button would be useful or the ability to drag out the BP to a can/station items/inventory/cargohold (possible on LH of industry icons under roundel, could move the start button in to balance) so you get an empty interface the same as when you start a job
invention does not always recalculate when u change decryptor, may be a refresh function button, u start in this state and only once the job is started does the stat change
can we have a confirm/cancel function after the start button process as we have at present as its a good saftey measure that saves a lot of grief
You can use BP-¦s from inside cans, but materials that are in cans cannot be utilized, this is an inconsistency. If you allow one the other should be also enabled. (lots of ppl keep salvage, descriptors etc in cans for space reasons)
more l8r already dead, just haven-¦t fallen over yet.... |
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
750
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 05:59:00 -
[147] - Quote
The fact that new players can't find the areas where different ores are found without going to the Wiki (where it is hard to find) or the internet is still a big stumbling point in the industrial knowledge chain. If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe. |
Sales Alt negrodamus
SalesAltCorp
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 08:35:00 -
[148] - Quote
I agree with everything mynnnnnna has said.
Building on UI issues:
While it now makes sense what the green plus on a facility's activitys means, it is pretty subtle. I feel that it would help if it were made more visually distinctive that a given faculty is a good choice to use / has bonuses.
Now that invention finally works (at least on my preferred products) I've noticed a UI "glitch" with decryptor selection.
When you click on the decryptor you want to use, you get the UI feedback that the decryptor is selected. But it isn't actually selected until you click it twice. I was very confused as to what was going on with that until for awhile. This is something I feel needs streamlining, eg "click once and it is selected".
With job payments, I'm feeling that its' a little goofy in function at the moment.
Currently, when I pay for a job on TQ it comes out of my personal wallet. Now, isk is coming out of whatever my active corp wallet division is. Now it might be a failing of my organizational skills but I don't really use corp wallets for my industry so that was a bit of a surprise.
I think some more visibility on where the isk to pay for the job is being sourced from would be helpful, and perhaps the choice to pull it out of personal wallets.
We also really really need a better sorting functionality with the interfaces. I would really like to be able to sort based on blueprint criteria, faculty criteria, or team criteria. Because its' a scrollfest with all three right now, and that sucks to do.
UI bug maybe on this?
For example, I have a small trimark armor blueprint. I want to do some ME research. It shows a duration and a cost, which is expected. Whether the tax is anywhere near realistic or not is another question, but it shows something.
Now I throw in an erebus bpo just for ***** and grins and look at the cost of ME research, it shows a "slightly" higher time but zero cost. Methinks that's a bug. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
568
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 10:27:00 -
[149] - Quote
The Indu window seems to be a bit slow, or lacks a Refresh button.
I tried to copy some stuff and use different hangars for the BPs and the materials (same for Invention). Now, in the BP hangar there is obviously no Datasheets and other stuff available for copying and therefor the Indu window tells me that I cannot copy or invent. When I switch the hangar to the respective material hangar, the window then still shows me that I lack the materials but when I click on [Start], the process initiates. That is a little bit confusing.
--
With regards to the Teams Tab: Would it be possible to be able to search/filter for specific regions. The point is that, if I am in, for instance, Khanid or in Molden Heath looking for a Caldari or Gallente Team, I ffind the World option too inclusive and going there is a bit time intensive. The Types filter is a bit helpful, however, there I look up all $RandomType-º teams of all races, which limits the choice a little bit but still is too inclusive. The ability to look up teams of a specific Region (or Empire, which I would prefer even more) would be of great help here. |
Alain Kinsella
123
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 10:51:00 -
[150] - Quote
Will also second Mynnna's points. In addition:
-> Need a 'reset' button of some sort on the main screen. After several minutes of toying, swapping and jiggering in the panel I've got all sorts of nutty settings that aren't easy to reset. Perhaps add a 'red X' to the blueprint in the middle, like you do with the team slot? Right now the best way to do this is just to close and re-open the Indy panel, which seems unintuitive.
-> I am unable to withdraw a bid on a team - or at least not in any way that I can find. I grabbed the wrong team at first, which is fine for when we're all starting out, but if the bid is for some significant sum you're going to get inundated with Support tickets down the line.
-> Took a quick peek at the new PI panel. Need to play with it more on the PI character, but looks like a good replacement. Its name feels off, but TBH I can't think of a better one anyway. Ambssador from Uru.-á (Search this term to find my site)
Currently Retired (pending changes to RL concerns).-á Have Fun y'all.
|
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
568
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 12:05:00 -
[151] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote: -> Took a quick peek at the new PI panel. Need to play with it more on the PI character, but looks like a good replacement. Its name feels off, but TBH I can't think of a better one anyway.
I am not a fan of that. PI is industry and should be in the industry window... now I need another button in the NeoCom bar to access industry-related features. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
568
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 12:52:00 -
[152] - Quote
Oh, and what I just now realized again and what I absolutely need is the option ALL in the Owned by me/my corp. I do corp jobs and personal jobs all the time and I don't want to switch around these two options, I want to see ALL my jobs at a glance. It's frustrating that your view gets reset with every session change and on TQ I have it often that I do something in "Owned by me", jump a gate, and the indu window resets to "Owned by my corp". |
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
750
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 13:00:00 -
[153] - Quote
Looks like PI is using A/B testing. We need screen shots. If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe. |
Selaria Unbertable
POS Mortem Renegades Of Silence
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 20:11:00 -
[154] - Quote
Another short test on Sisi revealed a bug with the output location in POS arrays (and possibly stations as well). Everything is routed to the first corporation division, no matter what division you select, for manufacturing as well as research.
Oh, and the ui still does not remember any previously used divisions when running similar jobs (e.g. invention), which kind of defeats the purpose of less clicking, more doing other things |
Veldar Reku
Wu Xi Holdings
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 21:21:00 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
I'm sorry, but that behaviour is not very useful. Input/Output granularity should be at most per facility. Or perhaps per activity and facility but everything more specific is not very useful. More ideally, it could be configurable with menufacturing specific option window,
Remember I/O locations per,
- type <-- this could probably not even exist
- activity and facility
- facility
- one setting for everything
Per Type doesn't even work anyway. If I have 3 blueprints of same invented item (say DC II), each copy defaults to first hangar irrespective of choices for previous blueprint.
Currently, it the settings is global, which is actually more useful than current Sisi version.
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 21:28:00 -
[156] - Quote
When doing the team chartering thing, there is no reason to have the upper third of the window filled with empty grey (happens when no BPC/BPO is selected). Please allow the team view to be maximized. Given the number of teams, that will obviously be very useful to not to have to scroll all over the place.
Also, even allowing teams to be put into that box above when they are not in the same system is unnecessarily confusing.
|
Qoi
Exert Force
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 22:16:00 -
[157] - Quote
The Industry Interface has some nice and logical structure to it, input materials are on the left, the blueprint characterising the manufacturing process is the center and the output is shown on the right.
However the drop down menu for selecting the input location is on the right side next to the output. It should be on the left side, next to the input materials! |
Selaria Unbertable
POS Mortem Renegades Of Silence
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 00:04:00 -
[158] - Quote
Qoi wrote:The Industry Interface has some nice and logical structure to it, input materials are on the left, the blueprint characterising the manufacturing process is the center and the output is shown on the right.
However the drop down menu for selecting the input location is on the right side next to the output. It should be on the left side, next to the input materials!
Not a bad idea. If you put the input selection below the materials tab, you have a nice flow starting on the left, where you select your input, then the center of the window with the runs and the output on the right. Sounds good to me, and the input selection is no longer alone in the far upper right corner of the window. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2678
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 03:50:00 -
[159] - Quote
there should be a way to collapse the whole top section of the build industry window for easy browsing through the blueprint table. I don't have many blueprints and i already wanted to increase the height of the table for more comfortable browsing.
I got excited as i found a little arrow button on the bottom right but it removes the table instead of collapsing the top section eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 09:11:00 -
[160] - Quote
Selaria Unbertable wrote:Qoi wrote:The Industry Interface has some nice and logical structure to it, input materials are on the left, the blueprint characterising the manufacturing process is the center and the output is shown on the right.
However the drop down menu for selecting the input location is on the right side next to the output. It should be on the left side, next to the input materials! Not a bad idea. If you put the input selection below the materials tab, you have a nice flow starting on the left, where you select your input, then the center of the window with the runs and the output on the right. Sounds good to me, and the input selection is no longer alone in the far upper right corner of the window.
That would ruin the look of the window, I like the overall arrangement, it makes sense that input and output is both on the same side. And I don't want to mess with the material section I want to see clearly what are all the materials, plus you got all kinds of types of materials it would then make them too small and narrow, and wouldn't probably work as the material section needs to be flexible for all the different types. |
|
Jinn Aideron
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 12:59:00 -
[161] - Quote
Qoi wrote:However the drop down menu for selecting the input location is on the right side next to the output. It should be on the left side, next to the input materials!
- The left side, input, is very dynamic in size requirements. Its contents grow numerous quickly, and the GUI arrangement has to account for this spatially.
- Often trodden mousepaths should be short. Input to output selection, and back, is going to be one of those.
Qoi wrote:The Industry Interface has some nice and logical structure to it, input materials are on the left, the blueprint characterising the manufacturing process is the center and the output is shown on the right. I could make an argument for why it's (also) logical to have input/output selection orthogonal to material flow, but I expressly won't. That'd be arguing aesthetics.
Form follows function. And ought to.
Stealth deletes are bad. |
Limarr
Rennfeuer Curatores Veritatis Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 20:59:00 -
[162] - Quote
There is an extra window now for planetary colonies. Good.
Can you add the planetary launches tab from the log to this window?
Than we have all in one place for PI :) |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3754
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 00:51:00 -
[163] - Quote
* Could we PLEASE get back the column, or make it configurable, for BPO group!
I have several hundred BPO, and sorting by group (example: frigates, capital components, etc.) is far more useful than by name.
* I'd LOVE TO HAVE a button to collapse the upper BPO window, so I can see more of the lower BPO list, as again I have a lot of BPO. Search isn't very convenient all the time.
* A button to reload current jobs list would be nice. Silly to have to change tabs and back.
EDIT: All my BPO that were in active research have vanished. I hope this is just a SiSi "thing". |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
479
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 05:17:00 -
[164] - Quote
Not being able to resize the window makes it so that part of the specialties name is covered by their percentage modifier. This looks really terrible. Installer is the last category visible when the bp or facility (or both) have a long name. With no left right slider and no indication that Install date and end date are categories you are hiding them for no reason.
Why is there no left-right slider on windows? Why is the industry screen not resizeable? There is still no good way to sort bpc, I cannot move them out of cans or into cans from the only interface that tells me how many runs are left on a bpc.
The name of the active blueprint is not listed anywhere in the main part of the window, I dont need a giant icon of the blueprint. I do need the name of it somewhere. Because to the really bad circular slider "function" there is no rollover popup that says the name of the active blueprint (when doing copy, the name is available in the outcome icon rollover)
Heavy Energy Neutralizer I blueprint Ainaillie Station Duvolle Lab factory Sinq Lasion Tax 10% Metallurgy 5 ME Change- Cost - Time 0-1 - 425 - 00:00:11:49 0-2 - 2020 - 00:00:28:08 0-3 - 7209 - 00:01:06:57 0-4 - 22728 - 00:02:39:05 0-5 - 66375 - 00:06:18:00 0-6 - 182673 - 00:15:00:00 0-7 - 464305 - 01:11:37:30 0-8 -1040927 - 03:12:51:12 0-9 - 1878784 - 08:09:56:15 0-10 - 2679786 - 20:00:00:00
1-2 - 591 - 00:00:16:19 2-3 - 1406 - 00:00:38:49 2-4 - 9442 - 00:02:10:57 2-5 - 37530 - 00:05:49:53 2-10 - 2296236 - 19:23:31:53
Going just from 0-1 and then 1-2 you save 1,004 isk as opposed to going from 0-2 in one step. From 0-1,1-2,2-3, (three steps) you save 4,787 isk as opposed to going from 0-3 in one step.
from 0-10 costs 2,679,786 Going from 0-2,2-10 costs 2,298,256 A savings of 381,530 isk The time seems to be consistent but i have not fully checked that yet
I have an Ark bpc that is ME 8 and PE 18 In the show info window it lists the Base ship Providence and 60 Starship RAM @ 95% damage the two tabs do not agree with each other nor do either of them agree with the Industry window. http://eve-files.com/dl/268855 Also ships like the ark with many materials as is seen in the screenshot, run into the upper border and overlap each other in the different categories because nothing scales.
In general there is less information instantly available and its harder to see what is missing while moving materials in other locations around. (say i had materials in the corp hanger that i wanted to move from one to another, the items missing roll over is just that, a roll over, so i cant leave it up while i move materials from one corp hanger to another. As i could previously) Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Kronossan
Crunchy Crunchy The Obsidian Front
50
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 07:47:00 -
[165] - Quote
In the new industry window, when I hover over the material information button I notice that the tooltip information is ordered in a very illogical manner.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1406/ordering.jpg
As you can see, the material groups are ordered differently from the way they're ordered in the industry window (which you can see to the left of the tooltip).
It would also be helpful if the individual materials were ordered alphabetically. I know I'm nitpicking here but having Zydrine appear first followed by Nocxium is just weird :p |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
74
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 10:32:00 -
[166] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:* Could we PLEASE get back the column, or make it configurable, for BPO group!
I have several hundred BPO, and sorting by group (example: frigates, capital components, etc.) is far more useful than by name.
This is also useful because of teams!
* I'd LOVE TO HAVE a button to collapse the upper current BPO window, so I can see more of the lower BPO list, as again I have a lot of BPO. Search isn't very convenient all the time.
* Showing every BPC is a PITA to scroll. Change to a count column for identical BPC / BPO.
* A button to reload current jobs list would be nice. Silly to have to change tabs and back.
* Some BPC show as owned by corp, and at current station. I cannot find these in any hangar [no POS exists]. Oddly, BPO in corp hangar do not appear in the UI. [I assume only BPO in POS are "owned by corp"?]
* I'm surprised the ME and TE info on BPO/BPC isn't displayed as the same in the UI (icon, bargraph, percent).
* Moving BPO doesn't seem to refresh. Is it cached for X minutes? If so, it should say so on UI!
* Actions tooltips should use actual terms: "Create a tech II blueprint copy..." should be "Invent a tech I blueprint copy to create a tech II blueprint copy", and "Create tech III..." should be "Reverse engineer an Ancient Relic to create a tech III blueprint copy".
* Required components can overflow the display area (example: jump freighter).
* Having to move BPO / BPC between arrays is a PITA. Please tell me this doesn't have to be done [no POS so can't check].
EDIT: All my BPO that were in active research have vanished. I hope this is just a SiSi "thing".
If they are in research at a pos, then yes, it is normal to have them go "POOF" on SiSi as they don't copy over POS information when doing a mirror. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 13:44:00 -
[167] - Quote
Went to research a Rapier BPO's ME, and it said that the R.Db was going to have 60% damage? When the job finishes, I will see if that is the case or if it is just a display bug. |
Kaultyrr Feirynn
Strength Through Factual Unification Island of Misfit Toons
10
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 04:31:00 -
[168] - Quote
When perusing Blueprint material requirements in the show info window on the test server, I am confused by the ME and TE. For instance, I invented a -3ML, 0PL, 3 Run prospect BPC before the Cruis changes and now it is a ML7 PL18 3 run BPC. Also, my previously researched Fuel block BPOs (ML40, PL something large) are now ML10, PL20. Both these blueprints also have a wastage factor listed that reflects the old system. The fuel block BPO show info window, materials tab, also indicates it uses much more materials on the test server than it does at ML40 on TQ. When I actually put in a fuel block manufacturing job, however, I only use 1 more coolant, heavy water, and liquid ozone than on TQ. So this yields several questions:
1. Are invented BPCs now going to have positive ME/TE under the new system? 2. Is it a bug that ME and TE are still called ML and PL in the show info window? 3. Are ME and TE called ML and PL because they still are being calculated in the old manner, as my fuel block BPOs indicate? 4. Why is there still a wastage factor in the show info window for blueprints? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
576
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 14:44:00 -
[169] - Quote
Something I noticed after today's Sisi patch:
I have the indu window's filter lists set up as follows:
Ownership | Location | Inventories Owned by corp | Abaim - Design Laboratory | All Inventory Locations
Now I just finished a couple of copy shops in this Design Lab and they were put into the respective hangar (I am impressed that this worked, to be quite frank).
However, with this filter set up I see all BPC/BPO that I have in All Inventory Locations all over the universe, not just those in the Abaim - Design Laboratory. The way I understand this filter list, or how I think it should work, is that All Inventory Locations in the selected Location are considered, not All Inventory Locations from all possible Locations with blueprints in the hangars.
As seen in this screenshot: Left window is the corp hangar (Invention division) of the Design Lab, with the copy job's results (another division in this design lab holds an Archon, Inquisitor and Large Trimark I BPO). The Industry window, however, shows me a whole lot more BPC/Os, from various hangars/hangar divisions far away. This is utterly inconvenient. When I select a location and use the fancy functionality of your new Indu Window, I want to see what's in that location and not elsewhere. I also don't want to be coerced into selecting the actual division the BPCs are stored in all the time (there are use case where this is necessary, but in this case it absolutely is not necessary or even convenient).
This problem only seems to happen when there are blueprints in several different hangars. I also have a couple of stations and an ammo assembly array where there's only 1 hangar with a blue print and there I don't even have the "All Inventory Locations" as a drop down menu option.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
576
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 15:27:00 -
[170] - Quote
Another thing that does not update is the jumps count in the Facilities tab, or elsewhere in the indu window. I needed to a couple of jumps from Abaim to Bahromab (4 jumps). I opened the indu window in Abaim and left it open during the AP travel and when I was in Bahromab,I was still 4 jumps. This should update just as instantaneously as market and asset window do. |
|
Tydius Nolad
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 04:33:00 -
[171] - Quote
Two issues I've encountered. Apologies if they are known issues:
1. POS Assembly Arrays don't have correct ME modifiers. They seem to have the same modifiers for ME that they do for TE.
2. T2 BPCs that were not invented but were copied from the original seem to have a magic boost in ME/TE numbers. For example, I have a T2 BPC that is ME0/PE0 on TQ. On sisi, it's ME9/TE18. I'm not clear if that is on purpose. |
TeeKay Latef
Birds of Steel Kraftwerk.
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 11:08:00 -
[172] - Quote
It would be nice if you could toggle between 'materials needed' (total) and 'materials missing'. Alternatily the mouseover could reveal the relative amount, blue if there is more left than needed or red for materials missing.
But im still getting the "insufficent funds" error, i wasn't able to do much. |
Luiz Rodrigues
CMA Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 11:28:00 -
[173] - Quote
Receved this error when try use blueprint:
"Unable to install job due to the following reasons: The job cost has changed
Error.MISMATCH_COST (865, 679)"
Already try clean cache, and same error. |
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 14:23:00 -
[174] - Quote
Luiz Rodrigues wrote:Receved this error when try use blueprint:
"Unable to install job due to the following reasons: The job cost has changed
Error.MISMATCH_COST (865, 679)"
Already try clean cache, and same error.
I am getting similar errors all the time with any BP, for any kind of job, whether corp or personal. I've cleared cache multiple times. The first day tried, I could do corporation jobs, then I cleared cache to see if it helps with personal jobs, but it made errors show in corp jobs as well. |
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
415
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 04:17:00 -
[175] - Quote
I would like to be able to right-click on the output item and get the standard menu for it -- View Market Details, Info, etc. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
239
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 07:35:00 -
[176] - Quote
I'd like to try out bidding for a team; Team Chartering Select team (2 days 16 hrs remaining on auction) Bid; current bid 100,000 isk Enter current system for Solar System Search Enter bid amount; Tried various amounts between 100,001 and 5 mil Bid button stays greyed out.
I've been trying on and off for several days with the same result.. Unable to place a bid.
And then there's this; Avoiding repeats of which is only possible by relogging Unable to install job due to the following reasons: The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Error.MISMATCH_COST (87372, 78709) Error.MISMATCH_TAX (8737, 7871) My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Dex Nederland
Lai Dai Infinity Systems The Fourth District
203
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 14:51:00 -
[177] - Quote
A refresh button/auto-refresh when a change is made - be it materials, container/hangar, or even corp wallet being used. As others have mentioned, this functionality is currently "hidden" in setting/resetting the Output hangar. Seems rather straightforward to add the ubiquitous web-browser like refresh button to the UI (the old UI has this functionality).
I do not recall if the new UI currently shows the wallet in use. If it does not, it should, possibly even with amount available. This is part of a tool for CEO/Director/privileged manufacturers where production is tied to different accounts (for example, a corporation product line account and a blueprint access accounts). Lai Dai Infinity Systems |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
342
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 15:07:00 -
[178] - 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 |
|
Alexander Lion
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 15:09:00 -
[179] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I'd like to try out bidding for a team; Team Chartering Select team (2 days 16 hrs remaining on auction) Bid; current bid 100,000 isk Enter current system for Solar System Search Enter bid amount; Tried various amounts between 100,001 and 5 mil Bid button stays greyed out.
I've been trying on and off for several days with the same result.. Unable to place a bid.
You have to enter he System and Press "Enter" the System gets lockt and the Security lvl is added. Now you can place a bid amount in the field below and the "Bid" button should be highlighted. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
54
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 12:13:00 -
[180] - Quote
I only just found the "view in industry" feature on outputted blueprints. This functionality is fantastic, I imagine you envisioned it as the core of a complex but discoverable industry system buuuuuut....
Like I said, I only just found it. It's only accessible through a context menu on something you might not expect to have a context menu. Perhaps you should set it to the left click action instead of show info and add a show info button? Or add a very prominent button to show the output in the industry window. |
|
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
751
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 12:22:00 -
[181] - Quote
The fact that you can't show info on a required item and get a clear indication of how close you can get the item and how. Might be just for new players working thru NPE missions but it needs to happen.
ie: This item is found in missions. This item has to be reprocessed from ore and can be found with in 2 jumps from the system. or These rocks supply that materiel. Some thing besides a non highlighted hint that you need to leave the system. If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
55
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 12:52:00 -
[182] - Quote
The input categories don't seem to be ordered consistently. For instance if I select a light neutron blaster I BPC for invention I get optional items then datacores then data interfaces, while if I select a large capacitor control circuit I BPC I get data interfaces, datacores then optional items. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
598
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 13:32:00 -
[183] - Quote
A thing that just now jumped to my mind again:
Will the years-old error be fixed that BPO have the Invention tab and BPC the Copy/TE-/ME-Research tab even though neither nor is possible for them? The tabs need to be interchanged. |
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
751
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 15:00:00 -
[184] - Quote
Can we make this page https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Locations_of_ore_and_ice_in_space offical.
Having that page in the materials icon tool tip in the industrial panel would clear up a lot of issues.
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe. |
Scout Vyvorant
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 07:47:00 -
[185] - Quote
PoS ui Feedback:
Is it possible to remove the ***** when you type the PoS shield password, or make it optional? I have no idea if they serve a purpose server side, but in real life it's quite unlikely to have an unwanted person behind you reading your PoS password.
Industry UI Feedback:
Is it possible to have a number when you mouse over the System Cost Index? |
Trin Javidan
Caymen Labs
28
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 14:47:00 -
[186] - Quote
GÇó Extra material removal
Doing ME on Station part bpo's (parts to assemble the 4 racial stations/outposts) is currently on tranquility pointless as it doesnt effect the requird materials. May i hope this still going to be like this? In other words; as a stationbuilder, is my current station stock going to get devalued due the new ME changes and/or can i get a reimbursement for this if this is going to happen? |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 15:52:00 -
[187] - Quote
With the new build up and running I just like to know if those production material bonuses in the amarr outpost are a bug or intended?
Exhibit A: Prospect, invented pre-patch with symmetry -3/0, 3runs
Material - Quantity Crystalline Carbonide Armor Plate - 840 Photon Microprocessor - 630 Oscillator Capacitor Unit - 168 Morphite - 126 Construction Blocks - 84 Magnetometric Sensor Cluster - 63 Ion Thruster - 63 Pulse Shield Emitter - 63 Fusion Reactor Unit - 12 Venture - 3
Became this: Prospect BPC post-Crius
I get the following Facility/skills bonuses: ME: http://i.imgur.com/zKjAeBU.png?1 PE: http://i.imgur.com/5Culn2s.png?1 |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3785
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 16:36:00 -
[188] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:With the new build up and running I just like to know if those production material bonuses in the amarr outpost are a bug or intended? You might be seeing this:
CCP Greyscale wrote:For each previously slot-improving manufacturing-related Outpost Improvement, you'll get a 1% bonus to ME instead (we can do that now). |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 17:03:00 -
[189] - Quote
I knew that the slots upgrades become ME upgrades....have a closer look at what bonuses I am getting atm. 7%,29%,30%,30% |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 21:17:00 -
[190] - Quote
SO after playing around with the new UI, here are some of my gripes.
New UI looks shiney. But once you get over the shiney factor its just too cluttered with useless space. The list showing your blueprints/facilities/teams/jobs is just way too small. If you are just looking at jobs 66% of your screen is wasted with well nothing. If you are looking for teams then likewise 66% of your screen is doing nothing. That screen space can be used to show more jobs/teams with more info in them. Looking at jobs there is no way in telling what date they get delivered. Ive got a job that comes out in 68days 15hours, I have absolutly no idea when that comes out of research unless I grab a calandar and actully count down the days. Looking at Blueprints, there is no way to filter out BPC's from BPO's. Just a small runs remaining thats easily overlookable, thats goign to result in some accidents heh. You can only blueprints on name/ME/PE missing the group sort which is very usefull.
Switching input when building an item doesnt update if you have the necesary materials to build or not. It requires you to update number of runs first or do something else.
Switching input shows all your cans and has no way to hide it. I have about 300 cans in my corp hanger filled wiht fittings for ships I sell. Which makes browsing through input a bit tedious to say the least. Speaking of input and output, why isnt this defaulted to where the blueprint is located at? Would make alot more sense
When searching for blueprints in the science window it lists all cans you have in your hangars with blueprints in them, but doesnt actully tell their name, so you have no clue which can you are selecting.
When searching for blueprints missing the option to filter BPO's or BPC's. Just a small number diffrence between BPO's and BPC's will result in accidents. Having the big icons is simply not viable because you can then only see 5 bpo's at once.
There is no indication of how multiple run bonus is affecting your material use
When a job ifinishes while you are on the jobs screen you can't deliver it. YOu need to close the sciene window and then
Teams:
Bidding doesnt seem to work, enter in a system name and amount and the bid option still is greyed out.
You can not sort between what a team does. I can only sort between the %number for capital components. I have to scroll through a list of TE reducing teams befor i can find a team I am interested in that reduces ME.
And final one that was kinda game breaking:
When delivering my jobs that where done(about 100 of them), the UI did not like it at all, freaked out here and there and I actully ended up with no build items in the end.
|
|
Vits s
VooDoo Warriors Legion of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 12:14:00 -
[191] - Quote
outpost built on nothing is being built.
"The selected facility is no longer aviable" |
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
65
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 08:42:00 -
[192] - Quote
Something seems to be very wonky with large runs; I queued up a 6k unit run of quantum microprocessors, and was informed that I would need less than 2k nanotransistors to build them, and in a much shorter time than on TQ. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 13:54:00 -
[193] - Quote
Multiple runs over 10
Okay, I was just testing the manufacturing at some Component Assembly Arrays. While trying to produce multiple runs, if I types the number of runs I wanted, say 75, it would only install 7. If I used the mouse-wheel to spin the number up, it worked fine (installed all 75 runs). |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
356
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 15:23:00 -
[194] - Quote
UI Comments
1 - I made this comment before but after playing around again today I make it again - the big circle thing to manufacture stuff is confusing and not very intuitive. A plus and minus key next to the "job runs" is needed - i find using the circle thing to be confusing and difficult to use - its also not accurate if your only doing partial runs from a BPC and then requires that you type in the total that you need.
2 - When i 'use' the blueprint and have all the stuff assembled the "START" button stays orange - which is odd since i would think that "RED" means you can't do this..."ORANGE" means you can but dont have the stuff/isk.....and "GREEN" would be go go go......
3 - Under the facitilites tab you see a list of the different facilities....one of the columns is "SYSTEM COST INDEX" however there is no hover over - no value associated with this column except "it gets filled with more color" as the system get's busier. My question is why not give us the value ? Why not show us what the actual figure used to calculate is here ? Seems rather daft to me that in a game as detailed and precise as EvE is, that this is obfuscated. |
Jinn Aideron
42
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 15:25:00 -
[195] - Quote
Most informative view is hidden in a tooltip
I'm a bit puzzled that the best information on a manufacturing job you can get in the current state, is hidden away in a tooltip on the off-center-left 'chevron'. While the left-side icon view, which admittedly must have been a pain to implement!, does not provide the best information in plain sight.
Such as it is, it looks nice, it's instructive for someone never before confronted with industry, but the information for a real manufacturing job needs you hovering over something.
Yes, you can mousewheel adjust runs on the fly with the tooltip open, even though the tooltip is bugged on updating information accordingly. Yes, the materials list could be very long, the icon grid takes up the least space.
I understand the above, but it's still a strange development outcome to have the quintessential facts in a tooltip, and the sparesly informative eye candy being the default view.
BP table filters and sorting
- You have a very powerful Advanced Asset Search! Cannibalize it, re-use it, re-imagine it! I tried to see how my BPOs' MEs fared with conversion, but even this simple thing you cannot do now.*
- A secondary sorting column would help with (*), but would carry only so far. The TQ asset search with syntax just blows other approaches out of the water.
Stealth deletes are bad. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2718
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 03:38:00 -
[196] - Quote
so if i understand this correctly CCP wants to encourage longer jobs (build multiple ships) via reduced costs. However this only really works if you are using BPOs, right? I mean if i want to build 20 slicers i have 20x 1 run BPCs and run into the worst case scenario.
Are there any plans to be able to concatenate several BPCs into one long job? Otherwise i don't really see why the cost reduction based on job length is there in the first place. I bet most jobs are run from BPCs and not BPOs. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 07:56:00 -
[197] - Quote
-There should not be any lag(delay) when browsing 20000+ blueprints to manufacture. |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
401
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 11:11:00 -
[198] - Quote
Had finally some time to fiddle with the new UI on Sisi today (Yay for summer vacation). Some quick observations.
1. Finding blueprints is painful, to make it better I suggest: - make the pulldown menu where containers appear (the right most) sorted alphabetically - make the BP list follow the sorting order that the container they reside in has active (i.e. by name or by type)
2. The order the minerals are listed at the left hand side of the UI changes randomly if not all eight types of minerals are used, this is a bit annoying.
3. When I looked for new amounts of minerals required to manufacture an item (any item) I found three different places all of them with different numbers.
- blueprint info -> bill of materials -> manufacturing (highest number, I guess non researched values and no skills considered) - blueprint info -> industry (numbers only slighly (1%) smaller. (What is this, I don't even....) - manufacturing UI (lowest number, takes into account skills etc.)
Only the last one shows the correct numbers, this is quite confusing. Is the industry tab supposed to show values affected by skills and implants and other character dependent stuff? If so it doesn't work.
4. The order of the minerals in the list is different for each location they are listed, First three minerals for Corax in each location:
-manufacturing tab: Isogen, Megacyte, Mexallon -industry tab: Tritanium, Pyerite, Mexallon -manufacturing UI: Zydrine, Nocxium, Isogen
Should be the same in every location, right?
5. 'JOB RUNS' field. If I type quickly the 'outcome', 'job duration' and 'total job cost' fields do not update correctly. I guess key presses are dropped somewhere. This does not happen if I put a small value there, single digit or two digits, maybe three digits but cannot confirm. Four or more digits and it happens. Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Curatores Veritatis Alliance
162
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 17:24:00 -
[199] - Quote
I would like to give a little feedback regarding the new S&I stuff, on a first glance bases:
When I open S&I and switch to facilities, we could use way more filters, especially: - System name - region - Jump ranges
If standings matter in the installation cost, then owner as well.
Also, showing the range that I have skills for would also be useful.
The cross-region stuff doesn't seem to be working correctly. In lowsec I could see a single a single 00 outpost's facilities'. When jumping over to the 00 region, i could see the whole region's facilities.
When there are some cans in a corphangar, the S&I/blueprints tab's 3rd dropdown lists the division's name multiple times. There should be some indication which one is referring to which container.
When I switch input division for a manufacturing job, it takes quite a while for the mineral input "meter" to notice there are actually minerals for the job
After clicking "deliver all jobs" many of the jobs stay there with the "deliver" button blinking, but when i press it, the error message says: "The job cannot be completed as it has already completed."
At S&I/blueprints/facility list dropdown could use some ABC ordering.
Material Efficiency doesn't seem to be taken into account. ME10 BPO says +10% waste factor.
On the S&I/Blueprints tab, it might be useful to be able to sort by item group or category.
When selecting a decryptor for an invention, the bubble listing the alternatives could have a mouse-over bubble telling the given decryptor's properties.
Listing BPs which are currently being used by jobs using a different shade is a good idea, please keep that :)
After repeated installations it memorizes the input/output divisions among other things. However, it's a real pain that i _always_ have to set the divisions every time. Probably many corporations have a dedicated division for manufacturing, and if that's not the 1st one in the list, then it has to be set every time a new job is installed. Please keep the feature where we are able to set default divisions (currently it remembers the last divisions used). Please, add a settings tab, with the options for selecting default divisions for different kind of jobs.
When clicking on a missing prereq for manufacturing it, it switches to that BP, however the amount is not set, but it should be. So, when job says, i'm missing 50 "nanomechanical microprocessors", and i click on that to make some of it, i'd expect the UI to default it to 50 as well.
PLEASE! give me default divisions, it already drives me crazy.
I've been clicking around on the window, and the "job duration" keeps staying 37m34s for all number of runs (1 to 10, maxruns on this bpc). Think it's a bug.
Please time write with dimensions. Numbers alone have no meaning. Instead of 01:02:03:04 just do 01d 02h 03m 04s, it makes way more sense.
The details/list is kinda strange. I'd expect the "details" to be fancy, and the "list" to be effective. That is, please write numbers on the list view instead of colored bars.
Please allow us to set default divisions. Having to select the proper input division after every click is just annoying...
Hope that helped somewhat.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2402
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:38:00 -
[200] - 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 |
|
|
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 19:48:00 -
[201] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: mistakenly fingered
Thats something I havent heard before |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
79
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 23:05:00 -
[202] - Quote
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 |
stoxxine
OLVI industries Inter Malleum et Incudem
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 10:54:00 -
[203] - Quote
Blueprint being dragged from inventory to industry causes mousedrag events in the job runs "wheel" control. Also: mouse tooltips might appear.
IMO drag hover should distinguished as a different type of UI event, when the drag originates from somewhere else. Think of all the scrollbars in the world.
In this case, a full preview (undo when not dropped) of the dragged BP would be nice. Disclaimer: The above was probably written drunk or by a friend on my pc or a hacker. No warranty for any misinformation provided. |
stoxxine
OLVI industries Inter Malleum et Incudem
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 11:09:00 -
[204] - Quote
1. open industry, drag from facility inventory, ready go manufacture (button orange) 2. steal BP :) move it to ship cargo (possibly, undock and fly away) 3. click start. nothing happens, no error, nothing. 4. put BP in another facility 5. click start gives error message as it should
(preferable: moving BP updates industry window's current facitily) Disclaimer: The above was probably written drunk or by a friend on my pc or a hacker. No warranty for any misinformation provided. |
stoxxine
OLVI industries Inter Malleum et Incudem
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 11:18:00 -
[205] - Quote
I just managed to break the runs slider (manufactury job) so it didn't update anymore when changing runs manually or clicking it. Closing window and reopening it fixed operation, and cannot just now figure out how to reproduce :/ Disclaimer: The above was probably written drunk or by a friend on my pc or a hacker. No warranty for any misinformation provided. |
Tydius Nolad
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:28:00 -
[206] - Quote
Just noticed in the Team Chartering window that the specialties percentages are rounded. I just hired a team I thought had 3% improvement on something to discover it's only 2.5%. |
stoxxine
OLVI industries Inter Malleum et Incudem
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 22:10:00 -
[207] - Quote
I see that after today's update, POS manufacturing bonus still says -25% MATERIAL for facility bonus.
I didnt even bother to look if it is a bogus bonus indication on only the mouseover. If mouseover shows differently than calculations, or what is actually redacted from inventory, you have a serious desing error. Disclaimer: The above was probably written drunk or by a friend on my pc or a hacker. No warranty for any misinformation provided. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
793
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 07:08:00 -
[208] - Quote
With 20ish days to go until deployment I feel this is a nice time to mention some of the UI quirks again that could and should easily be fixed before deployment.
1. Make the effects of ME/TE display consistently across all windows and tooltips. Just a small selection of inconsistent text:
- The blueprint 'Show Info' window lists ME/TE as levels.
- Everywhere else ME/TE is listed as a percentage. Which is it?
- The tooltips on the blue indicators next to the blueprint slot read "decreases the input material requirements [...]" yet the blue percentage value is indicated with a plus (+) sign. A decrease can and should never be indicated with a positive number. ME reduces a certain percentage of the building material. Let the indicator reflect that properly by using a minus (-) sign.
- To add insult to injury, the material requirements tooltip and the job duration tooltip both actually list the above mentioned ME/TE bonus as a minus value. As far as I'm concerned this is the only correct way, but at least make it consistent across all windows. Minus = good = blue. Plus = bad = red. Though I believe that negative ME/TE is meant to disappear?
2. Job duration modifier tooltip says 'Skills -20%'. What skills? Where does this bonus come from? Would it be possible to display the skill that is giving the bonus, the skill level and the bonus percentage all on the same line? That would make it a LOT clearer.
3. Pressing enter anywhere in the industry window should NOT start the job without any sort of warning. If left in this will be the cause of a lot of tears and anger. The only way to start a job should be to click the start button. Puhlease!
4. When in the invention tab, the Job Duration doesn't have a tooltip with modifiers. Are there none? If not, why is this not made clear?
5. A more detailed explanation of the System Cost Index would be nice (in-game). Why is it high/low, what contributes to it?
6. A more detailed list of where the job install cost comes from. Right now I have no clue how that thing is calculated except it is apparently 10% of something.
Hope you guys are planning on at least looking at these issues and hopefully have them fixed before Crius deploys. Some of these are pretty important. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 16:56:00 -
[209] - 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 -
[210] - 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 |
|
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 17:28:00 -
[211] - Quote
Ive already seen a few of my issies go away(yey for delivery dates and start dates), but still quite a few things missing. But good to hear its beeing worked on |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 18:19:00 -
[212] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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.
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? |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 19:04:00 -
[213] - Quote
The key questions that anyone manufacturing should ask are:
- how much is all this going to cost?
- am I likely to make a profit?
How much is all this going to cost
What I would like to see on the manufacturing UI is a toggleable figure for:
- the total cost for the production run; or
- the total cost for a single item.
I am aware that you can generate these figures by changing the quantities and checking the figure generated on the spanner icon pop up but as this is a key figure it should not be buried. By being in the open it also allows the user to click between blueprints and facilities and immediate see what the effect is, without having to prepare a spreadsheet.
Am I likely to make a profit?
I would like to figure to be colour coded (or the panel behind the number coloured) - my preference would be green (if the manufacturing costs is below the average sales price) and range in hue to red (if the manufacturing costs are above the average sales) [colour blindness allowing]. The figure should have a pop up that gives the percentage profit or loss.
Again a visual clue as to the sensibility of commencing the manufacturing without a spreadsheet.
|
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 19:58:00 -
[214] - Quote
Here some issue to the ui :
- A warning message could me a great help when hitting enter after setting up the number of run. As you hiy enter the job start right away... - The ui shows BP you can't see in the inventory (hidden can in hidden hangars based on role - you can't copy/paste the ui content (the list of jobs etc..) (sime of us don't use api but simple copy/paste xD) - A little bit of stability too... if you switch from all facility to a random location several time, you may crash your computer...
|
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Negative Waves
23
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 22:42:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Entirely my fault, nothing to do with Nullarbor who I may have mistakenly fingered as the culprit earlier :)
-Greyscale
1% ME per Upgrade level that means you pay 25b for the step from 2% to 3% how is that ever worth it? Especially when you compare it to minmatar outpost refining upgrades. It is not in line at all. Its a downright boring and coward change. If you want localized industry in null-sec you're going to have to do better then that.
At minimum a fully upgraded amarr outpost should have a reduction of 15% anything below that is plain pointless. |
Jelani Akinyemi Affonso
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 23:49:00 -
[216] - Quote
Hi
I have been logging in to Sisi and checking out a few things. I wanted to let you guys know that you all are doing a great job.. Keep up the good work.
Now according to this blog: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/the-price-of-change/?_ga=1.212392148.1359145512.1396037445
There was a tooltip markup at the end of the blog which provided and listed information regarding job cost modifiers. Have this being implemented yet or has the design change?
Currently when I hover mouse over total job cost in industry UI, I get System cost index plus tax. Anyway of providing a detailed tootip listing all other modifiers(cost of labor, manufacturing , etc) with the numbers provide for each one?
Would really love to have that information listed, at least for total job cost. Thank you |
Angel Bram
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 03:06:00 -
[217] - Quote
Ok, manufacture, time efficency, material efficency, Tech II.. very clear Some runs in high-sec (Pator on the 1st) all good.
Did for a new test corp in Vard with a 5% tax
Now in low-sec (Lasleinur 2nd of July) Copies, material, time.... Tech II... Error -- Unable to install job due to the following reasons: The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Error.MISMATCH_COST (4963, 5790) Error.MISMATCH_TAX (496, 579) --
This making a Hound BPC from a Breacher BPC with a Cryptic Attainment added to the mix.
Also Blueprints could use a few more filters, or like Frigate etc
or
You might be able to adapt the market Blueprint tree, either as a seperate entity or by adding tabs (fields) in the database like my blueprints and corporate blueprints.
:-)
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 07:20:00 -
[218] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Entirely my fault, nothing to do with Nullarbor who I may have mistakenly fingered as the culprit earlier :)
-Greyscale
1% ME per Upgrade level that means you pay 25b for the step from 2% to 3% how is that ever worth it? Especially when you compare it to minmatar outpost refining upgrades. It is not in line at all. Its a downright boring and coward change. If you want localized industry in null-sec you're going to have to do better then that. At minimum a fully upgraded amarr outpost should have a reduction of 15% anything below that is plain pointless.
You are forgettign the pretty significant speed bonus you get with said upgrade aswel. And 15% ME reduction would be stupidly overpowered |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 07:31:00 -
[219] - Quote
Comments (some already raised that are excellent): - Stacking multiple BPC's with the same stats etc together. Addition to: Give user installing the job from a BPC the choice of installing from lowest or highest runs remaining
- Performance, performance, performance: PIG Slow to open if you've got lots of blueprints! Every single time it takes in excess of 10-15 seconds just to open the window, that I kick myself every time I closed it by mistake because of being used to it opening swiftly now. Addition to: With the API telling me we have 85k+ in BPC alone, I'm very concerned about it constantly populating from Cargo containers, which is how we currently hide them from the Industry system.
- One thing that's annoyed me for 11 years is that you have 7 hangers in a corp, but only 6 visible in the drop down lists, as you always have to scroll to the last one!! Can someone PLEASE increase the list size one more so they are at least all visible at the same time? Taken me longer to type to ask then probably to make this change guys.
- UI for ME / TE listing - a graphical blue bar? Absolutely pointless, give us the number please.
- System Cost Index - another graphical bar? Really? Come on guys, give us something useful here please.
- Filters, the best idea I've seen to date is the means for user configurable ones, so long as we can have more then one filter in effect like in the inventory window. We would probably want to set rules like, which isn't already at Level 10/20, which items are at that specific facility, that solar system, etc. Addition to: I would actually be happy if the blueprints screen was initially blank until I started typing the first few characters, as we're always only interested in installing a specific item into a job.
- It's slower to put in jobs using the new interface then it is with the current system, so not a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. Whilst it's pretty, and I'm sure others have already raised that point, it wastes so much space at the top of the screens just 'looking good'. This is industry, it's supposed to be practical not pretty. Leave that for outside the stations IMO. I'm just very concerned that it's going to take much longer now to install jobs then it does at present.
I was looking forward to a better and faster way to install jobs, possibly even multiple jobs of the same type at once, and these seem slower across the board, and require more clicking (no keyboard consideration again!!!!!! Tab people, Tab). Every time the first time you put in a blueprint, no matter if you have put in similar types before, up goes the input and output.
Why separate these buy such a distance when generally you have to set both at the same time for a corp? If you are going to do that at least put the input on the left at the top, and the output on the right at the top nearer to it.
- Skills box below the job looks interactive, and actually if you are constantly coming from below having selected a blueprint and pass the mouse over that, it always BLOCKS access to the area where you enter practical information about job runs. Please, at least make it hover off to the side or below, but not OVER something important!
- On the Accept Quote? screen previously, you could press CTRL+C to copy the information, and paste it outside of the game. This was regularly useful when buying minerals, as you could see the exact install requirements and copy them else where to consolidate. The new 'Pretty' UI screen is less useful/practical as you cannot see a complete list of the materials unless you hover over a > icon or you can see the items icons, but the quantities are abbreviated (useless).
I would rather there was a tab or something in this header area that you could at least select a list of materials and CTRL+C again to copy them out of game, or (god I hate suggesting this) a right-click option in the pop-up dialog that lists all the minerals (I'm a keyboard user, there is already too much mouse activity in Eve).
- Cannot right-click and move blueprints like you used to be able to, if moving between divisions/hangars was required. Now you have to use the Inventory interface, which doesn't show ME/TE values, so it's hit and miss with a lot of blueprints of the same type (already told you we've 85k BPC to sort through! Arrgh not looking forward to this now!).
- Interface is designed purely to look pretty and/or for mouse users, keyboard users and those that would tab between fields previously for speed of interaction were not considered here were they? :)
- Inability to see End date on Jobs is critical issue and mostly because of the inability to resize width of the window, as the grids below can't show all useful columns easily without resizing them all to get to this hidden column! One of the most useful of which isn't on display initially as it's way off screen, and only visible when you resize other columns to get access to it.
Really really really hate being told this is the size of things, deal with it. Everyone has a different way of working, and windows are windows for a reason, resize, reposition, user preference etc...
- Time display is horrible!!! At least put d h m s next to each number to make it more clear to non-developer users. |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 07:43:00 -
[220] - Quote
(sorry, ran out of space in last post):
- Copy times seem too long for this change to copy-build that was suggested in the blogs.
- Max run copies for some items seem way too small! 1 run for a capital module seems silly, as putting it into the factory would require investment, it often is built in at least 3 run batches with current production time, so having a run of 1 is daft. Whilst the reduced time to build is nice, that also makes this point much worse as the result is that factory time cannot be as efficiently managed to even 1 day because you have to keep logging in to restock thing to run off build copies!
- A much more detailed explanation of the System Cost Index would be nice. Why is it high/low, what contributes to it? How quickly does it change? Does this mean people will be constantly having to move operations, which with all due respect is painful at the best of times, and if having to do it regularly is just going to frustrate/bore/annoy me. Car manufacturers move factories ever 5 years or so, in line with tax changes, no one wants to constantly keep doing this to try to remain competitive.
- I am a little torn about the POS Assembly Array Material Reduction benefits: Whilst as a builder I love the thought of material reduction benefits, and I first thought "Yes, some benefit for having a pos!' my immediate next thought was 'Oh god, what have they done!'.
All my time in game hasn't come without some experience. I understand that one of the biggest problems in EVE is that most people in EVE cannot do maths with regards their profits in industrial efforts. In my opinion, this is one of the big reasons the markets aren't actually that great.
All I see this change doing is massively undercutting those that build at stations, and you will again have a two tier system. Yes, I understand that by massively undercutting the prices the other people are not accounting for their costs in running the POS where they may be doing the manufacturing, but again I restate that most people in EVE cannot do the maths related to industrial work.
I fear this will be yet another market entropy element which will ultimately drive prices to pointless non-profitable levels again for many items, but only time will actually show if that happens.
Quintessen, Messengers of Judah wrote:Please make is to that multiple blueprints of the same exact statistics stack on the blueprints screen. Currently I may have 200 BPCs or the exact same blueprint and I have to scroll a ton just to get past them. Most of them have the same statistics. Though stacking has its own problems. Perhaps a checkbox that toggles between stacked and unstacked. Or just something that allows us to not have to scroll quite so much
Very sensible and practical suggestion, even if it's just like a sub-group or fold-down.
babyblue, TSOE Po1ice wrote: (6) From (5) it's clear that the ability to multi-select a set of blueprints, perhaps all the same, and perform the same action on them with the same properties, would be extremely useful. Starting 10 invention jobs, for example, by selecting 10 BPC but only having to input the details once, would massively reduce the T2 building clickfest that is the current system.
PERSONALLY, What I had long wanted and added to my list during the survey, if I'm installing ten jobs of the same thing, I want to do all at once, not waste time repeating the task.
Whilst I agree that perhaps choosing multiple items from the blueprint list and trying to create some way to multi install would be painful, there is a far simpler solution. Give me a box that says Repeat this Job X times, and then it automatically selects the next suitable BPC/BPO to install from (or ask user to specify them), and installs the settings X times to fill up X labs/factories. It's really quite simple stuff at the end of the day, you don't always need the user to choose every detail, but if you want, perhaps give them a quick summary of the intended BPC/BPO that will be used, and if they don't want to they can change something there.
- I had similar UI freak-out situations where the attempt to deliver all resulted in some strange displayed listing of Jobs remaining, only to attempt to try to deliver them again and receive an error that the job cannot be completed as it has already completed/delivered. (sorry, trying to remember from Friday last week).
- One of the things I'm happy with at the moment with the current system, albeit not the interface, is that I can calculate exact costs, and I do mean exact, out of game in my software. Currently this system is so dependant on other factors, these elements would need to be exposed by the API to allow out of game calculations. Again, how regularly these change, what the exact formulae are etc is more concerning for us currently.
- The inability to select/specify corp or character default input/output for all items is craziness! Why are you going backwards in terms of functionality in an effort to improve things? All of us software developers know the phrase well: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I'm sorry, there may be more to come when I get more time to play on SiSi, but I'm currently away on work so it's a little difficult to provide further feedback. |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
606
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 09:24:00 -
[221] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Entirely my fault, nothing to do with Nullarbor who I may have mistakenly fingered as the culprit earlier :)
-Greyscale
1% ME per Upgrade level that means you pay 25b for the step from 2% to 3% how is that ever worth it? Especially when you compare it to minmatar outpost refining upgrades. It is not in line at all. Its a downright boring and coward change. If you want localized industry in null-sec you're going to have to do better then that. At minimum a fully upgraded amarr outpost should have a reduction of 15% anything below that is plain pointless.
Only to export your Made in China stuff to High sec and sell it there? 5% is good enough to give your local industry an edge over importers, but also prohibit exports to High sec and thus forces encourages you to use your stuff locally.
I don't see a problem here if you do it as intended, and not in the way you want to exploit the system.
|
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Negative Waves
23
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 10:50:00 -
[222] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:The Ironfist wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Entirely my fault, nothing to do with Nullarbor who I may have mistakenly fingered as the culprit earlier :)
-Greyscale
1% ME per Upgrade level that means you pay 25b for the step from 2% to 3% how is that ever worth it? Especially when you compare it to minmatar outpost refining upgrades. It is not in line at all. Its a downright boring and coward change. If you want localized industry in null-sec you're going to have to do better then that. At minimum a fully upgraded amarr outpost should have a reduction of 15% anything below that is plain pointless. Only to export your Made in China stuff to High sec and sell it there? 5% is good enough to give your local industry an edge over importers, but also prohibit exports to High sec and thus forces encourages you to use your stuff locally. I don't see a problem here if you do it as intended, and not in the way you want to exploit the system.
5% for 60b you don't see the problem with that? 1% per upgrade is next to no return on your investment. Also 5% will not give you an edge over importers because for T2/T3 you will still need to import materials...
Again look at the Minmatar outpost were you get 19,6% more efficient refining for 60b and then compare it to 3% you get for 60b for upgrading a amarr outpost to Tier3. You don't see an issue here? But there is literally no point in ever upgrading an amarr outpost after this. Because an investment is only sound if you can recope it in a reasonable amount of time now do tell me how long it'll take to recope 60b with 3% material bonus.. best case you build capitals meaning you get the bonus twice once on the parts once on the ship itself. So thats 6% below what everyone else can build right? WRONG because lowsec got their new CAA. Which means the real difference shrinks to 4%.. But lets just do the math with 6% so it doesn't look like complete ****.
Lets go with Naglfar's they cost about 2b in minerals to build 6% from that is 120mil so thats 120mil "safed" per dread. Which means you'll have to build 500 naglfars to recope your investment can you sell 500 naglfars local? nop never not a chance in hell so you'll have to move em to a lowsec system. Thats gonna again cut into your profit. Can you get the minerals for 500 dreads local? Nop not a chance again gotta import thats gonna cost you money.
You see the problem here now? Essentially there is no point in changing it to an ME bonus if its only 1% per level. Thats utterly pointless. Because hoping to hold the outpost for years its gonna take you to recope that is not realistic. How long do you think it takes to recope the cost of upgrading a minmatar outpost to Tier3? Lemme tell you 2 months or 4 titan builds to be more precise.
|
Telleran Ossadour
Onasdottir Armaments Surveying and Security
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 11:00:00 -
[223] - Quote
Generally liking the new UI. Most issues have already been raised by other posters many times already, but there's one that needs a little more love:
Regan Rotineque wrote:3 - Under the facitilites tab you see a list of the different facilities....one of the columns is "SYSTEM COST INDEX" however there is no hover over - no value associated with this column except "it gets filled with more color" as the system get's busier. My question is why not give us the value ? Why not show us what the actual figure used to calculate is here ?
Very much this, and even more true since there's no indication of what the bar itself represents -- no units, no scale. What does that one pixel difference between two facilities actually mean? And, speaking as a geriatric industrialist with failing eyes (and colourblind to boot!), that's assuming I can even see the difference! Not to mention the problems comparing across different regions...
In an expansion that pushing the importance of player decision making rather than character skills in attaining industrial success, it seems strange that one of the primary influences on where you build is being so obfuscated. Show us the numbers! And, while you're at it, why not include the Manufacturing Cost Index and Research Cost Index in the "Solar System: Information" window? |
Jarnis McPieksu
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
504
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 11:00:00 -
[224] - Quote
If the goal was to have a good enough Manufacturing UI that third party programs & spreadsheets would not be as required, this one fails at least for T2 building.
When building off invented T2 BPC, input costs = costs of *components*, not their materials. Makes sense, but also is highly misleading. T2 component market is commonly manipulated to hell & back and no T2 builder actually buys pre-built components unless there is some major disturbance in reaction material markets (at which point the thin component market goes *poof* in a hurry as underpriced stuff is hoovered up). So the input prices are meaningless.
So only way to build T2 is to have a spreadsheet/third party app which calculates the costs of components and then sums those up.
Also invention costs are highly misleading as the cost of the Data Interface is summed up even if it is not consumed in the process. So the UI cannot be used for determining cost of invention either.
Also both input cost and output value estimates are IN MOUSEOVER TOOLTIPS which is beyond stupid...
So the UI estimates are useless and you still need a speadsheet or third party application to build anything (unless you feel like building stuff blindly with no clue as to profit/loss - plenty of people like that in EVE, I know..)
So we get a clumsy, slow (and, I admit, somewhat pretty) UI that does nothing useful, is slower and in some ways more complicated and I still need a third party application to do any T2 production.
Way to go guys... Mission accomplished.
Could you perhaps get someone to design the interface who has actually built anything in EVE in an industrial scale? Pretty please?
Also at least the values present on SISI today lead me to believe that all the hubub about teams is effectively hot air. The bonuses are irrelevantly small unless you are cranking out multi-billion ISK jobs. Yes, Teams, job installation costs and station vs. POS differences allow for dedicated players to eke out additional percentage or three of profit, but the profit vs. effort equation is completely out of whack. Who cares about a few percentage points. Optimization of playtime vs. output volume / ISK/hr is the name of the game. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
606
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:10:00 -
[225] - Quote
You name it yourself: The Minmatar Outpost provides you with ridiculously cheap minerals, and on top of that you still want an even more ridiculous reduction on manufacturing. Are you out of your mind?
And you don't need to import nearly as many items as you want to make the world believe. You have tons of moon minerals locally in your Sov 00, let alone ice and normal minerals. The only thing you absolutely need to import are moon minerals and their products that don't grow on your moons. That is all there is to import. And if you followed that lead (use your local resources, actually mine in your space instead of using outsourced Made in Bangladesh minerals, you have a very big edge over the importers.
Get your act together and start living in your space and not just cherry-pick what like to do. That is not what Sovereignty is supposed to be. All you 00 dwellers want to make it a holiday resort with massive benefits, instead of a home turf with all sorts of labor, activities and resulting benefits. This is a disgusting attitude. If people would actually do that, there would be a slight chance of actually giving the outpost a better than it currently is bonus to ME; however, as people are only after exploiting the system, giving the outpost more than 5% is absolutely wrong. |
Aaron Raven
De Likedeelers
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:26:00 -
[226] - Quote
I don't know if this is already a know issue, but the Industrial-UI looks a bit wired after resizing the column width, please see http://i.imgur.com/kgmONrB.png for details.
The fist impression of the new UI is great, the Idea behind it also ... but a fixed size (not resizeable) is IMHO a bad idea. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:56:00 -
[227] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:The Ironfist wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Entirely my fault, nothing to do with Nullarbor who I may have mistakenly fingered as the culprit earlier :)
-Greyscale
1% ME per Upgrade level that means you pay 25b for the step from 2% to 3% how is that ever worth it? Especially when you compare it to minmatar outpost refining upgrades. It is not in line at all. Its a downright boring and coward change. If you want localized industry in null-sec you're going to have to do better then that. At minimum a fully upgraded amarr outpost should have a reduction of 15% anything below that is plain pointless. Only to export your Made in China stuff to High sec and sell it there? 5% is good enough to give your local industry an edge over importers, but also prohibit exports to High sec and thus forces encourages you to use your stuff locally. I don't see a problem here if you do it as intended, and not in the way you want to exploit the system. 5% for 60b you don't see the problem with that? 1% per upgrade is next to no return on your investment. Also 5% will not give you an edge over importers because for T2/T3 you will still need to import materials... Again look at the Minmatar outpost were you get 19,6% more efficient refining for 60b and then compare it to 3% you get for 60b for upgrading a amarr outpost to Tier3. You don't see an issue here? But there is literally no point in ever upgrading an amarr outpost after this. Because an investment is only sound if you can recope it in a reasonable amount of time now do tell me how long it'll take to recope 60b with 3% material bonus.. best case you build capitals meaning you get the bonus twice once on the parts once on the ship itself. So thats 6% below what everyone else can build right? WRONG because lowsec got their new CAA. Which means the real difference shrinks to 4%.. But lets just do the math with 6% so it doesn't look like complete ****. Lets go with Naglfar's they cost about 2b in minerals to build 6% from that is 120mil so thats 120mil "safed" per dread. Which means you'll have to build 500 naglfars to recope your investment can you sell 500 naglfars local? nop never not a chance in hell so you'll have to move em to a lowsec system. Thats gonna again cut into your profit. Can you get the minerals for 500 dreads local? Nop not a chance again gotta import thats gonna cost you money. You see the problem here now? Essentially there is no point in changing it to an ME bonus if its only 1% per level. Thats utterly pointless. Because hoping to hold the outpost for years its gonna take you to recope that is not realistic. How long do you think it takes to recope the cost of upgrading a minmatar outpost to Tier3? Lemme tell you 2 months or 4 titan builds to be more precise.
You do know you get a 5% bonus right not 3%? there are 2 diffrent upgrades that aid in manufacturing, plant and factory, so you can have 5 of them for a total of 5% ME reduction.
Also if you think 5% is nothing then you shouldnt invest 60 bill in teh upgrades. My usual turn over is between 500 and 700 billion ISK. Saving 5% on that means i save 25 billion ISK every month. So that station pays for itself in 2 months. Not bad. Considering I am not alone that station will pay for itself alot faster then 2 months. So pretty much the same time as your minmatar station. Guess we are good then
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:01:00 -
[228] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:You name it yourself: The Minmatar Outpost provides you with ridiculously cheap minerals, and on top of that you still want an even more ridiculous reduction on manufacturing. Are you out of your mind? And you don't need to import nearly as many items as you want to make the world believe. You have tons of moon minerals locally in your Sov 00, let alone ice and normal minerals. The only thing you absolutely need to import are moon minerals and their products that don't grow on your moons. That is all there is to import. And if you followed that lead (use your local resources, actually mine in your space instead of using outsourced Made in Bangladesh minerals, you have a very big edge over the importers. Get your act together and start living in your space and not just cherry-pick what like to do. That is not what Sovereignty is supposed to be. All you 00 dwellers want to make it a holiday resort with massive benefits, instead of a home turf with all sorts of labor, activities and resulting benefits. This is a disgusting attitude. If people would actually do that, there would be a slight chance of actually giving the outpost a better than it currently is bonus to ME; however, as people are only after exploiting the system, giving the outpost more than 5% is absolutely wrong.
The problem with 0.0 is there arent enough miners around to supply all the builders with lowends. I personally use 5 billion trit every week, thats a fuckton of miners to supply just my needs, let alone the other guys who are building stuff in deklein.
The problem with aquiring minerals in 0.0 is that you have a lot smaller pool of miners to grab from compared to empire. even if miner density was the same in 0.0 as its in empire i still only have acces to 1 or 2 regions realisticly to buy minerals in. Compared in empire where I can just buy them in every region because shipping is retardly safe in there. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
606
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:06:00 -
[229] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:A thing that just now jumped to my mind again:
Will the years-old error be fixed that BPO have the Invention tab and BPC the Copy/TE-/ME-Research tab even though neither nor is possible for them? The tabs need to be interchanged.
I have to pleasantly admit that this was fixed very elegantly with the industry tab and the symbols. The BPO now only show Manufacturing, ME-Research, TE-Research and Copying as possible activities. BPC now only show Manufacturing or Manufacturing and Invention when this is actually possible. Very good. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
606
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:47:00 -
[230] - Quote
Just out of curiosity:
There is no way in-game to see the outcome of your BPO-Research? When I research I'd like to know at a glance what my result is going to be with the different levels. Instead of knowing "Outcome: Gî¢ +20%", I'd much rather see:
Quote:Outcome: Original time: | Output time: 20H 25M 47S | 18H 21M 32S
Gî¢ -20%
Same for minerals
Quote: Material | Original materials: | Output materials: Trit | 250 | 225
GÖª -10%
Also, notice the -10%. I am not sure how others think about that, but if I see a +20% as research result, I don't think (and I actually did not when I tried it on Sisi) of an improvement on the BPO, but rather that the time is 20% longer now or that I require 10% more material. Call it irrational, but this is going to cause a lot of confusion.
And another thing, which I already mentioned somewhere, is the "Job Runs". The research levels are not Job Runs, they are Research Levels... |
|
Logicycle
Chaos Gate Northern Associates.
89
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:53:00 -
[231] - Quote
Would it be possible to make the Industry UI window collapse up,, so that we can look at the tabs in the bottom half of the window using the full size of the window? That Blueprint calculator thing usess a LOT of window space and is completely unmovable at all. This would help in being able to look at a long list of build/invent jobs easily or finding a facilty without having to look at the blueprint thingy every single time.
Also the input / output selector does not remember the location previously used. This needs to remember which corp hanger i used last time when building. |
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 17:31:00 -
[232] - Quote
Dareth Astrar wrote:
- On the Accept Quote? screen previously, you could press CTRL+C to copy the information, and paste it outside of the game. This was regularly useful when buying minerals, as you could see the exact install requirements and copy them else where to consolidate. The new 'Pretty' UI screen is less useful/practical as you cannot see a complete list of the materials unless you hover over a > icon or you can see the items icons, but the quantities are abbreviated (useless).
As you said, there is a mouse-over feature (blue arrow) : http://i.imgur.com/Q1apIqk.png If you right click there, you hjave a "copy material" and you get something like that :
Quote:Planetary materials typeIDItemAvailableRequiredEst. Unit price 2868Integrity Response Drones061367760.3845 2869Nano-Factory011603158.5279 2870Organic Mortar Applicators011687405.3778 2875Sterile Conduits016731255.7516
Components typeIDItemAvailableRequiredEst. Unit price 21037Capital Construction Parts017329757.1703
With little effort, you can make it useful :) and it perfectly paste on a spreadsheet :) |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1035
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 18:35:00 -
[233] - Quote
I noticed something on SiSi I did not see mention of in the patch notes. I have not seen any mention of it anywhere else.
I was debating whether to even mention this as it could be a profitable venture if it makes it to TQ.
As we all know, the ship assembly arrays have had some name changes and updates.
What I noticed is the capital ship assembly array, formerly the X-large ship assembly array, which used to only be anchor able in space below 0.4. which used to mean 0.3 or lower. It was stated that this was changed so that the former below 0.4 space no means 0.4 or lower.
However the capital ship assembly array on SiSi now says "Restricted to security level of at most 0.5"
Does this mean these assembly arrays, which can build not only freighters, jump freighters, and orca's, (these can be built in the large ship assembly array), but the capital ship assembly array can also build Roqual, dreadnaughts, and carriers, can it now be anchored in high sec 0.5 space?
I am thinking maybe this was changed before the code was updated allowing 0.4 restriction to actually mean 0.4. if it was changed before the code update 0.5 would have meant 0.4 or lower, but with the code update this should be anchorable in 0.5 space, in high sec, which would allow carriers and dreads to be built in high sec.
Is this an intended change, or just a oversight nobody caught yet?
I have tested this on SiSi, and it did let me anchor the capital ship assembly array in 0.5 high sec.
P.S. Dev's if this is a mistake I caught, any chance I can get a reward? Imagine the chaos if this made it to TQ and a bunch of dreads and carriers were built in high sec before it was caught. I am thinking 10 mil SP on SiSi to assist my testing would be a nice reward. |
Yinmatook
Skilled Refugees Carthaginian Naval Supply Industries
16
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 18:36:00 -
[234] - Quote
I notice that when I am setting up an Industry job that if I am missing input materials on the left, I can right click the image and select to buy or view market - if I select buy, it opens up a window to purchase the number of the item I am missing. However, (at least on SiSi) that is frequently a lot of hops away, and I'm doing my testing in a system that has a seeded station.
Can we get the option to buy cheapest or buy closest?
Thanks for your consideration. |
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Negative Waves
23
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 19:19:00 -
[235] - Quote
Firvain wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:The Ironfist wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Entirely my fault, nothing to do with Nullarbor who I may have mistakenly fingered as the culprit earlier :)
-Greyscale
1% ME per Upgrade level that means you pay 25b for the step from 2% to 3% how is that ever worth it? Especially when you compare it to minmatar outpost refining upgrades. It is not in line at all. Its a downright boring and coward change. If you want localized industry in null-sec you're going to have to do better then that. At minimum a fully upgraded amarr outpost should have a reduction of 15% anything below that is plain pointless. Only to export your Made in China stuff to High sec and sell it there? 5% is good enough to give your local industry an edge over importers, but also prohibit exports to High sec and thus forces encourages you to use your stuff locally. I don't see a problem here if you do it as intended, and not in the way you want to exploit the system. 5% for 60b you don't see the problem with that? 1% per upgrade is next to no return on your investment. Also 5% will not give you an edge over importers because for T2/T3 you will still need to import materials... Again look at the Minmatar outpost were you get 19,6% more efficient refining for 60b and then compare it to 3% you get for 60b for upgrading a amarr outpost to Tier3. You don't see an issue here? But there is literally no point in ever upgrading an amarr outpost after this. Because an investment is only sound if you can recope it in a reasonable amount of time now do tell me how long it'll take to recope 60b with 3% material bonus.. best case you build capitals meaning you get the bonus twice once on the parts once on the ship itself. So thats 6% below what everyone else can build right? WRONG because lowsec got their new CAA. Which means the real difference shrinks to 4%.. But lets just do the math with 6% so it doesn't look like complete ****. Lets go with Naglfar's they cost about 2b in minerals to build 6% from that is 120mil so thats 120mil "safed" per dread. Which means you'll have to build 500 naglfars to recope your investment can you sell 500 naglfars local? nop never not a chance in hell so you'll have to move em to a lowsec system. Thats gonna again cut into your profit. Can you get the minerals for 500 dreads local? Nop not a chance again gotta import thats gonna cost you money. You see the problem here now? Essentially there is no point in changing it to an ME bonus if its only 1% per level. Thats utterly pointless. Because hoping to hold the outpost for years its gonna take you to recope that is not realistic. How long do you think it takes to recope the cost of upgrading a minmatar outpost to Tier3? Lemme tell you 2 months or 4 titan builds to be more precise. You do know you get a 5% bonus right not 3%? there are 2 diffrent upgrades that aid in manufacturing, plant and factory, so you can have 5 of them for a total of 5% ME reduction. Also if you think 5% is nothing then you shouldnt invest 60 bill in teh upgrades. My usual turn over is between 500 and 700 billion ISK. Saving 5% on that means i save 25 billion ISK every month. So that station pays for itself in 2 months. Not bad. Considering I am not alone that station will pay for itself alot faster then 2 months. So pretty much the same time as your minmatar station. Guess we are good then
It wont because the more you use it and everyone else the higher your installation cost.. so its actually counter-productive. 5 upgrades for a mare 5% is still really really bad. |
Nalha Saldana
Saldana Hardware Corporation
801
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 20:14:00 -
[236] - Quote
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. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
62
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 21:51:00 -
[237] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Firvain wrote:You do know you get a 5% bonus right not 3%? there are 2 diffrent upgrades that aid in manufacturing, plant and factory, so you can have 5 of them for a total of 5% ME reduction.
Also if you think 5% is nothing then you shouldnt invest 60 bill in teh upgrades. My usual turn over is between 500 and 700 billion ISK. Saving 5% on that means i save 25 billion ISK every month. So that station pays for itself in 2 months. Not bad. Considering I am not alone that station will pay for itself alot faster then 2 months. So pretty much the same time as your minmatar station. Guess we are good then
It wont because the more you use it and everyone else the higher your installation cost.. so its actually counter-productive. 5 upgrades for a mare 5% is still really really bad.
I consume about a billion ISK of materials per day on one of my characters doing manufacturing. I don't know if this is high or low, so let's use a conservative figure saying that an industrialist consumes 50M ISK worth of stuff per slot per day.
A 500k ISK (1% savings on 50M ISK) per slot per day savings doesn't sound like much, but that's about 10000 slot-days for 25B ISK. One character pays that off in about 3 years, which isn't great. 10 characters, though, running full-tilt, would pay it off in about 3 months... and if they're instead consuming materials more like the way I do, it ends up being closer to paying off in a month and a half for 10 characters.
Admittedly, you'll lose some of this in transportation, but you won't lose more in transportation by upgrading, if you were already planning to build at that station. (In fact, due to input volume decreasing, you may save a little on transportation, depending on whether your inbound transport is already saturated.) This transportation issue is probably going to make Minmatar stations the station of choice for manufacturing capitals, but for things that don't use T1 minerals? That Minmatar station bonus doesn't do anything at all for T2 mods, rigs, or deployables, which are mostly built out of moongoo products, salvage, and PI stuff. |
constructum
Void Engineers Permanent Transience
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 00:43:00 -
[238] - Quote
Is there anyway you can make it so you can deliver multiple selected jobs with 1 click but not ALL the jobs.
Currently on tranquility you can ctrl or shift + select multiple jobs to deliver at once without delivering all jobs
On sisi with the new interface every job has to be individually delivered which results in a significantly larger number of clicks
Delivering all jobs at once is not always desirable because sometimes you want to leave a corp member's jobs up if they are in a different time zone or so you dont haveto deal with sorting out which delivered items belong to which person.
|
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 06:18:00 -
[239] - Quote
Pic'n dor wrote:Dareth Astrar wrote:
- On the Accept Quote? screen previously, you could press CTRL+C to copy the information, and paste it outside of the game. This was regularly useful when buying minerals, as you could see the exact install requirements and copy them else where to consolidate. The new 'Pretty' UI screen is less useful/practical as you cannot see a complete list of the materials unless you hover over a > icon or you can see the items icons, but the quantities are abbreviated (useless).
As you said, there is a mouse-over feature (blue arrow) : http://i.imgur.com/Q1apIqk.pngIf you right click there, you hjave a "copy material" and you get something like that : Quote:Planetary materials typeIDItemAvailableRequiredEst. Unit price 2868Integrity Response Drones061367760.3845 2869Nano-Factory011603158.5279 2870Organic Mortar Applicators011687405.3778 2875Sterile Conduits016731255.7516
Components typeIDItemAvailableRequiredEst. Unit price 21037Capital Construction Parts017329757.1703
With little effort, you can make it useful :) and it perfectly paste on a spreadsheet :)
Sadly we've rarely found these things useful, but I know when I've helped people get into manufacturing in the past they have found it useful, as when they are starting out they are focusing on one or two item builds. We have our own software to help us, so for us the formulae changes are much greater importance to know.
Good to see for some of the newer characters, but again it's hidden information. It's only intuitive if people know those facilities exist. Whilst I'd already found them, thank you for pointing out there was a means to copy the data.
Perhaps a pulsing colour changing border around these (>) icons to encourage people to find out what they are, or have some kind of pop-up first time the new UI is opened or in the tutorials, so that people will learn the information they contain. :) |
Drak d'Amral
Pandora Developments Boese Onkels
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 08:21:00 -
[240] - Quote
i testet it yesterday and i think there is a mistake in the calculation for invention
if you want to start a invention, and you wanna know what cost you have with this shiny new mouseover, then i counts the data interface to the cost. i think thats not correct because the data interface will not cosumed trou the process, so it's should not be calculatet
|
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 10:49:00 -
[241] - 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 |
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
55
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 11:05:00 -
[242] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: 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 You want to specifically hide opportunity cost so that people continue doing unprofitable industry? That seems... a little crazy to me. |
Conjaq
Mid-Grade Mercenaries Courageous Cowards
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 11:08:00 -
[243] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: 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 You want to specifically hide opportunity cost so that people continue doing unprofitable industry? That seems... a little crazy to me.
Ditto.
On the contrary, it should list whether making this or that will be profitable, or not.
Could in the end make it more worthwhile to produce... |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 11:12:00 -
[244] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: 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 You want to specifically hide opportunity cost so that people continue doing unprofitable industry? That seems... a little crazy to me.
How does the game know where you got your materials from? I sometimes source minerals from other places where tehy are cheaper then jita. So having the ui show me jita cost for those materials and then telling me im losing money is a lie |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
607
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 11:41:00 -
[245] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: 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 You want to specifically hide opportunity cost so that people continue doing unprofitable industry? That seems... a little crazy to me. How does the game know where you got your materials from? I sometimes source minerals from other places where tehy are cheaper then jita. So having the ui show me jita cost for those materials and then telling me im losing money is a lie
It does not matter where you get them from, such a number would be an estimation, an indication. I do the same with my industry: I have my Jita reference and if something is profitable with its prices, I check further with my personal prices. Knowing the reference (regional average from all 5 trade hub regions, for instance), gives you an indication in the industry window if something is even remotely worth putting effort into. It is nothing that needs to compete with dedicated tools, it just needs to give you an indication about the viability. And this is especially important for beginners to avoid frustration about losing money, but also for more involved people to get more important information at a glance in-game, which they then can compare and refine in their own tools.
As an example: I get my minerals for well below all the hub prices. However, if I cannot make money with hub priced minerals or component materials, I would lose money with my cheap minerals and components. This is very undesirable. If the Industry window can indicate that without the need for third party tools, it would help a lot.
This stance from CCP and the CSM is plain daft, and this functionality was replaced with useless space and useless information. Congratulations.
Quote:
- After Crius both Reverse Engineering and Invention are next on our list for some significant love, this includes UI and gameplay
Your love for meaningless destruction; you should specify that. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
245
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 12:04:00 -
[246] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: 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 You want to specifically hide opportunity cost so that people continue doing unprofitable industry? That seems... a little crazy to me. How does the game know where you got your materials from? I sometimes source minerals from other places where tehy are cheaper then jita. So having the ui show me jita cost for those materials and then telling me im losing money is a lie Seriously??
I hope you are not on the economic or industrial teams for your alliance, they will go broke very quickly.
Try thinking outside the box. UI gives you Jita price, you say you can source materials cheaper - UI is giving you insight as to how much others can build the same thing for therefore how much profit you could make. With no information from the UI (which is what we will have) you have no idea how much others are able to build that same item for (without checking Jita prices), therefore no idea whether you can make a profit.. Unless you are under the impression you are the only one who can source cheaper than Jita?
My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Noriko Mai
1389
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 14:04:00 -
[247] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: 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 You want to specifically hide opportunity cost so that people continue doing unprofitable industry? That seems... a little crazy to me. Yeah. Ey, CCP make autoselect most profitable Blueprint with option to autobuy the BP and everything required.
The information they would provide would always be false. So why even bother? Doing your research is part of what makes you a successful industrialist. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
608
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 14:07:00 -
[248] - Quote
Can CCP eventually fix the missing/lacking refresh of the industry window? It is immensely annoying that I have to close the window after changing the input hangars for invention.
@Noriko Mai
My dear, nothing is false if it is clearly declared as an estimation a/o indication... |
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 14:20:00 -
[249] - Quote
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 |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
432
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:33:00 -
[250] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
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
Pls dont :( this is actually really needed to encorage those that think that minerals are free to rethink their position. Maybe they will finally start selling those minerals on the market instead of building underpriced ships. They will be able to make concious decision about whetever they want just to build or maybe sell minerals for bigger profit and less hassle Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
|
|
CCP Claymore
C C P C C P Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:37:00 -
[251] - 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 -
[252] - 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 |
|
Vodka Tequila
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 19:40:00 -
[253] - Quote
Hello. I looked through all threads on test server feedback, but couldn't find the answer to the following question: How often the price of the job will change? Will the change (increase) happen after each installed job or for instance at each downtime? |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 08:08:00 -
[254] - Quote
Conjaq wrote:Masao Kurata wrote: You want to specifically hide opportunity cost so that people continue doing unprofitable industry? That seems... a little crazy to me.
Ditto. On the contrary, it should list whether making this or that will be profitable, or not. Could in the end make it more worthwhile to produce...
Exactly, and correct. Information being provided by the UI should at least be relatively accurate based on their background current highest mineral prices in Jita, if not any purchases in the users/corps transactions. This is supposed to be informative, then it should be accurate or else it's space consuming useless information.
Firvain wrote:How does the game know where you got your materials from? I sometimes source minerals from other places where tehy are cheaper then jita. So having the ui show me jita cost for those materials and then telling me im losing money is a lie
That doesn't matter!
If at the end of the day the people can't be informed to see that any manufacturing efforts they are undertaking are loosing them money compared to simply moving the minerals and selling to the highest available buy orders in reasonable range or their current region, we will never escape this "minerals are free mentality".
I'm sure, after all, you'd all be happy to consider your time spent working everyday for your employer as free, I'm sure your employer would thank you for your permanent voluntary efforts and the increase in his profits. :)
Max Kolonko wrote:Pls dont :( this is actually really needed to encorage those that think that minerals are free to rethink their position. Maybe they will finally start selling those minerals on the market instead of building underpriced ships. They will be able to make concious decision about whetever they want just to build or maybe sell minerals for bigger profit and less hassle
Preaching to the converted here Max, but in the 11 years of industrial effort in this game I can honestly say there are still arguments about this point. Even though the customers pay for this game, they have to earn their money they still seem to consider their time worth nothing in isk value which still baffles me.
CCP RubberBAND wrote: * 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
Please can we also ensure that there is an option for Containers as well in that filtering, so if we are deliberately trying to hide some blueprints from the industrial interface, we still can.
I really do hope you mean it on the stacks. I would hate to see history repeat itself and we get a half implemented change, and then the team diverted to other priorities. Fingers crossed, this would be one of the best changes the industrial interface will ever have seen.
I honestly don't understand the conscious decision to obfuscate this information. It makes no sense to me to not inform your software's user in the best possible manner. Could you please discuss the reasoning? |
Masao Kurata
Z List
55
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 12:49:00 -
[255] - Quote
I just noticed that meta inputs to invention are ordered alphabetically, please order them by meta level as that's what matters to the process. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 21:12:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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.
Can we get an idea on what it is going to apply to?
Reprocessing Industrial lines Laboratory services Clones Repairs
That would freaking awesome if it applied to all current services as well as the industry stuff |
KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 06:19:00 -
[257] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:You name it yourself: The Minmatar Outpost provides you with ridiculously cheap minerals, and on top of that you still want an even more ridiculous reduction on manufacturing. Are you out of your mind? And you don't need to import nearly as many items as you want to make the world believe. You have tons of moon minerals locally in your Sov 00, let alone ice and normal minerals. The only thing you absolutely need to import are moon minerals and their products that don't grow on your moons. That is all there is to import. And if you followed that lead (use your local resources, actually mine in your space instead of using outsourced Made in Bangladesh minerals, you have a very big edge over the importers. Get your act together and start living in your space and not just cherry-pick what like to do. That is not what Sovereignty is supposed to be. All you 00 dwellers want to make it a holiday resort with massive benefits, instead of a home turf with all sorts of labor, activities and resulting benefits. This is a disgusting attitude. If people would actually do that, there would be a slight chance of actually giving the outpost a better than it currently is bonus to ME; however, as people are only after exploiting the system, giving the outpost more than 5% is absolutely wrong. The problem with 0.0 is there arent enough miners around to supply all the builders with lowends. I personally use 5 billion trit every week, thats a fuckton of miners to supply just my needs, let alone the other guys who are building stuff in deklein. The problem with aquiring minerals in 0.0 is that you have a lot smaller pool of miners to grab from compared to empire. even if miner density was the same in 0.0 as its in empire i still only have acces to 1 or 2 regions realisticly to buy minerals in. Compared in empire where I can just buy them in every region because shipping is retardly safe in there.
he is right. miners will always be miners.
even with the current buff in mining ship resilience. the real miners are all still in HS. CCP have no mechanism in place to promote more mining in null
maybe capital ship INDY need to be nerfed so that they are made sooooo slowly, then null mining will catch up. by then, skirmishes will move on more to sub caps, and the demand grows again ... WUT ??? |
Nike Andedare
Diamond Command
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 07:33:00 -
[258] - Quote
[BUG] Industry UI ---> Blueprints Tab ---> Corporate Inventory Location Names
The third drop down column is missing the name functionality for containers within corporate hangers. When you select "Owned by corp" and an appropriate station with a corporate office and a hanger containing containers with blueprints, all you see in the third drop down is the name of the hanger division and no container names, ie if I have 5 cargo containers in the division Manufacturing, when I open the drop down it reads...
All inventory locations Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing
When it should look something like...
All inventory locations Manufacturing - BPOs Unresearched Manufacturing - BPOs Researched Manufacturing - BPC Modules Manufacturing - BPC Ships Manufacturing - BPC Exploration
This function works perfectly fine for "Owned by me," if I move the containers to my personal hanger I see the names
All inventory locations BPOs Unresearched BPOs Researched BPC Modules BPC Ships BPC Exploration
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
610
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 07:44:00 -
[259] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:Firvain wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:You name it yourself: The Minmatar Outpost provides you with ridiculously cheap minerals, and on top of that you still want an even more ridiculous reduction on manufacturing. Are you out of your mind? And you don't need to import nearly as many items as you want to make the world believe. You have tons of moon minerals locally in your Sov 00, let alone ice and normal minerals. The only thing you absolutely need to import are moon minerals and their products that don't grow on your moons. That is all there is to import. And if you followed that lead (use your local resources, actually mine in your space instead of using outsourced Made in Bangladesh minerals, you have a very big edge over the importers. Get your act together and start living in your space and not just cherry-pick what like to do. That is not what Sovereignty is supposed to be. All you 00 dwellers want to make it a holiday resort with massive benefits, instead of a home turf with all sorts of labor, activities and resulting benefits. This is a disgusting attitude. If people would actually do that, there would be a slight chance of actually giving the outpost a better than it currently is bonus to ME; however, as people are only after exploiting the system, giving the outpost more than 5% is absolutely wrong. The problem with 0.0 is there arent enough miners around to supply all the builders with lowends. I personally use 5 billion trit every week, thats a fuckton of miners to supply just my needs, let alone the other guys who are building stuff in deklein. The problem with aquiring minerals in 0.0 is that you have a lot smaller pool of miners to grab from compared to empire. even if miner density was the same in 0.0 as its in empire i still only have acces to 1 or 2 regions realisticly to buy minerals in. Compared in empire where I can just buy them in every region because shipping is retardly safe in there. he is right. miners will always be miners. even with the current buff in mining ship resilience. the real miners are all still in HS. CCP have no mechanism in place to promote more mining in null maybe capital ship INDY need to be nerfed so that they are made sooooo slowly, then null mining will catch up. by then, skirmishes will move on more to sub caps, and the demand grows again ...
Where is he right? If you make miners come to you, by guaranteeing them your protection as PVPers, they will have a space to mine, which is as safe as High sec, or even saver. But the horror, PVPers must give up some of their convenience and actually do something to protect those who are providing them with their goods. If you can guarantee at least a reasonable level of protection, maybe even only for their bigger mining ops, or to be ready to respond when they mine under the prying eyes of a cloaky person in local, you could certainly bring a lot more miners into 00 sec. Not to mention that there are already big numbers of miners. You, as sov holders, just need to organize them better. Also something that requires people to do something.
There is a lot of people who want to go to 00 sec and mine, but the current attitude of the PVPers in this game that they should get their stuff for free from "risk-averse" High sec miners is what appalls those willing to set out.
|
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
51
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 15:23:00 -
[260] - Quote
Can we get the materials listing in the blueprints and industry UI to be able to sort the same way, by default? Right now ShowInfo is sorting by TYPEID, and I have NO IDEA what the UI is sorting by. Regardless neither one is something that we can sort our inventory by. Please switch it up to have both the UI and the ShowInfo sort by TypeName
I hate this most of all... |
|
Donaldo Duck
Nomad Inc. Hansa Teutonica
14
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 20:47:00 -
[261] - Quote
Good Unified UI for industry/manufacturing Showinfo for Outcome -> see material requirements for potential T2-BPC
Bad/Improvements Stack of blueprints start a job, but no direct indikator for "do it run now?" -> block start-button for a second and made it in another color or show a "jobstart"-tooltip BPO dont show invention-requirements; only way in new interface: open BPO in industry select copy click output info, but this is much more complicated visible jobcost for a jobtype not available on station is insanly high -> when jobtype not available simply show no jobcost |
sten mattson
Virtus Crusade Curatores Veritatis Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 23:28:00 -
[262] - Quote
changes look good for the most part.
one big problem though for those who use BPOs as a corp resource:
as of right now corp theft is not really a problem since the BPO can be locked inside a station and you can still use the bpo for jobs in a POS eg copy - ME/TE - manufacturing.
with the new changes , you will have to first move the BPOs to the pos, and i have no problem with this. But you will also have to move them to the specific facility for the job- i.e you need to put the BPO in the ship assembly to build a ship from the BPO, or the BPO needs to be in the design lab to get copied.
what this means is that these blueprints cant be locked and saved from corp theft with these new changes since they will be needed for different things.
what i propose is that the blueprints still need to be brought to the actual POS, but only need to be in any hangar in the POS to be used for all facilities inside the POS.
i.e: all BPOs are locked inside the corp hangar array, and can be used for copying in the design lab or used for manufacturing in the assembly arrays. IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
610
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 10:51:00 -
[263] - Quote
Invention BP display uses the BPO icon both in the central ring as well as the list. Again (as it did on TQ with the contracts. ) |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
610
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 10:53:00 -
[264] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:changes look good for the most part.
one big problem though for those who use BPOs as a corp resource:
... theft ...
Simple solution: Create a 1-man corp for your BPO holder and let him copy, day in, day out. More cooperation is not desired in this case, and this is the only way to keep your BPO safe.
|
D4mane
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 07:14:00 -
[265] - Quote
Unable to install job due to the following reasons: The job cost has changed The facility tax rates have changed
Error.MISMATCH_COST (6487, 4541) Error.MISMATCH_TAX (649, 454)
While trying to install an invention job.
Also, I hired a ME team, but I can't see any effects on either stats or lower material requiremets of a blueprint. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
55
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 04:03:00 -
[266] - Quote
The old 'Bill of Materials' tab has disappeared from blueprint info. That's probably intentional. The attributes tab has ALSO disappeared, please tell me that's NOT intentional because it's the only place you can see maximum licensed runs. |
Kislac66
The 1st Regiment HUN Reloaded
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 08:51:00 -
[267] - Quote
Hello CCP devs and another capsuler!
I have detected some problem (on singularity), with Manufacturing UI. I list the points.
1. Not all time refreshing the raw materials. When i add material that corp divisons, sometime not refresh in the Manufacturing UI. I should place somewhere a refresh button.
2. Manufacture cost. Theoretically, more assemlby array reduce the Manufacture cost. When i have 1 onilne (Large Assambly Array) its give a -3% bonus, but when i online more another Large Assambly arrey, not stack the bounus, its stay on 3% . I should place somewhere a refresh button as the previous point.
3. And one mor annoying thing. E.g. when i use a BP from crop hangars DIVISON 7 on the manufacture ui auto set the input/output material location for division 1. I think, is more logical, when i use a BP from e.g. division 6, the system auto set the input/output material location to division 6 (or that place where i have click the BP)
That's all I have found what I think should be improved. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:54:00 -
[268] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: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. Can we get an idea on what it is going to apply to? Reprocessing Industrial lines Laboratory services Clones Repairs That would freaking awesome if it applied to all current services as well as the industry stuff
Quoting myself as they showed up on SiSi today
Looks pretty good
ANY CHANCE that same exact window could replace the flat reprocessing tax as well???????????? |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 13:51:00 -
[269] - Quote
Not sure if this is the right thread to respond to, but hopefully it is.
First up the new S&I interface is visually stunning but completely fails at being usable, frankly the tooltips are more helpful than the interface in some cases. for example deciphering what the build requirements actually are: http://i.imgur.com/1URXNbt.jpg Frankly I don't know what any of the icons on the left are, I don't want to be constantly hovering over every item to find out what mineral/PI Goods/components/other the build requirements are. The tooltip from the screenshot is better at showing the build requirements than the actual interface.
Next pet peeve, Job Duration, how about actually showing it in a XXd XXh XXm XXs format instead of the XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX format which is far from easy to read, or at least give a human readable format in the tooltip.
Blueprints tab, I see that it has been mentioned a few times, but the ability to filter based on BPO or BPC or Both would be very much required. One of the most common things I do is probably filter by BPO and then sort on either ME or PE and then research the ones that have low amounts, having the BPCs in the mix makes it allot harder to easily do this.
Facilities tab, actually no real comments for this tab. Although I found it comical that there was effectively no difference between details view and List view apart from the size of the icons/zoom.
Jobs tab, same as facilities tab, no real comments for this tab. Although I again I found it comical that there was effectively no difference between details view and List view apart from the size of the icons/zoom. However it was the first tab that I found that I wanted to make the window wider and found that I couldn't, frankly trying to see all of the columns with long blueprint/character/station names will be very difficult in the limited width.
Teams Tab, I don't really understand this too much so can't really comment too much on it, however when installing jobs, I'm only going to want to see teams that are already in my location, not try and bid and then wait for them to come to me etc. (please note that I more use S&I to be self sufficient and not for producing to sell, so my usage is sporadic and more that I produce stuff when I need it.)
General note, I felt that it was odd to select the input material location on the output side of the horizontal flowchart. It would probably feel more normal to have it with the inputs, when I first went looking for it, it took a while to locate it.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3668
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 16:38:00 -
[270] - 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. |
|
|
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 18:27:00 -
[271] - Quote
Well that's unfortunate. No more going into lowsec, buying 100 million m3 of Trit / Pyerite, manufacturing on site and exporting it all to hisec in a blockade runner. It was such a nice way to exploit cheap minerals far from Jita.
With the release only 12 days away and while we're on the subject of material inputs, any news on the Material Efficiency skill? |
Kaija Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 18:50:00 -
[272] - Quote
Teams Feedback:
When you click on a BPO, it auto-fills filters for itself in the Teams window (World, Consumable, Ammo, etc). When you remove the blueprint (right click on it, Remove Blueprint) - it should clear these filters as well. This was very confusing during the mass test, and people were being told to close/reopen the UI.
No filter in the Teams Chartering section to show you all of the teams that you have bid on, so you can quickly see which teams you bid on, and when they complete. Having a "My Bids" section/filter would be very helpful so you can keep on top of your bids (to make sure you are the top bidder).
When you are bidding on a team, you can only see the top 3 systems that have bids. No way to tell if other people are trying to bid to bring that team to a system if it drops below the top 3 bids.
When trying to enter a bid, the system name should start auto-completing as you type. It's not intuitive to have to type and then hit enter for it to find the names to select.
I also don't like the fact that I have to hover over every one of the teams to see a tooltip popup of "My Bids" to verify if I am the top bidder. Having a column with checkbox/x or something like that would be nice - or is this to prevent UI twitch bidding?
The Team Name/ID are not unique. When we did the mass test we were bidding on a DST100 team (I believe). There was another team with the same ID already active in a lowsec system.
The entire Teams list disappeared for a lot of people during the mass test. Had to restart the Industry UI to get it back. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3239
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 19:04:00 -
[273] - Quote
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 4, hours, 10 min 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
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Roger Jourgenson
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 19:08:00 -
[274] - Quote
Already submitted the mass test survey but I thought of a few more comments:
Regarding the Start button on the UI: eventually I figured out that it was using yellow vs blue to help show a difference between manufacturing and research jobs, but at first I thought that a yellow Start button meant that there was a problem and the Start button wouldn't work yet.
I think it would be more appealing if it did work that way: make the start button red or something if there's something that would prevent the job from working (not enough input materials, or missing a skill, or too many jobs already). Then have it change from NOGO to GO color when all conditions are good. Bonus if a tooltip on the start button could show what the current problems are, that would prevent the job from being installed. As it is now, I was clicking the start button just to find out if there was anything else I had to set up for the job. |
Kaija Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 19:10:00 -
[275] - Quote
I thought I'd be nitpicking to point that out - the start/stop/deliver button should be the same color regardless of the type of job. And the manufacturing section having "yellow" does make it look like something is wrong. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2433
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 21:47:00 -
[276] - 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. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3242
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 01:19:00 -
[277] - 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.
Look, I am not sure how I can get this through your head...
1. I am on Sisi right now, and staring at the new industry UI. You can access my account and see for yourself. There is a Capital Turret copying job going on right now in PVH8-O. It is one copy, but 40 runs. When I insert my other Cap BPO I brought with me, the UI explicitly states, just below the team icon, and above the BPO icon "Maximum Runs", and under that "20". Look at the damn thing yourself.
2. WTF are you talking about? Grab a ME3 Archon BPO on TQ, today. Look how many modules it takes to build an Archon. Now take an Archon BPO on Sisi, with 7% "material reduction" as you call it. Look at the modules needed to produce the same Archon, using the new industry UI. It has gone from 127 Capital Components to 136. I can make a bloody list for comparison if you can't see it.
How difficult is that to understand? You have to adjust the waste on these BPO's, drastically, to maintain fairness. My ME3 Archon BPO on T1 has waste of 1/126 = 0.79%. The same BPO, being converted to 7%, now has waste of 10/126 = 7.94%. This is not rocket science. Just look at the BPO or BPC at 7% using the new UI and see what components are now needed compared to the same blueprint on TQ using the old UI. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 03:23:00 -
[278] - Quote
Would it be possible to get rid of the grey area above the Teams section, when we're just doing the bidding etc.? Only 4 teams fit and it's a lot of scrolling, while there is all this wasted space on top. Would be nice to have a tiny triangle to collapse that section. |
Luci Lu
Sacrosanctae plebs GesmbH
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 08:31:00 -
[279] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha 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. Look, I am not sure how I can get this through your head... 1. I am on Sisi right now, and staring at the new industry UI. You can access my account and see for yourself. There is a Capital Turret copying job going on right now in PVH8-O. It is one copy, but 40 runs. When I insert my other Cap BPO I brought with me, the UI explicitly states, just below the team icon, and above the BPO icon "Maximum Runs", and under that "20". Look at the damn thing yourself. 2. WTF are you talking about? Grab a ME3 Archon BPO on TQ, today. Look how many modules it takes to build an Archon. Now take an Archon BPO on Sisi, with 7% "material reduction" as you call it. Look at the modules needed to produce the same Archon, using the new industry UI. It has gone from 127 Capital Components to 136. I can make a bloody list for comparison if you can't see it. How difficult is that to understand? You have to adjust the waste on these BPO's, drastically, to maintain fairness. My ME3 Archon BPO on T1 has waste of 1/126 = 0.79%. The same BPO, being converted to 7%, now has waste of 10/126 = 7.94%. This is not rocket science. Just look at the BPO or BPC at 7% using the new UI and see what components are now needed compared to the same blueprint on TQ using the old UI.
well queueing 10 carriers will fix that , at least thats what i got from earlier discussions about that topic as ccp nowdays rounds up. they dodge the promise about not making the bpos worse by referencing that.
in the end its me 10 or bust :)
but then they could just multiply component needs by 100, reduce size and material costs of them accordingly and everything would work fine.
they already need to run such scripts anyway so why not do it for that too. seems so simple :( |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2433
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 10:37:00 -
[280] - 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 :) |
|
|
Luci Lu
Sacrosanctae plebs GesmbH
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 11:21:00 -
[281] - Quote
can you give us the new stats pretty please? ^^ |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2433
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 13:07:00 -
[282] - 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 |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3243
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 13:37:00 -
[283] - Quote
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. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
271
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 14:41:00 -
[284] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Luci Lu wrote:can you give us the new stats pretty please? ^^ 1->5 2->7 3-4->8 5-9->9 10->10
Wow, I'm amazed you guys are really pulling through with that absurd conversation.
Punishing both, people who thoroughly researched their BPOs AND new potential industrialists that happen to start the game AFTEr this conversion with the same lazy job. Good work! |
Luci Lu
Sacrosanctae plebs GesmbH
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 14:53:00 -
[285] - Quote
yay nothing changes, if you're not massively bulk building.
doubt greyscale cares about small cap producers :) |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3243
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 15:32:00 -
[286] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Luci Lu wrote:can you give us the new stats pretty please? ^^ 1->5 2->7 3-4->8 5-9->9 10->10 Wow, I'm amazed you guys are really pulling through with that absurd conversation. Punishing both, people who thoroughly researched their BPOs AND new potential industrialists that happen to start the game AFTEr this conversion with the same lazy job. Good work!
I am VERY curious to see what the wastage is with a 8% BPO. I showed Greyscale the waste with a 7%, and it was huge compared to a current ME3 on TQ.
Am I STILL facing more wastage with an 8% BPO than the current ME3 BPO, or is it identical? My Thannie ME3 BPO has waste of ONE Capital Drone Bay component at ME3, using 56 instead of a perfect 55. Will that still translate to waste of one component at 8% in the new system?
|
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
357
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 15:45:00 -
[287] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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 :) When will you be re-running the upgrade script so we can see the real effect on Sisi?
MDD |
Luci Lu
Sacrosanctae plebs GesmbH
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 16:05:00 -
[288] - Quote
well 61*0.92 rounded up, you save pretty much the same.
the problem is in the components with low quantities. pre cirius me1 brought each of those comps down by one.
former:
me 1: 8 capital armor plates, perfect
now:
me 5: 8.55 capital armor plates, which gets rounded to 9 for single builds |
Careby
192
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 17:03:00 -
[289] - Quote
First let me complement the dev team on producing a much improved industry UI. Very pretty, and very newbie-friendly.
Also very newbie-friendly? The elimination of manufacturing and research slots, the changes to skill requirements, and the changes to material waste/efficiency. In fact, the overall changes to industry are SO newbie friendly that I am thinking of replacing my entire trained, veteran workforce with unskilled, undocumented, and unpaid workers.
I created a brand new character on SiSi to see what he could offer me. At one minute of age, and zero additional skills trained, I found he could do T1 blueprint material efficiency research, time efficiency research, and copying. At ten minutes of age, after training the Industry skill to level one, he could manufacture a T1 battleship.
Now I remember when I first manufactured, as a newbie, being discouraged by the waste and inefficiency caused by my lack of skills. That's all gone now. My TEN MINUTE OLD CHARACTER can build a Dominix with the exact same amount of materials that I or my trained co-workers can. Granted, he cannot do it as quickly, taking about a third more time. And unless I train him for ten more hours to pick up a level of Mass Production, he can only build with one slot. But guess what? He has lots of friends! So all I really need to do is expand the size of my unskilled workforce, and I can build at whatever rate I want.
I haven't figured out how to start a trial account on SiSi to test, but I can't find any reason that a trial account character won't be able to do the same jobs as my ten minute old newbie character. And since trial accounts are, you know, free, I'm guessing you can have all the industrial capacity you might want at zero cost.
Of course managing 3000 alts on 1000 trial accounts will be a major clickfest. But as an EVE player (particularly one involved in industry and trade), I have repeatedly demonstrated my willingness to endure clickfests. So I think I'll be okay with it. I just hope nobody else does the same thing.
Sarcasm is OP |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3243
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 17:23:00 -
[290] - Quote
Luci Lu wrote:well 61*0.92 rounded up, you save pretty much the same.
the problem is in the components with low quantities. pre cirius me1 brought each of those comps down by one.
former:
me 1: 8 capital armor plates, perfect
now:
me 5: 8.55 capital armor plates, which gets rounded to 9 for single builds
Well, greyscale did say that the current Sisi build is screwed up calculating wastage. I just hope there is another build in the next 11 days that has the corrected formula, so it can be tested.
But bottom line, costs for high sec are insane compared to null sec, or even parts of low sec.
Extreme example, one that null sec will ever build because of the size, but still demonstrates:
Domi build cost: Lowest in null sec :153,000 Highest in high sec: 14.4 Million
There are a wide range of course in between, but constantly chasing low cost areas will be a nightmare for high sec players, as they have no control over who else builds in a system, while null sec can very tightly restrict industry players, and will.
I am looking for a T2 build on Sisi, like an Ishtar, to compare the two, or DC II's, and Nano II's. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3245
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 23:09:00 -
[291] - Quote
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? |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1472
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 23:41:00 -
[292] - Quote
Luci Lu wrote:
well queueing 10 carriers will fix that , at least thats what i got from earlier discussions about that topic as ccp nowdays rounds up. they dodge the promise about not making the bpos worse by referencing that.
in the end its me 10 or bust :)
but then they could just multiply component needs by 100, reduce size and material costs of them accordingly and everything would work fine.
they already need to run such scripts anyway so why not do it for that too. seems so simple :(
they never said that the build cost with new BPOs won't be worse than they are today, they said that the quality of the BPOs, compared to other BPOs of the same type will become better or stay the same.
GRRR Goons |
Luci Lu
Sacrosanctae plebs GesmbH
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 23:44:00 -
[293] - Quote
still pretty useless to research carrier bpos as the improvement is just too low . hence the idea to just change components to make the me levels meaningful. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1472
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 23:51:00 -
[294] - Quote
something completely different:
i just went back to sisi to deliver some jobs. there is no option to deliver all the things at the same time. meh GRRR Goons |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1472
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 00:11:00 -
[295] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Luci Lu wrote:well 61*0.92 rounded up, you save pretty much the same.
the problem is in the components with low quantities. pre cirius me1 brought each of those comps down by one.
former:
me 1: 8 capital armor plates, perfect
now:
me 5: 8.55 capital armor plates, which gets rounded to 9 for single builds Well, greyscale did say that the current Sisi build is screwed up calculating wastage. I just hope there is another build in the next 11 days that has the corrected formula, so it can be tested. But bottom line, costs for high sec are insane compared to null sec, or even parts of low sec. Extreme example, one that null sec will ever build because of the size, but still demonstrates: Domi build cost: Lowest in null sec :153,000 Highest in high sec: 14.4 Million There are a wide range of course in between, but constantly chasing low cost areas will be a nightmare for high sec players, as they have no control over who else builds in a system, while null sec can very tightly restrict industry players, and will. I am looking for a T2 build on Sisi, like an Ishtar, to compare the two, or DC II's, and Nano II's.
have you read the part where CCP explicitly said that all cost values on SiSi are complete garbage ?
oh, and highsec players have a lot of control over who builds where. guns don't just work in nullsec.
GRRR Goons |
Josclyn Verreuil
Justified Chaos
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 03:11:00 -
[296] - Quote
Luci Lu wrote:still pretty useless to research carrier bpos as the improvement is just too low . hence the idea to just change components to make the me levels meaningful.
I think that's some of what they're trying to do with the batch ME application, letting you realize the percentile gains over batches if the job is otherwise going to round them off.
Obviously, there's a question of realistic scale with capital jobs, but check and see if your savings go up substantially with a 2 run job? |
Torych Beldrulf
Brave Operations - Lollipop Division Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 09:58:00 -
[297] - Quote
I've never manufactured before, but decided to run through the manufacturing tutorial to see what the changes were like.
Steps 1 & 2 talk about and direct you to relocate to "a station with Industrial Station Services". I assume that means slots and I thought they had gone.
Step 1 refers to reprocessing items as a source of minerals equivalent to mining or the market. Given the changes to item reprocessing I suggest this is taken out or highlighted as being much worse.
Everything else seemed to make sense. |
Josclyn Verreuil
Justified Chaos
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 13:43:00 -
[298] - Quote
Torych Beldrulf wrote:
Steps 1 & 2 or the aura manufacturing tutorial talk about and direct you to relocate to "a station with Industrial Station Services". I assume that means slots and I thought they had gone.
Slots are gone, but stations are still only equipped with their given services. Thus, you can still only manufacture at a station with manufacturing, or research at a station with researching. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1472
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 18:16:00 -
[299] - Quote
Quote:Step 1 refers to reprocessing items as a source of minerals equivalent to mining or the market. Given the changes to item reprocessing I suggest this is taken out or highlighted as being much worse.
they are still a valid source. halved mineral content only means that they will become cheaper (when there is no other use-case). we will probably also see reduced supply because looting is gonna be less profitable than it is now. But salvage and meta 4 loot is always in demand, so people will continue looting.
the ISK - minerals ratio will be the same after a short adjustment phase, the compression rate is still pretty good, so yeah, meta loot is a valid source of minerals. GRRR Goons |
Telkor Okel
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 01:42:00 -
[300] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Luci Lu wrote:can you give us the new stats pretty please? ^^ 1->5 2->7 3-4->8 5-9->9 10->10
Has anybody done the calcs what this does to cap ship prints? Most of them currently max out below me10 and have taken many months of research to get them there. Having them going from perfect me to sub-optimal me post patch blows. Can't say I'm happy about spending a lot of isk and many months to get them back to optimal |
|
May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 02:15:00 -
[301] - Quote
Hello,
I've started to test the Indus UI. So far I have the following remarks (sorry if already done): - if you try to start a job but not enough ressources, there is a client exception popup with technical details (material id, missing quantity, exception code) - I couldn't figure out the difference between the 2 symbols " > " on the circle, they both display same information to me. I've tried to put teams, to change BP to BPC or BPO, tried different kinds of research level, no change. The only thing I could see is that the second one becomes a backet when blocked but it's only graphical - when you don't have enough ressources, the UI states on a tooltip the amount you have and the total. It is unpractical you don't have an direct overview of the numbers, in particular what is missing - knowing the current tax applied and bonuses without having to look on each tooltip would be more practical and allow faster comparisons |
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
276
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 11:54:00 -
[302] - Quote
The UI needs to filter by BP type and category.
Inventors might have a thousand BPO's and BPC's, currently the desired BP need to be selected from a 1/4 screen height window, to coin a phrase its a scroll fest.
To be honest, im not sure a scroll fest is any better than the current click fest, its going to drive people crazy movign that minimal sized scroll line between thousands of entries.
So create a filter with a drop down menu to select ship/module/ammo/rig whatever. A seperate filter for BPO/BPC might also be warranted.
Please |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1472
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 22:21:00 -
[303] - Quote
Telkor Okel wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Luci Lu wrote:can you give us the new stats pretty please? ^^ 1->5 2->7 3-4->8 5-9->9 10->10 Has anybody done the calcs what this does to cap ship prints? Most of them currently max out below me10 and have taken many months of research to get them there. Having them going from perfect me to sub-optimal me post patch blows. Can't say I'm happy about spending a lot of isk and many months to get them back to optimal
GRRR Goons |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2435
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 11:45:00 -
[304] - 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 :) |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3680
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 12:33:00 -
[305] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry for being so blunt
You're no sorrier about being blunt than you believe Greyscale wasn't with that one post characterizing the social tendencies of highsec industrialists. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
627
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 13:05:00 -
[306] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry for being so blunt You're no sorrier about being blunt than you believe Greyscale wasn't with that one post characterizing the social tendencies of highsec industrialists.
Which one was that? |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3259
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 14:33:00 -
[307] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry for being so blunt You're no sorrier about being blunt than you believe Greyscale wasn't with that one post characterizing the social tendencies of highsec industrialists.
Keep gloating......
I look forward to the day you and the rest of the goon leadership stand up and say "look how powerful we are. We wiped out a 100 million dollar company with the highest level of meta-gaming possible." |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3259
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 14:38:00 -
[308] - Quote
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 :)
All right then. Guess I have a lot of work in the next week burning off all my existing T2 BPC's, since the -4,-4's will be hopelessly inefficient when converted next week. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2435
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 14:40:00 -
[309] - 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 :)
|
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3259
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 14:49:00 -
[310] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:mynnna wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry for being so blunt You're no sorrier about being blunt than you believe Greyscale wasn't with that one post characterizing the social tendencies of highsec industrialists. Which one was that?
It was the one where Greyscale characterized high sec industrialists as people who refuse to interact with others in the game.
CCP soon is going to get an object lesson on how much this demographic does or does not like to "interact" with other players, and ultimately, "interact" with CCP, when the full impact of Crius is felt by all the players who don't read dev blogs.
The cartel propagandists can proclaim all they like that the sliding PCU and sub rate is due exclusively to the stagnation in null and how it is CCP's fault, but that is only part of the reason. The exodus from high sec continues, especially after Crius. And now, when we read mynnna's grand vision for mining on his blog, we can see another one of the cartel's targets. That, and of course, the constant drumbeat that Eve would be so much better if only missions were redesigned so only groups could handle level 4's. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3259
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 14:57:00 -
[311] - Quote
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. |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
502
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 15:07:00 -
[312] - Quote
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. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3259
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 15:16:00 -
[313] - 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.
Yeah, I forgot about that. I play an old game, Paradox's Hearts of Iron, where you get gearing bonuses if your production line quantity is larger. There is some logic in that, as any real-life manufacturing company will tell you an optimized line is one that is pumping out the same item 24/7 (maintenance windows excepted), but ultimately, a point is reached quite quickly where the return is miniscule.
I have not run the math to see what the bonus on Sisi actually is (sorry CCP, that is a better indicator than any blog).
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2435
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 15:21:00 -
[314] - 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! |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
558
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 16:35:00 -
[315] - Quote
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? |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2442
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 22:19:00 -
[316] - 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. |
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
433
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 22:28:00 -
[317] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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!
What about replacement for material efficency skill? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Ryuu Towryk
Reiuji Heavy Industries
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 00:01:00 -
[318] - Quote
Quote: What about replacement for material efficency skill?
Here you go, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=357640&find=unread
Quote:During the mass test today, I noticed that the "Material Efficiency" (-5% material requirements per level) has been changed to "Advanced Industry" (-1% time per level).
|
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 00:59:00 -
[319] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:New blog coming out this week with final info on everything!
Does everything work correctly on SIsi? Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3263
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 06:08:00 -
[320] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
Well, given that the release is in 7 days, many of us don't have time to wait on a new blog. Some manufacturing runs take quite some time, and I know that since I killed my mfg accounts sometime ago, I am relying on this char for the bulk of the work, so I start tomorrow a.m.
Case in point, my large shield extender BPC's are up 60% (5 is now 8) for most T2 intermediate product.
Don't you think it is a tad unfair to be "explaining" formulas mere days before this thing goes live, especially since you backed it off (quite wisely, I might add) many weeks, to get it right? |
|
Nydoathram
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 07:33:00 -
[321] - Quote
Blueprints that previously ONLY had Extra Materials, appear to be effected by ME research.
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1473
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 07:48:00 -
[322] - Quote
Nydoathram wrote:Blueprints that previously ONLY had Extra Materials, appear to be effected by ME research.
Working as intended :) GRRR Goons |
Nydoathram
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 12:09:00 -
[323] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Nydoathram wrote:Blueprints that previously ONLY had Extra Materials, appear to be effected by ME research.
Working as intended :)
Unfortunate, I was hoping it to be covered under the "if it was perfect before ..." |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 12:23:00 -
[324] - Quote
Nydoathram wrote:Gilbaron wrote:Nydoathram wrote:Blueprints that previously ONLY had Extra Materials, appear to be effected by ME research.
Working as intended :) Unfortunate, I was hoping it to be covered under the "if it was perfect before ..."
Dude. that was squashed like the day after fanfest
Perfect before and perfect after didn't apply to the extra materials that were going to be added in
Most of us started researching BPO's immediately |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
82
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 13:28:00 -
[325] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Dev blog explaining this will be out later in the week, they will not be useless.
Could you please try to define "not useless" more than 3 days before said patch will change them into whatever you (CCP) are so desiring.
Specifically, how is an increase in T2 Component parts (in many cases 20-50% more) going to be anything but effectively useless? So far you have dodged any real numbers on the conversion of these base -4/-4 T2 BPC's with just mere, "Trust us, we know what we are doing" speak. We want numbers. Before the patch hits. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1473
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 14:17:00 -
[326] - Quote
An increase in t2 components only means that t2 stuff is gonna get a bit more expensive. It's not gonna break anything, alchemy will help supplying moongoo, people will make money (hint: buy popular t2 stuff). That's it. GRRR Goons |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3263
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 14:38:00 -
[327] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:An increase in t2 components only means that t2 stuff is gonna get a bit more expensive. It's not gonna break anything, alchemy will help supplying moongoo, people will make money (hint: buy popular t2 stuff). That's it.
A bit more?
All existing -4, -4 BPC's are currently facing a 50% increase in T2 and PI material inputs, and in most cases that rounds up to 60% (5 becomes 8), on Sisi RIGHT NOW.
I don't how many small cost T2 BPC's are out there on TQ right now (Hob II's, DC II's, Nano II's spring to mind as ones with no decryptors used by many), but they will become hopelessly inefficient in 7 days if the numbers on Singularity hold.
They will either become a total loss for the manufacturer, or T2 costs are going to go WAY up, not just "a bit more expensive". |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1473
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 15:12:00 -
[328] - Quote
When there is demand, prices will simply go up as well. Inefficient compared to the old way only means that. Inefficient compared to the old way.
We will see some chaos during the adjustment phase. That's a nice opportunity to make money, but it's absolutely not going to break the game. T2 modules will be used until fozzie rebalances modules as a whole. And t2 ships are specialised enough that there is no real alternative (exceptions are ahacs and to some degree, assault frigs) GRRR Goons |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
739
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 18:45:00 -
[329] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Gilbaron wrote:An increase in t2 components only means that t2 stuff is gonna get a bit more expensive. It's not gonna break anything, alchemy will help supplying moongoo, people will make money (hint: buy popular t2 stuff). That's it. A bit more? All existing -4, -4 BPC's are currently facing a 50% increase in T2 and PI material inputs, and in most cases that rounds up to 60% (5 becomes 8), on Sisi RIGHT NOW. I don't how many small cost T2 BPC's are out there on TQ right now (Hob II's, DC II's, Nano II's spring to mind as ones with no decryptors used by many), but they will become hopelessly inefficient in 7 days if the numbers on Singularity hold. They will either become a total loss for the manufacturer, or T2 costs are going to go WAY up, not just "a bit more expensive".
They will not become "hopelessly inefficient". But manufacturers of T2 goods will need to be aware that existing stocks may be more efficient than what they will be making in the future. They should also closely examine how decryptors and BPO research can change that math. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3265
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 04:12:00 -
[330] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Gilbaron wrote:An increase in t2 components only means that t2 stuff is gonna get a bit more expensive. It's not gonna break anything, alchemy will help supplying moongoo, people will make money (hint: buy popular t2 stuff). That's it. A bit more? All existing -4, -4 BPC's are currently facing a 50% increase in T2 and PI material inputs, and in most cases that rounds up to 60% (5 becomes 8), on Sisi RIGHT NOW. I don't how many small cost T2 BPC's are out there on TQ right now (Hob II's, DC II's, Nano II's spring to mind as ones with no decryptors used by many), but they will become hopelessly inefficient in 7 days if the numbers on Singularity hold. They will either become a total loss for the manufacturer, or T2 costs are going to go WAY up, not just "a bit more expensive". They will not become "hopelessly inefficient". But manufacturers of T2 goods will need to be aware that existing stocks may be more efficient than what they will be making in the future. They should also closely examine how decryptors and BPO research can change that math.
I think you have this backwards.
Existing stocks of T2 BPC's are not magically getting better. The majority of them, at least the ones without decryptors or access to the ridiculous null sec material bonuses, will be far more expensive to build the same product, in about 6 days. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1473
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:23:00 -
[331] - Quote
Which is no problem at all. The underlying systems are not fundamentally broken, it's gonna take some time for prices to adjust, but they eventually will. GRRR Goons |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3266
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:10:00 -
[332] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Which is no problem at all. The underlying systems are not fundamentally broken, it's gonna take some time for prices to adjust, but they eventually will.
Yup, no problem at all, unless you happen to be a industry guy holding a bunch of these now useless BPC's, and have no idea what is coming in 6 days. So when some guy who does not read this blog suddenly finds he has a hangar full of now utterly uncompetitive BPC's, I am sure he will react with "wow, this is cool, I will go out and buy another account so I can build all these BPC's at a huge loss", as opposed to "screw you CCP, I am outta here." |
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:58:00 -
[333] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So when some guy who does not read this blog suddenly finds he has a hangar full of now utterly uncompetitive BPC's, I am sure he will react with "wow, this is cool,
If the pre-crius invented T2 BPC's that are converted have the same stats as the post crius invented T2 BPC's, then how will they be utterly uncompetitive?
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3266
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 15:34:00 -
[334] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So when some guy who does not read this blog suddenly finds he has a hangar full of now utterly uncompetitive BPC's, I am sure he will react with "wow, this is cool, If the pre-crius invented T2 BPC's that are converted have the same stats as the post crius invented T2 BPC's, then how will they be utterly uncompetitive?
Because they don't. I am talking about T2 BPC's that were made with no decryptors, which quite a number of "low cost" items have been made with in the past.
Have a look at one of the T2 BPC's in your hangar today on TQ, then compare that same BPC in your hangar as it is today on Singularity. You will not be happy if it is a -4 -4 on TQ.
I am building out as many of my BPC's as I can manage before next Tuesday. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1248
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:19:00 -
[335] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Shiloh Templeton wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So when some guy who does not read this blog suddenly finds he has a hangar full of now utterly uncompetitive BPC's, I am sure he will react with "wow, this is cool, If the pre-crius invented T2 BPC's that are converted have the same stats as the post crius invented T2 BPC's, then how will they be utterly uncompetitive? Because they don't. I am talking about T2 BPC's that were made with no decryptors, which quite a number of "low cost" items have been made with in the past. Have a look at one of the T2 BPC's in your hangar today on TQ, then compare that same BPC in your hangar as it is today on Singularity. You will not be happy if it is a -4 -4 on TQ. I am building out as many of my BPC's as I can manage before next Tuesday.
Yeah I think everyone else did this a month ago. |
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:43:00 -
[336] - Quote
OK I don't remember seeing this anywhere, though I will go look through these threads again just to make myself feel stupid when I inevitably find it. In the meantime...
How do you bid on a team with corporate funds? It seems bids on teams only pull from my personal wallet. |
Chichax
Taurus Quantum Technologies Taurus Quantum Dynamics
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:52:00 -
[337] - Quote
Two things I would like to see in the new UI.
The ability to collapse the top part of the Industry panel similar to character sheet. This would enable to keep an eye out of your jobs while doing other things.
A column in the blueprint tabs to state if it is a copy or original. With the ability to sort based on this stat of course. |
Marc Rene
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 23:38:00 -
[338] - Quote
Not sure if this has been covered earlier, but the install cost popup is not really helpful.
The original dev post gave a mockup that was nice and clear and easy to read
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66057/1/tooltip_for_pricing_blog.png
But the current tool-tip
- Doesn't give you the baseline job cost
- Presents the system cost index as a sliding scale and does not show the value numerically so it's really quite hard to discern what it actually is
- Doesn't show, or isn't applying, the discount for multiple stations providing that service in the same system
- Tax in a station is not taking standings into account and/or is not displaying the standings discount.
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
759
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 23:45:00 -
[339] - 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 |
|
Marc Rene
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:15:00 -
[340] - Quote
Thanks for the reply!
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
I don't think doing it this way helps to compare costs between systems, and doesn't show to a new player that systems with more stations of a given type discounts the install cost.
If you gave the base install cost as just the unmodified starting number for the job then showed the discount given for having multiple facilities of that type in the system I think it would make it much more intuitive and informative when deciding where to install the job.
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. |
|
Marc Rene
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:19:00 -
[341] - Quote
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. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
759
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:45:00 -
[342] - 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 -
[343] - 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 |
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1303
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 01:01:00 -
[344] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Can we have some other kind of feedback for BPOs when they're in use? Either just show it a different colour or have it calculate based on maximum job length. |
Jinn Aideron
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 01:30:00 -
[345] - Quote
First, the sincere:
The combo boxes above the blueprint (e.g.) selection table seem to initiate a full refresh over the wire EVEN if you re-select the same menu item previously selected. Which appears to be outright unnecessary load, and/or oversight.
Then, the silly:
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. CALLED IT! In post #5 of this very thread:
Jinn Aideron wrote: That radial production runs selector? Fun idea! Wonder if you'll manage to keep it, or if "common player" Y's inability to grasp this will lead to it being axed soon. :P
It is saddening that 'people' are this inflexible toward at first unfamiliar concepts' merit. Props for trying regardless, CCP!
Stealth deletes are bad. |
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
756
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 02:59:00 -
[346] - Quote
Coping over a bug report just submitted.
Singularity - EVE-2014-EDOUARD - 8.46.811670
Following the info panel string from a ship in your hanger to the blue print is not working. It gives a "The requested blue print could not be found" message. I do have that blue print in my hanger. And it pulls up a full info blueprint when clicking on that show info link in the right click menu.
Use any ship in your hanger and click show info and then click on the industry tab. If you click show info on the blueprint it gives a "The requested blueprint could not be found." error message
Double clicking another blue print with the industry window open but minimized results in the blue print being applied I hear the sound but does not open the industrial window. It would be more consistent if it did. If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 07:49:00 -
[347] - Quote
UI is getting better everytime I look at it. Got some hope for release.
Still a few pet peeves though:
- The top bit is just too large and takes up too much space. ESP when I am looking for a team/jobs/facility, the top bit is just greyed out and waisted pretty much
- The material input is sorted by well I got no idea really, which makes looking for a specific item a bit weird.
- No group sort in BPO's makes managing a whole range of BPO's a bit tricky. In your inventory they are sorted by group, so why cant we do this in the industry UI? |
Bitter Fremlin
Heimatar Enhanced Fleet Industries
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 08:40:00 -
[348] - Quote
Firvain wrote:- The material input is sorted by well I got no idea really, which makes looking for a specific item a bit weird. Also, material amounts seem to be listed "available"/"will be used". Does this seem to be A-over-T to anyone else, or am I the only one who thinks in terms of "I'm going to use x amount from my stock of y" rather than "I have y amount available, of which I'll use x"? |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 09:05:00 -
[349] - Quote
Marc Rene wrote:Not sure if this has been covered earlier, but the install cost popup is not really helpful. The original dev post gave a mockup that was nice and clear and easy to read http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66057/1/tooltip_for_pricing_blog.pngBut the current tool-tip
- Doesn't give you the baseline job cost
- Presents the system cost index as a sliding scale and does not show the value numerically so it's really quite hard to discern what it actually is
- Doesn't show, or isn't applying, the discount for multiple stations providing that service in the same system
- Tax in a station is not taking standings into account and/or is not displaying the standings discount.
Yes, much more information is needed. System Index Cost is abstract and gives the impression there is no way to affect it, when there are many according to the devblogs. Would love to see this tooltip tomorrow, as is difficult to do anything meaningful without knowing the maths they are using to get the job cost result. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 09:08:00 -
[350] - Quote
Marc Rene wrote:Thanks for the reply! CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. I don't think doing it this way helps to compare costs between systems, and doesn't show to a new player that systems with more stations of a given type discounts the install cost. If you gave the base install cost as just the unmodified starting number for the job then showed the discount given for having multiple facilities of that type in the system I think it would make it much more intuitive and informative when deciding where to install the job. Exactly, to make a meaningful decision on where to operate the information regarding the quality of the station facilities is essential. There is no point in having all these variables and then obscuring the information thus not allowing people to make meaningful decisions on where to operate.
Experienced players would find out this info eventually anyway, so by not giving the information it will simply be making industry less accessible again as it is now.
|
|
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
86
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:09:00 -
[351] - Quote
Posting this question again, because you (CCP) have ignored it
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Dev blog explaining this will be out later in the week, they will not be useless.
(edit, it is now 'later in the week'...btw) Could you please try to define "not useless" more than 3 days before said patch will change them into whatever you (CCP) are so desiring.
Specifically, how is an increase in T2 Component parts (in many cases 20-50% more) going to be anything but effectively useless? So far you have dodged any real numbers on the conversion of these base -4/-4 T2 BPC's with just mere, "Trust us, we know what we are doing" speak. We want numbers. Before the patch hits. And how is this effecting the other T2 BPC's...the ones that had been created with Decrytors.
With SiSi being down for the last few days its been hard to get specific numbers to prove these things to you. |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:31:00 -
[352] - 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 |
|
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
88
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:48:00 -
[353] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: 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.
Soo, you mean to say...regardless of what a lot of your paying customers have been telling you, you have opt'ed to not delay this thing that really should be delayed. More so since i have a sneaky feeling that most of the staff who are involved in this are going to be on vacation (for a month) very shortly after this mess hits the fan. Leaving us to deal with the many issues that will arise. Quite a few of which your customers have already alerted you to. Why do i still waste my time giving you feedback? You will still push broken content onto TQ regardless of what we tell you. In the best interests of all involved, just let everyone go on vacation, then come back to this releasing while they are refreshed and no longer rushed.
Can we trust the "show info" yet? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3673
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:00:00 -
[354] - Quote
Unsticked and locked.
Please post feedback in the Crius consolidation thread, and don't forget we have a known issue thread as well. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |