Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Qinby
ImNo6
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 00:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have a suggestion that would propably solve many problems that occur when you have many BPO/BPC and might also speed up loading time of the industrial UI.
I'm not a computer scientist but if it has that effect aswell it's an added bonus It will also reduce the number of clicking when producing the same Product. The principle i very simple.
Sounds to good to be true...
1. MAKE THE BPO/BPC WITH THE SAME ATTRIBUTES STACKABLE. 2. MAKE THE BPC WITH MANY RUNS ACT LIKE STACKED SINGLE RUN BPC's
In other Words it should work like new un researched Blueprints. I can't in anyway see the Point of it being the way it is now.
The whole Point of not needing multirun BPC's for invention any longer missed a great funtionality by not working like this. I actually thought that was a part of the idea with the change so I only made 100x1 run BPC's (make 100 batches) and got very surprised when I only could use 1 run and still had to make 100x1 runs instead.
Will try to keep this short since any manufacturer understands the improvment this will make so i won't talk about other possitive impacts about this idea (quite a few and quite obvious). There might be "technical" difficulties to implent this, that I don't know but it works like this with new Blueprints.
THE PROBLEMS HAVE TO BE VERY SEVERE NOT TO IMPLEMENT THIS.
Would very much like feedback on this.
Rgds Qinby
If I don't get at least 3000 likes on this I get upset...
. |
Inger Geten
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 01:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Great suggestion!!!
Not much to comment except that. The only thing i would like to see is that CCP Greyscale replys and that this subject doesnt die out.
Think you should have posted this in the "Crius state of play" thread instead of a separate one since much more people would have read it.
Inger Geten
Good luck with the 3000 likes.... |
Zena Adoudel
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 02:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
HEAR HEAR!!!
Should be possible to sort out and ought at least get a dev response, keep pushing this issue. |
Robin Deka
ImNo6
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 02:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yeahh
I know your my bro... but you finally posted this and not just kept nagging in the corp about it.
Good for you (and hopefully us...)
Good luck (gave you a like... nearly there..) |
Sonia Dethahal
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 03:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Good idea but agree with Inger you should have posted the whole text in "Crius state of play" thread since there is not much to add but "good idea"
Better that many people read it in a larger thread, my suggestion ... move it.
|
Valedictio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 07:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Agreed, would love to see stackable BPO/BPC.
Only real problem i can foresee is building from any of the stackable 'single' runs ?
and now for some more of the same from the Constructive Feedback Consortium.
Human Torch time and ..........'FLAME ON' |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
140
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 12:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
They have said many many many times that stackable isn't realistic, because unfortunately, every bpc has a seperate ID
The permutations for ME/TE are less than before, but every time CCP has been asked, they have almost dodged the question
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice idea and I like it, but for some reason, they really don't even want to talk about it
Along with this, if you could combine aggregately, would be nice also
for example if you had (2) 40 run capital armor plate BPC, both at 10/20 and you hit "Combine" then you end up with a single 80 run 10/20 bpc
I don't think that will happen either...but wanted too put it out as a possible solution |
Qinby
ImNo6
39
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 12:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Thank you for this possitive info. :)
Then I wan't nagg about it for a couple of years, did suspect it was something "Dodgy" or it would have happened.
Well Life goes on (hopefully).
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
217
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 17:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Along with this, if you could combine aggregately, would be nice also
for example if you had (2) 40 run capital armor plate BPC, both at 10/20 and you hit "Combine" then you end up with a single 80 run 10/20 bpc
I don't think that will happen either...but wanted too put it out as a possible solution With the invention changes, I don't see why this couldn't happen. Absent a means to queue jobs, this is almost mandatory for some T2 production. |
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy Caldari State
202
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 19:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think you should be able to repackage un-researched blueprints too. Like, why do I even have to say this? If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough. |
|
Team Bidders
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 14:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:They have said many many many times that stackable isn't realistic, because unfortunately, every bpc has a seperate ID
The permutations for ME/TE are less than before, but every time CCP has been asked, they have almost dodged the question
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice idea and I like it, but for some reason, they really don't even want to talk about it
Along with this, if you could combine aggregately, would be nice also
for example if you had (2) 40 run capital armor plate BPC, both at 10/20 and you hit "Combine" then you end up with a single 80 run 10/20 bpc
I don't think that will happen either...but wanted too put it out as a possible solution
The devs can definitely "combine" BPCs. This can be easily achieved by creating a brand new ID and deleting all existing IDs. Not at all difficult from programming perspective.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2561
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 17:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
This is a thing we would like to do, but it's just about non-trivial enough that we're not in a position to commit to a timeframe right now. |
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
68
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 18:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
It is worth noting that this would measurably change things for, for example, certain invented BPCs (particularly rigs, as those invent to 1-of BPCs by default) because, if you can stack them, the small material bonuses would become large enough to actually reduce input materials. |
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
140
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 19:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
I am really glad to hear this is on the radar. Back when you put out your industry survey early this year, this was my number 1 request. Unfortunately, Cruis made this issue worse, not better.
For those who don't appreciate how difficult this is: the problem CCP faces is the way the Eve database handles items. Items can be in two states--packaged or unpackaged. Only packaged items can stack together and be sold on the market. Only unpackaged items can have attributes. You can have a stack of rifters and put them in your hauler and fly them around. However, if you want to use one, you first assemble it. This is when it gets a unique ID number and attributes such as hitpoints. This is also why you cannot repackage something which is damaged. If that were possible, repackaging and then reassembling something would instantly repair it for no cost.
The second problem is that BPOs and BPCs both have the same TypeID number. They are really the same item with the only difference being the runs attribute. BPOs have infinite runs. (A special flag number.) BPCs have limited runs. When you buy a blueprint from an NPC off the market, it is packaged. When it is first used, the game assembles it into a unique item and gives it attributes: ME, TE, and runs. This is also why it took so long for them to be able to give us different icons for BPOs and BPCs-until they figured out how to change the icon based on the runs attribute of the blueprint.
The way I believe everyone imagines BPC stacking would require unique IDs for each BPC. So item 691 is the Rifter BPO. Make a new item, say 100,000 be the Rifter BPC with 0 ME, 0 TE. Then item 100,001 would be the Rifter BPC with 0 ME, 1 TE, etc. Change the runs remaining attribute to quantity, and allow us to use blueprints while packaged. You could stack and unstack them just like we do any other commodity item today.
The problem is implementation. The Eve database had about 22,000 items in it last time I checked. Of those, about 3200 are blueprints. CCP would need to add 121 new items for each blueprint, so that each ME/TE combination came out as a unique part number, that would be approximately 387,000 new lines in the database. Then imagine the changeover going through everyone's inventories and converting every BPC from one TypeID to one of 121 different TypeIDs. Hope there are no typos accidentally converting BPCs into BPOs or one item into a different item. Also, go through all the other sources of BPCs (LP stores, mission rewards, all the loot tables) and ensure they don't accidentally start dropping BPOs instead.
The other way BPC stacking could be accomplished would be to create a completely new function just for blueprints, which appears to the user like stacking, but it would need to behave differently behind the scenes. When the user tried to drag BPC B on top of BPC A, it would check that they are the same blueprint, then if they have the same ME and TE attributes. If so, add the runs from B to A and destroy blueprint B. Also, since the quantity attribute is the flag to differentiate between BPOs and BPCs, there would need to be error handling to prevent anyone from stacking so many BPCs together they create a BPO.
Once this is done, they would need to create a new function to unstack BPCs, because if I want to invent something 10 times, I need 10 BPCs not one giant stack.
The second would probably be the easier solution for QA. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Deliberate Destruction of Spaceships
3556
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 23:46:00 -
[15] - Quote
Confirming that I have had to move thousands of BPCs out of my invention station and to other stations in the same system to ensure that the interface will actually load.
If I could contract more than 200 at a time I'd have farmed them off to alts, but that isn't possible.
And I'm someone that only runs invention on two characters... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 - Gank incursion runners, win prizes! August 26-Sept 30. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Team Bidders
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 15:23:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:This is a thing we would like to do, but it's just about non-trivial enough that we're not in a position to commit to a timeframe right now.
From industrialists' point of view, it's NOT non-trivial at all.
1. Crius has created many T2 BPCs which only require 3 hours to make in POS. This is a nightmare for industrialists. Nobody wants to log on every 3 hours to take care its production line.
2. Because of the short production time, nobody is using Rapid Assembly Array anymore.
3. Like others have said, we need longer runs to really utilize ME saving.
4. It can greatly reduce the burden of item database and also reduce Industry UI loading time.
From the technical perspective, "repackaging" BPCs (without losing ME & TE attributes) is quite difficult. But "combining" BPCs should be much easier to implement. As for "separating' BPCs, I don't think many people are keen on it. |
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
141
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 17:09:00 -
[17] - Quote
For many BPCs, being able to stack them would be the best thing ever. * Less clutter in hangar * Longer production runs = less clicks * Longer production runs = more ME savings * Actually make the Advanced Industry skill useful for T2 module builders
However, for the T1 BPCs I use for invention, I MUST be able to unstack them. If I have 5 alts who do invention, I need 50 single-run BPCs to start the inventions. One 50-run BPC does not help me there.
A workaround to this would be: when starting an invention, the BPC is returned immediately (decremented by 1 run.) Then you would need to change manufacturing to immediately return the BPC, decremented by the number of runs used. In this way, a character (and alts) can start multiple jobs from the same BPC at the same time rather than serially. If this were implemented, I would not need to be able to unstack BPCs anymore. |
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 19:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
After thinking about this over lunch, I believe my last suggestion was unreasonable.
If BPOs were returned at the start of the job, then an arbitrarily large number of jobs could be started simultaneously from the same BPO. That would be bad, expecially for capital ship BPOs and T2 BPOs.
And we cannot expect different behavior for BPOs vs BPCs, because they are the same item. So therefore, returning the BPC at the beginning of a job shouldn't happen either.
So please give us a way to combine BPCs with the same ME and TE attributes into one with the sum of the runs attribute. Then give us another function to split a BPC into multiple smaller BPCs. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1507
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 20:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
I don't think splitting is needed. You can use and make a Copy for each alt. Build your empire ! Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis Contact me for details :)
|
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 21:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
In the OP, one of the main benefits of combining BPCs was improving the response of the UI. When you have many BPCs, it takes considerable time for the UI to load.
In the leadup to Crius, it was announced that many blueprints were going to have their copy times greatly increased. Also, installation costs for copying would no longer be trivial. So a great number of people made a large number of BPCs while they were still fast and cheap, intending to invent from them sometime in the future.
I currently have about 20,000 T1 BPCs squirreled away in dozens of small secure containers, and I am a fairly small-time operator. I would love to be able to combine them so that I could keep them in one place and easily see what I have and find what I am looking for. However, if stacking were one-way (I could stack blueprints but not un-stack them) it would make my T1 BPCs useless for the purpose they were made--invention. I need 50 BPCs to do 50 simultaneous inventions to get ~250 runs of a T2 module in a day. Combining them would limit me to doing 1 invention per day no matter how many alts I have. So the obvious solution is to not take advantage of the new function we just begged CCP to introduce?
No, unstacking is important too. |
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
224
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 02:35:00 -
[21] - Quote
Team Bidders wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:This is a thing we would like to do, but it's just about non-trivial enough that we're not in a position to commit to a timeframe right now. From industrialists' point of view, it's NOT trivial at all. Yes. That is what non-trivial means.
Team Bidders wrote:From the technical perspective, "repackaging" BPCs (without losing ME & TE attributes) is quite difficult. But "combining" BPCs should be much easier to implement. I like it when a Dev take the time to come into a thread, say that they've looked into it, want to do it, but it takes significant resources to pull off, and people who don't have access to the code respond by telling them how easy it is.
|
Qinby
ImNo6
43
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Team Bidders wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:This is a thing we would like to do, but it's just about non-trivial enough that we're not in a position to commit to a timeframe right now. From industrialists' point of view, it's NOT trivial at all. Yes. That is what non-trivial means. Team Bidders wrote:From the technical perspective, "repackaging" BPCs (without losing ME & TE attributes) is quite difficult. But "combining" BPCs should be much easier to implement. I like it when a Dev take the time to come into a thread, say that they've looked into it, want to do it, but it takes significant resources to pull off, and people who don't have access to the code respond by telling them how easy it is.
Would say that have to be counted as a "positive", the only thing we can do is try to keep this subject alive and "maybe" figure out something "clever".
At least it feels good knowing "we don't suffer alone".
By the way I'm aprox 2957 likes short of estimate....
Rgds Qinby |
Azrael Sheriph
Blastphemy. The Bastion
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
You know what id like to see.
being able to minimise the top of the blueprint ui
it takes up way to much to much screen space if you want to just look through all your blueprints
http://gyazo.com/063b2c91f942da1115eadf707568578b
or put the new pretty ui on the bottem of the important bit (the list of blueprints/jobs) |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |