EVE Search - Make BPOs and BPCs distinguishable

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

Make BPOs and BPCs distinguishable

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Topic
Siigari Kitawa The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2008.05.23 12:09:00 - [61] Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 23/05/2008 12:18:17 I don't get it. There is a tag that says whether or not the blueprint is an original or not (which is at the very top of every blueprint) so why don't you make a little sticker on the right side of the blueprint similar to the tech 2 sticker, only this was says "O". I dunno, use a sticker. Seems simple to me. www.siigarikitawa.com
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.23 13:05:00 - [62] Originally by: CCP Lingorm Locked is one of the flags that can be set in the Inventory Table. So yes we get that on the return. Out of interest, what columns are used in the Inventory table?

CCP Lingorm C C P	Posted - 2008.05.23 14:00:00 - [63] itemID, typeID, locationID, ownerID, flag, contraband, singleton, quantity (this is in the staticDB dump we provide) Basically what you get out of the inventory API (which has some names added for ease). If you are really interested in the detail then have a look at the static data dump as it has all the tables and structures. CCP Lingorm CCP Quality Assurance QA Engineering Team Leader Originally by: Lord Fitz Eve is to WoW as Wow is to an 8 player game of Unreal Tournament.

Arrs Grazznic Poena Executive Solutions	Posted - 2008.05.23 14:59:00 - [64] Interesting threadà Rather than looking to see if this could be solved by a one-pass operation, would it be possible to do this in two steps? Let me explain a littleà For the purpose of BP differentiation, BPs effectively have three states or tags: 'Unknown', 'Original' and 'Copy'. The first time you view a group of BPs you would have no information on their state, so they would all be displayed as state unknown and could look exactly as they do now. This is where the second step comes in. By right clicking you could select a new option such as "Retrieve Blueprint Info". Selecting this would effectively run an optimised 'show info' query for each of the BPs in the container. The UI would use the returned data to add a small icon or tag to each BP to indicate if it was either an original or copy. The retrieved data could also be stored in the cache thus allowing the client to quickly tag the BPs when they are viewed in the future. By having the 3 states for BPs, you would get past the problem of what to display if there is no information for a BP present in the cache -- it would not have any stored state and would therefore be displayed as state unknown with no original or copy tag. Taking this one step further, the "Retrieve Blueprint Info" option could also return other info, such as ME, PE and number of runs. This information could be superimposed on the base BP image and stored in the cache as well. This would allow quite a bit of information to be displayed for BPs and would be very useful when looking through your BP lists. There would of course be quite a network and processing overhead for this operation. This could be limited in a number of ways, for example limiting a client to only be able to run the option every hour or a maximum number of times in a day, or to have the client send queries through on a BP by BP basis, but a one request every 10 seconds or so. Anyway, my 2p for the day! Cheers, Arrs
Raven Timoshenko Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold	Posted - 2008.05.23 15:20:00 - [65] Maybe this has already been said and done ( I am not 100% sure), but how about then allowing the BPs in the corp be exported via an XML or CVS file, which can then be read off an external program. It is not the perfect solution, but atleast this way we can easily run an inventory of the corporate BPs, which IMO will generally exceed the number of pilot owned BPs. Secondly how about a separate BP tab in the hangar, so the same export system can be used? This way you don't have to rewrite the db for now, until a more complete solution can be found. Just a thought. Removable Implants and Money Sinks
Kuroshiro	Posted - 2008.05.23 18:04:00 - [66] Originally by: CCP Lingorm As for a solution to the problem, that is what we are trying to work out? But I bet if you walked up to your db supplier and said "Your DB is badly limited because of your poor planning" they would have some choice things to say to you. Then they're taking their work too personally. I was merely stating that the current design has limitations that need to be worked around and would have been better to plan for from the start. There was not, encapsulated within that, the implication that the database designers are poor at their jobs or that the database is a complete failure (it clearly is not). Quote: We are trying to find solutions. Our DB structure is the only practicable one that will support our needs, that means we have to accept some "limitations" to be able to do what we do. Can you add a flag for 'bpo/bpc' to the 'flags' field? You'd need a job to set this bit for existing blueprints, but that could be run during downtime. Otherwise, when a blueprint is created, the bit is set in the appropriate inventory entry and otherwise it is copied from the source inventory entry when the item is moved. That may create additional overhead, but otherwise it's not too terrible. It's a bit annoying because that's object data being carried along with the inventory entry instead of just state data, but meh, sometimes you have to kludge to make things work. Of course, even once you get this fixed, countdown to people wanting number of runs/ME/PE on the inventory tab. A more generally useful workaround might be to provide corp hangar-style 'tabs' to invidual hangars, allowing individuals to at least keep their BPOs and BPCs separated. Of course, that may be even more complicated.
Joe Starbreaker	Posted - 2008.05.24 05:00:00 - [67] Originally by: Arrs Grazznic 3 states for BPs Yes, I really like this idea! Deliver them as obviously unknown, then let the user right-click and "check all BP types" or something, which checks and caches the blueprint types locally. From then on they should show up with differentiated icons. ---------------- [insert signature here]
Helison Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2008.05.24 11:06:00 - [68] Originally by: CCP Lingorm itemID, typeID, locationID, ownerID, flag, contraband, singleton, quantity (this is in the staticDB dump we provide) Basically what you get out of the inventory API (which has some names added for ease). If you are really interested in the detail then have a look at the static data dump as it has all the tables and structures. I¦ve checked the API and the DB dump, but was not successful in locating the location of the locked-Flag (or whatever). Items within a container have an own flag for locked/unlocked, but locked BPOs within the corp-hangar only have the flag of the hangar-section. I hoped, that it could be possible to use the locked-flag for differentiating BPOs from BPCs, but this depends on how the flag is really stored. Is it an additional value in the inventory table? Have I missed any info?
ninjaholic Aliastra	Posted - 2008.05.24 21:54:00 - [69] I don't think it's a good idea, as it would only make high-sec gankers jobs easier. The ability to tell BPO's and BPC's apart would just increase their accuracy and frequency. Hell no for this idea. Nothing personal, but you're just gonna have to keep things organised. LAG-FREE fight-record tool!
Cheopis Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.05.25 12:11:00 - [70] Originally by: CCP Lingorm itemID, typeID, locationID, ownerID, flag, contraband, singleton, quantity (this is in the staticDB dump we provide) Basically what you get out of the inventory API (which has some names added for ease). If you are really interested in the detail then have a look at the static data dump as it has all the tables and structures. Do you store your flag as a single bit, or a byte? If stored as a byte, how many bits do you use for the flag?

Sha'Aryn	Posted - 2008.05.25 13:54:00 - [71] I confess I haven't read the entire thread, so please forgive me if this has already been suggested. I keep my blueprints organized by storing BPO's in one small secure container and the BPC's in another SSC - and each containter named accordingly. There's still a manual search aspect, but you only have to do it once per copy run.
Cheopis Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.05.27 04:57:00 - [72] Originally by: Sha'Aryn I confess I haven't read the entire thread, so please forgive me if this has already been suggested. I keep my blueprints organized by storing BPO's in one small secure container and the BPC's in another SSC - and each containter named accordingly. There's still a manual search aspect, but you only have to do it once per copy run. Most people actually do this. But when you have three accounts doing research, and you have 25x 10-max-run ammo BPC runs coming out at a time, sorting through those 260 blueprints is a serious pain.
Hawk TT Bulgarian Experienced Crackers	Posted - 2008.05.27 22:42:00 - [73] Originally by: Zarch AlDain Thanks for the replies on this Lingorm...it sounds like you might be an industrialist yourself since you seem to know the pain :) My alt's invention corporation usually has somewhere between one and two thousand blueprints, of which around 3/4 are BPCs at any time. We are a dedicated corp so we use multiple hangars to sort them and yet we still end up needing containers to sort more. As soon as they go in containers or we take them out to the pos labs then we can't use the S&I screen. The big things that would make a HUGE difference are: Multi select on the S&I screen (so we can select a batch of BPCs for example then deliver them all to a different hangar for processing). S&I screen working in labs and containers. The list not jumping back up to the top. I understand something is being done to overhaul the whole S&I process in a coming patch so hopefully we will see improvements in this area at the same time. Sign me in - implementing the suggestions above would solve the current issues completely. The S&I interface is the only usable option if you have to manage hundreds of BPOs / BPCs anyway.. ___________________________________ Science & Diplomacy Manager @ BECKS Sons of Tangra Alliance (SOT)
Kerdrak 3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.28 13:10:00 - [74] Client side change factible? ________________________________________
Guns nButter The Nietzian Way Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.29 07:43:00 - [75] Edited by: Guns nButter on 29/05/2008 07:45:34 Edited by: Guns nButter on 29/05/2008 07:44:04 Originally by: Kerdrak Client side change factible? i believe the term you are looking for is feasible. and i was about to ask the same question until i read your post. i took basic (the language) programming in high school, and i can tell that python is waaaay over my head...(based on what i have read so far, an if/then statement wouldnt work here would it? :P) so i hope my questions aren't too dumb. when your inventory is being displayed on your screen, where is it reading from (if i may ask that)? based on that answer, is there something that could simply be put in our client that can change the appearance of BPOs compared to BPCs, based on what is read differently between them? or, possibly simply change where they are displayed in your items? (ie instead of behind unrefined minerals, in front of them, or at the very end of your items list?)
Mr Krosis The humble Crew	Posted - 2008.05.29 18:36:00 - [76] Originally by: Arrs Grazznic Rather than looking to see if this could be solved by a one-pass operation, would it be possible to do this in two steps? This is a really good idea. What do you think Lingorm, would this be acceptable as far as performance? My personal preference would be to make "unknown" blueprints a greyed out or faded color, BPCs the normal color, and add a gold border or something for BPOs. I like the idea of displaying ME and PE as well. Might need to add some new columns to the list view so people who can't see the large icon or any icon can still access it. -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Kolwrath Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.05.30 15:37:00 - [77] Edited by: Kolwrath on 30/05/2008 15:51:23 Originally by: Kuroshiro Honestly? No I didn't. I'm like 99% of the customers on this planet in that I'm really not interested in what limitations poor planning in your database have created in your product, I just would like to see a solution engineered to correct or work around this deficiency in your interface. This should not be the least bit of a shock to any experienced engineer. Also, if I were to talk to my company's customers the way you just spoke to me -- well, I'm not 100% sure what would happen, but I would certainly never be allowed to talk to customers again and it would definitely show up the next time I was up for a raise. There's just no excuse for it that lack of professionalism, no matter how stupid you think the question is. Wow you way out of line here. You do not know what your talking about. Please read up on database normalization. Way, way out of line. To CCP: I originally thought you guys could do a simple join to the attributes table in order to read that data, but then I realized that it would add alot of overhead. What about simply creating a new ItemID for BPOs that is different from BPCs? This would solve the BPC contract scams, and also fix this BPC/ BPO identification issue. Yes its kinda clunky, and goes almost completly against the ideas of a heavily normalised DB (reduced data replication) ... but it would work. <edit> Originally by: Kuroshiro Then they're taking their work too personally. I was merely stating that the current design has limitations that need to be worked around and would have been better to plan for from the start. There was not, encapsulated within that, the implication that the database designers are poor at their jobs or that the database is a complete failure (it clearly is not). You need to word your replies better. You essentially said that CCP DB's did a crap job. That may not have been your intent, but that is how it came across. Walking up to anyone and saying that thier work is crap is not going to go over well. I doubt you will, but apologizing might be a good idea. Yes this is an item that was probably looked at in the design stage, but they chose to heavily normalize the DB for performance and size reasons, and the trade off was the removal of the ability to differentiate BPOs from BPCs without a second DB lookup (or a JOIN) in the process. </edit> Originally by: Chaos Space Marines Do you hear the voices, too?!?!
Dr Cedric The Nietzian Way Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.30 21:14:00 - [78] Originally by: Guns nButter Edited by: Guns nButter on 29/05/2008 07:45:34 Edited by: Guns nButter on 29/05/2008 07:44:04 Originally by: Kerdrak Client side change factible? i believe the term you are looking for is feasible. and i was about to ask the same question until i read your post. i took basic (the language) programming in high school, and i can tell that python is waaaay over my head...(based on what i have read so far, an if/then statement wouldnt work here would it? :P) so i hope my questions aren't too dumb. when your inventory is being displayed on your screen, where is it reading from (if i may ask that)? based on that answer, is there something that could simply be put in our client that can change the appearance of BPOs compared to BPCs, based on what is read differently between them? or, possibly simply change where they are displayed in your items? (ie instead of behind unrefined minerals, in front of them, or at the very end of your items list?) Another Database noob here, but this really does seem to make sense. You wouldn't have any more overhead on the Database, and it would be a one time thing on the player-side of the client. This way, no crazy reprogramming in the DB, and you can put a clicky button on it, just like turning on/off the upgraded graphics. This is easy and doable....right? Dr Cedric Dipolmatic Liason; Industrial Logistics Technician - The Nietzian Way -My opinions and ideas do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance-
Cheopis Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.06.01 07:54:00 - [79] I personally would be emphatically supportive of any sort of system to differentiate between BPO's and BPC's A Client side system might actually be preferable because that would mean you could move BPO's and BPC's around, and an aggressor scanning your ship would tell exactly what it does now - only the owner would be able to see the difference between the two types. I would be unconditionally supportive of a client side database to differentiate bpos. In fact, if you really wanted to crush the CCP database some more, you could use the same technique to process ammunition, ores, etcetera. The database at CCP would store primary data on ores, say, as simply "ore" and then as the client builds the database it would query the server for what types of ores each stack really is. You might do the same for "trade goods / passengers", "Ammo, projectile", Ice products, minerals... However the differences between nonstackable items and stackable items would be a likely issue here. I have training in older computer languages, and understand logic and binary math reasonably well, but I do not fully understand your database structure - it's almost certain that stackables are stored in a different way than non-stackables. There are, however, certain items that are not stackable, that people might own in significant number. Two types off the top of my head are faction / t2 laser crystals and mining crystals. Unfortunately these items change at a much faster pace than blueprints as they degrade during use, it may be that updating them between client and server might not work so well. What about stored bookmarks? I'd be extremely suprised if there aren't still enough of those around to be a significant load on the database. If CCP is truly concerned about client side database storage for reference being something that players won't want, then make it an option like the fancy graphics.
Allen Ramses Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.06.01 23:50:00 - [80] I don't know if this is viable or not, but what about to make a near identical copy of the parent BPO to parent BPC? That way, whenever a blueprint is copied, the resulting BPC can contrast from the parent BPC, instead of the parent BPO? The only differences in it would be name, ID, and icon. For example, I have a rifter blueprint that has a ME of 20 and a PE of 10. It points to the parent rifter BPO (lets pretend it's item type 12000). I copy my rifter blueprint, and this new rifter BPC copies over all differential data from my personal BPO, but instead points to the parent rifter BPC (lets pretend it's item type 12001). It shows up in inventory as a blueprint copy, because that's what it is identified as. I know this would literally double the database space for parents required to differentiate between an original and a copy, but it's the only way I think it could be practical. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless.

Frecator Dementa	Posted - 2008.06.02 18:25:00 - [81] I suppose you couldn't automatically transform every bought BPO into an unique item, then use the "packaged/unpackaged" flag to mean "BPO/BPC" if the item is a blueprint? ----------------------- forum ate my post again
Koti Resci Knighthawk Light Industries	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:52:00 - [82] Edited by: Koti Resci on 02/06/2008 22:52:30 Everyone thinks it's a pain in the Dairy-aire to distinguish between BPOs and BPCs. Many are right, for their needs. But I digress! For me, it is easy. You see, I use something that not everyone knows how to use: the Science & Industry window. I've never had to move a significant number of BPCs and BPOs, or even separate the two. When I need something, I just open up the Science & Industry window and get it done. That is, until recently. I've created a large number of copies of my blueprints, more than I will need in the immediate period, and I found someone that was willing to purchase them... for a fair price, of course. But you see, now I find out that while I can use the blueprints in the Science & Industry window, I cannot move them. I'm slightly confused. The Science & Industry blueprint list looks only slightly more complicated that the Assets window's list, as compared here. In the Assets window, I can move things fairly easily. When I find an item, I can drag it to my current ship, and it will place that item in my cargohold (assuming I have enough cargo space available; if not, I will get an error message stating such). I can open a cargo container and then drag items from the Assets window to that cargo container, and the item will be placed there. Now when I accidentally created 3000 copies instead of 30 (hey, I was drunk...), I thought it wouldn't be a problem. I'd simply open up the Science & Industry window and drag all of the non-origional blueprints into a special can for them. But alas, it turns out that I cannot drag any entry from the blueprint lists in the Science & Industry window. This is rather distressful. OK, no problem... I'll just shift-click to select multiple blueprints and just contract them over from there. Oh wait, that won't work either! It turns out that I can only select one blueprint at a time. That kind've makes sense, since you aren't able to use multiple blueprints at a time. But that does prevent me from contracting them over without sorting them first. Suffice to say that the interface is already there, the client already pulls the data regarding whether or not the blueprint is a copy or not. All it needs to do is create a draggable item.
happy Dawn of a new Empire Pure.	Posted - 2008.06.04 22:56:00 - [83] how abought a filtered qurie mostly a ui quiry like sort order or somthing to off load it to the client side as a preferance the only reason i would want to distinguish a bpc is so i can move it to a container it does not need to be stored permantly on the server just a way to sort the prints so you can manualy seperate them also on a off note what hapend to being able to compare items every tim,e i open a info on a print or item it reuses the item window i like being able to compare differnt prints or item info between prints If your happy and you know it clap your hands...... and if your not happy and you know it, .....its probaly because i just podded you
Draygo Korvan Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.05 16:08:00 - [84] Originally by: CCP Lingorm ... flag, contraband, singleton, quantity ... flag (bool? [locked/unlocked?]), contraband (list probably?), singleton (bool?), quantity (int?). Researched BPO's/BPC's will always have a quantity of 1 right? What does singleton mean? Does it mean an item that is unpackaged? All researched BPO's BPC's are 'unpackaged', so couldn't you use the quantity field to store what type of BPO/BPC it is, if it is researched (and thus unstackable) Essentially Researched BPO = Singleton 1, Quantity 2 (UI knows its only 1 item however) BPC = Singleton 1, Quantity 1 Unresearched BPO = Singleton 0, Quantity X Sure it would take a bit of rewriting of the inventory code, and probably a lot of testing but in the end it would be worth it. --
Chi Quan Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.05 19:29:00 - [85] let me get this straight here a bit: 1) researched bpos and bpcs have a unique id (the aforementioned itemID i persume?) 2) itemID is sent every time the inventory is requested by the client, along with typeID if both statements are correct, is it possible to give bpos an odd number in itemID and pcs an even one and that let the client do the differentiation? ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it.
Draygo Korvan Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.05 23:40:00 - [86] I assume based on dev responses BPC's and BPO's have the same itemID, otherwise it would be really simple fix because then you could simply change the graphic for the itemID. --
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2008.06.06 07:46:00 - [87] Originally by: Draygo Korvan I assume based on dev responses BPC's and BPO's have the same itemID, otherwise it would be really simple fix because then you could simply change the graphic for the itemID. AFAIK, they have the same typeID, but the itemID is the actual unique item. So both are blueprints of type 123 but one has itemID ABC and the other DEF.
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.06.06 22:40:00 - [88] I know this idea might be kind of annoying... but why not just make it so when you "copy" the blueprint. It's actually creating a new type of item in of itself. So that it can essentially have at least a different picture just as any other items have different pictures. Or a sort of O or C in the top right corner like others have proposed? I just figure have a completely new item created is doable because invention creates a completely new item. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?"
Draygo Korvan Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.07 04:48:00 - [89] Originally by: Jason Edwards I know this idea might be kind of annoying... but why not just make it so when you "copy" the blueprint. It's actually creating a new type of item in of itself. So that it can essentially have at least a different picture just as any other items have different pictures. Or a sort of O or C in the top right corner like others have proposed? I just figure have a completely new item created is doable because invention creates a completely new item. I don't think the devs are interested in doubling the size of their item database. --
Allen Ramses Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.06.08 09:24:00 - [90] Well, the thing is, we don't actually happen to know how much of an impact doubling the host blueprints will have on the database. It could have a significant impact on the database, but then again, it could have a trivial impact upon it. That's why it was brought up as an option, to determine the feasibility of it. I think this is a question Sharkbait might have to answer. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.