These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Fuel Blocks, there is still something missing!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-07-17 19:15:33 UTC
It's so simple to understand and see now. It's easy (far, far, far, far easier) from a logistics point of view and has far lower cognitive burden. Fuel blocks are the best thing to happen to POS since inception, except perhaps whatever they're going to do for POS in future, as whatshisname was saying during the Alliance Tournament live stream on Sunday.
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
#22 - 2012-07-17 19:49:09 UTC
Ultraviolet energy from the star would cause the leftover ozone and heavy water to react and form deuterium peroxide and regular oxygen, neither of which are usable for fuel, so these unused compounds from the fuel blocks are vented into space.

Please support: export of settings in editable format

Your stuff goes here.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#23 - 2012-07-18 05:34:50 UTC
Chribba wrote:
What about the environment and global warming?!


That will all be fixed by orbital bombardment, coming Soon (tm).
Merovee
Gorthaur Legion
Imperium Mordor
#24 - 2012-07-18 05:47:46 UTC
Chribba wrote:
What about the environment and global warming?!


What about it? We're space folk. Who cares about that c**p.Roll

Empire, the next new world order.
Viktor Fyretracker
Emminent Terraforming
#25 - 2012-07-18 06:42:45 UTC
fuel blocks work and they work well.

Also think about it from a lore perspective... would make more sense for a station to get containerized or palletized delivery over individual bulk shipments.

EVE is like swimming on a beach in shark infested waters,  There is however a catch...  The EVE Beach you also have to wonder which fellow swimmer will try and eat you before the sharks.
Taipion
Adeptus Petrous
#26 - 2012-07-18 11:38:45 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Taipion wrote:

NO negative side effects.

Other than more cargo jobs to ship out the unused fuel product BACK to the origin of the fuel blocks to be reformed.
Yay for trying to make logistics suffer more... again.


So you tell me, you deliver the Fuel Blocks to the POSses, and you have the fuel bay window open anyway, but it would be work to actually do one click more?

For any non-massive POS fueler, the blocks are build where they are used anyway.

As long as you dont prefer to travel with empty cargo hold, there is no downside here.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
Taipion wrote:
[b]
The key points are:

- ridiculously simple to implement



Complicates the code dramatically. Right now it's:
Take off X blocks an hour.


What you want is:
Calculate PG and CPU usage for the tower.
Take off that X blocks.
Add the spare materials back to the fuel back.

Complicating the cycle code is never a good thing.


obvious troll = bad troll
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#27 - 2012-07-18 12:06:39 UTC
No troll.

People say things are simple, when they're often not simple. You know, these aren't magic boxes which you tell what to do and they do it. There have been problems with the code behind fuelling POSes in the past, generally stemming from 'simple' changes to it working in a non-obvious fashion.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#28 - 2012-07-18 12:11:30 UTC
The tower isn't wasting fuel — you're wasting fitting space.

Your idea has no advantages and plenty of disadvantages.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#29 - 2012-07-18 12:28:53 UTC
It was discovered through Jovian spying that fully powering the CPU of a POS reduced wear and tear on the reciprocating dingle-arms that keep POS modules frambulating. All POS towers were upgraded to the new technology standard free of charge.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Taipion
Adeptus Petrous
#30 - 2012-07-18 13:35:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The tower isn't wasting fuel — you're wasting fitting space.

Your idea has no advantages and plenty of disadvantages.


no and no, just name any, I dare you!

Steve Ronuken wrote:
No troll.

People say things are simple, when they're often not simple. You know, these aren't magic boxes which you tell what to do and they do it. There have been problems with the code behind fuelling POSes in the past, generally stemming from 'simple' changes to it working in a non-obvious fashion.


still trolling, POS fuel stuff is no more difficult than reloading ammo



Come on, no one here who sees what I intend?

I did honestly expect a troll population here of less than 95%! -.-
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#31 - 2012-07-18 13:44:40 UTC
A disadvantage, already mentioned:

You have to haul away the extra stuff.

And I'm honestly not trolling. This would complicate the code. That's not open for dispute. (The only possible argument is the degree of complication). 'do X' is simpler than 'do X, then Y'

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#32 - 2012-07-18 13:46:13 UTC
Taipion wrote:


Come on, no one here who sees value in what I intend?



FYP

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Taipion
Adeptus Petrous
#33 - 2012-07-18 19:35:59 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
A disadvantage, already mentioned:

You have to haul away the extra stuff.

And I'm honestly not trolling. This would complicate the code. That's not open for dispute. (The only possible argument is the degree of complication). 'do X' is simpler than 'do X, then Y'


...there are only 2 options here, either you troll, or you do not understand what you say

War Kitten wrote:
Taipion wrote:


Come on, no one here who sees value in what I intend?



FYP


No, really, no one seems to even understand what I intend, not to even speak of the value in it,

but thanks for trying to help! Smile
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#34 - 2012-07-18 19:50:29 UTC
Taipion wrote:
Shameless Avenger wrote:
I have no idea what this thread is about. It must be encrypted or something.


It is about a simple thing, with fuel blocks, towers consume 100% oxygen and water each, allways.

Simply leave the "unused" water/ozone in the fuel bay.

NO NEED to touch fuel blocks at all.

SIMPLE to implement.

NO negative side effects.


It will make more sense when they redo POSes in the near-distant-ish future. (I hope)

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-07-18 20:03:36 UTC
Taipion wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
A disadvantage, already mentioned:

You have to haul away the extra stuff.

And I'm honestly not trolling. This would complicate the code. That's not open for dispute. (The only possible argument is the degree of complication). 'do X' is simpler than 'do X, then Y'


...there are only 2 options here, either you troll, or you do not understand what you say

It does appear one of you is not understanding the other, but I don't believe it's Steve
Taipion
Adeptus Petrous
#36 - 2012-07-18 20:16:04 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Taipion wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
A disadvantage, already mentioned:

You have to haul away the extra stuff.

And I'm honestly not trolling. This would complicate the code. That's not open for dispute. (The only possible argument is the degree of complication). 'do X' is simpler than 'do X, then Y'


...there are only 2 options here, either you troll, or you do not understand what you say

It does appear one of you is not understanding the other, but I don't believe it's Steve


What did I say earlier about 95% trolls?!

How could it make something more complex?
I admit, I dont know their code, but seriously, thats no new graphics effect or sov mechanic we are talking about!
This could be implemented in 5 minutes, by one skilled programmer.
Shameless Avenger
Can Preachers of Kador
#37 - 2012-07-18 20:16:10 UTC
Taipion wrote:
Shameless Avenger wrote:
I have no idea what this thread is about. It must be encrypted or something.


It is about a simple thing, with fuel blocks, towers consume 100% oxygen and water each, allways.

Simply leave the "unused" water/ozone in the fuel bay.

NO NEED to touch fuel blocks at all.

SIMPLE to implement.

NO negative side effects.


I'm I supposed to assume that in before fuel blocks, tower usage of oxygen and water was variable? Maybe depending on how much power/cpu you were using?

If that's the case... new players (post fuel block) will never guess and old players that have forgotten (like me) might or might not figure it out.

"This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro"
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#38 - 2012-07-18 20:26:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Now when I want to do a fuel run I know exactly how much of each material to buy. Its the same amount for each hauler run. If LO and HW was left over, Id have to do inventory and adjust my buy volume each cycle, figure out how much more or less of the other components to buy to fill the hauler up, etc, etc. In other words, do all the logistical nightmare stuff the blocks got rid of.

Now I just look up a note that tells me what to buy. Before we had blocks I had to open a spreadsheet, enter in the amount of each item in storage, then find the number of hours of fuel that would just fill the hauler up and use all the fuel being hauled and in storage.
Having left over HW and LO would bring that complexity back to my POS fueling operations.

And HW and LO are in high supply. We got plenty, no need to worry about wasteful over-use.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Taipion
Adeptus Petrous
#39 - 2012-07-18 20:36:34 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Now when I want to do a fuel run I know exactly how much of each material to buy. Its a same amount for each hauler run. If LO and HW was left over, Id have to do inventory and adjust my buy volume each cycle, figure out how much or or less of the other components to buy to fill the hauler up, etc, etc. In other words, do all the logistical nightmare stuff the blocks got rid of.


So effectively, yes, if you on/offline modules on every tower every day AND buy new fuel every day, it would generate more work.

If you run 30 Towers and refuel them every 30 days, it would be just 2 numbers to look at, and maybe 10 seconds more work, per month.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-07-18 21:02:03 UTC
Taipion wrote:

What did I say earlier about 95% trolls?!

How could it make something more complex?

Right now the fuel usage does 1 thing. It consumes one thing based on 2 factors: time ant the size/type(standard/facton) of tower.
Fuel usage calculations don't need to know or utilize information regarding how much PG/CPU you are using each hour.
With your change the fuel calculation will need to know this and perform a second task. It will need this to determine based on the consumption how much material to deposit in the bay.
While potentially trivial, it is factually more complex than simply consuming fuel blocks and having that be the end of it.
Taipion wrote:

I admit, I dont know their code, but seriously, thats no new graphics effect or sov mechanic we are talking about!

I'm not sure how it compares either so can't respond to this
Taipion wrote:

This could be implemented in 5 minutes, by one skilled programmer.

Perhaps, but it doesn't maintain the simplicity from a code, execution or usage standpoint that the current system already has.
Previous page123Next page