These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online: Inferno 1.2 Feedback

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
DazedOne
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2012-08-08 20:56:32 UTC
Layla Ravensclaw wrote:
Maybe was the red horizon patch worster, but what they now did with the minning bargues is also worst.
Cus the smallest ship in that class of t1 minning bargues can carry more ore than a T2 exhumerclassvessel thats its three times bigger than that procuer?

Or the mackinaw has an 35k cargobay for ore thats is 4 timers bigger than in a Hulk , and the mack is 1/3 shorter than a Hulk.!

And than should i said that is good work to the ppls thats work on the patch ? NO
I lost over the half of my cargobay in my hulk . Before the patch was the cargobay 17k for ore and cyrstals ! Now have i 735 cargobay for crystals and a 8500 orebay?
I am mine solo and i need constant big ammount of minerals for my produtionslines.
Thats minningbarguesorecargoholds are total unbalanced and thats is in my eye are reason to said to the programmer team
That works is Crap



Well if you are not working with other people in the game your wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What do you not understand that the Hulk is now a fleet ship. Learn what the new roles are of the ships and maybe just maybe you'll appreciate the changes like those of us that understand simple things appreciate.
Drahcir Nasom
Independent Manufacturers
#122 - 2012-08-08 20:58:55 UTC
MR rockafella wrote:
Daedalus II wrote:
MR rockafella wrote:

The result is that a build of 100 runs/units of X-something that requires 50% of r.a.m.- tool one whould require 50 of r.a.m.-tool but build quota window wont accept 50 r.a.m.- tool it will only accept when 100 r.a.m.- tool is there and once build is press it only removes 50 r.a.m.- tool and there is 50 r.a.m.- tool left.

That is not necessarily a bug.
So you have a blueprint that requires one unit of R.A.M. Each R.A.M will then take 50% damage in the build process.
Naturally then you still require 100 R.A.M to start a run of 100 items. The game then could have returned the 100 R.A.Ms to your hangar with 50% damage, but instead it repackages them into 50 R.A.Ms with 0% damage.

Don't mistake something taking 50% damage 100% of the production runs for something taking 100% damage 50% of the production runs.



your wrong how, cause thats not how it uses ram, it takes 1 ram and cycles it once it starts building it, that process is very noticeable when lookin into a hanger when clicking build. and let me make it clear, there is nothing wrong with build process, ITS the build quota window that calculate an incorrect amount and certain bpo's where the ram usage is less than a certain procentage.



As I understand it, this was a deliberate change introduced with the Dominion patch in 2009. From what I heard it had something to do with restricting the number of runs of items T2 BPO owners could manufacture in a Rapid Array by increasing the amount of space taken up by the extra RAMs needed. It coincided with the change in production time of armor plates and microprocessors and the changes to T2 component requirements of the T2 ships. When I petitioned it back then, I was told by the GM who replied that it was a deliberate design change, but my petitions from back then have been deleted, so I can't quote from it (not that I would quote a GM reply in a forum thread anyway).

Drahcir
Idris Helion
Doomheim
#123 - 2012-08-08 21:03:35 UTC
DazedOne wrote:
Layla Ravensclaw wrote:
Maybe was the red horizon patch worster, but what they now did with the minning bargues is also worst.
Cus the smallest ship in that class of t1 minning bargues can carry more ore than a T2 exhumerclassvessel thats its three times bigger than that procuer?

Or the mackinaw has an 35k cargobay for ore thats is 4 timers bigger than in a Hulk , and the mack is 1/3 shorter than a Hulk.!

And than should i said that is good work to the ppls thats work on the patch ? NO
I lost over the half of my cargobay in my hulk . Before the patch was the cargobay 17k for ore and cyrstals ! Now have i 735 cargobay for crystals and a 8500 orebay?
I am mine solo and i need constant big ammount of minerals for my produtionslines.
Thats minningbarguesorecargoholds are total unbalanced and thats is in my eye are reason to said to the programmer team
That works is Crap



Well if you are not working with other people in the game your wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What do you not understand that the Hulk is now a fleet ship. Learn what the new roles are of the ships and maybe just maybe you'll appreciate the changes like those of us that understand simple things appreciate.


The Hulk always was a fleet ship. People who flew a cargo-maxed Hulk, even in Empire, were doing it wrong. It's just that with the cargo/yield math of the old Hulk, it was a no-brainer to skill for it no matter your mining profile. It rendered other mining ships useless (like the lowly Procurer). Now you have to think a little bit about how you're going to do your mining, and that's obviously cheesing the AFK crowd off. (Though AFK in Empire is now easier than ever with the cavernous Mack ore hold.)

Given the Hulk's enormous cost, flying a Hulk maxed for cargo rather than yield was a silly way to use it. And outside of Empire space, it was just madness to fly a Hulk untanked (even inside Empire during Hulkageddon).

I don't think the complainers have really run the numbers on the advantages the Mack's huge cargo bay will grant to solo miners -- you lose a bit of yield, but make fewer trips back to station. In the end, I'll bet the trade-off will be negligible, or even in favor of the Mack.

Yeah, it sucks that your expensive Hulk is now worth half of what it was a week ago. But if you had a Mack, it's now worth about twice or three times what it was before, so it evens out.
MajorSheppard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2012-08-08 21:07:31 UTC
Hey CCP,

i'm a little bit pissed right now.

The next time you change materials of a production please mention that in the patch notes and bring the patche notes up some days before the patch so ppl can plan their production accordingly.

I hope this will be better with the upcoming patches.
Layla Ravensclaw
Red Baren Elite
#125 - 2012-08-08 21:07:42 UTC
I thougth thats a patch should repair bugs and rebalance the game. Today has CCP shown how fast can you destroy a godd game with one patchSad

Cus thats patch is a good reasone to stop playing eve forever.

and i said it again theat patch is crap!

They transform out off the retiver and the mack now a cruiser in a Titanclassvessel . And the hulk transform them to a frig !
Faede Italh
Italh Enterprises
#126 - 2012-08-08 21:10:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Faede Italh
"The installation containing the job to be delivered no longer exists."

Get this error message when trying to deliver a finished job after the patch. Patch's fault or is this 'working as intended'? Roll

*EDIT* Nevermind, it seems to be working now.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#127 - 2012-08-08 21:12:16 UTC
MajorSheppard wrote:
i'm a little bit pissed right now.

The next time you change materials of a production please mention that in the patch notes and bring the patche notes up some days before the patch so ppl can plan their production accordingly.

I hope this will be better with the upcoming patches.
Whenever they make these kinds of drastic changes, it's always a good idea to check in on sisi in the days before the patch. The numbers have been available there for a while now.
MajorSheppard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2012-08-08 21:14:42 UTC
yeah should have done that.
But no matter what i should have done, these things need to be in the patch notes!
Nitinol
Flat Earth Believers
#129 - 2012-08-08 21:15:20 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
James Selkirk wrote:
Rapid patch deployment: check Smile
Client patched cleanly: check Smile
Patch works: check Smile

"Ethnic Relations skill changed into Diplomatic Relations. The old effect of segregating corporations by races is gone, so all corporations can have all races, always. The skill now reduces the cost to hire allies in war. The skill will not be reimbursed as it is not being removed, but changed." (Italics added)

So, Ethnic Relations has a changed name and a changed function, yet somehow this does not count as removing a skill and adding a whole different skill. Because I trained Ethnic Relations to have a multicultural corporation, not to hire allies in wars I'm not about to get into.


From a technical perspective, it's the same type with the same internal ID number. To count as removing a skill and adding a whole different skill - again, from a technical perspective - it'd mean deleting the old skill and adding a new one with a different ID.


This is an unacceptable, and condescending response. Normal user's don't care about the structure of your data tables or whether a row's key has changed.

What I care about, and what James Selkirk cares about, is that you have changed the purpose of a core skill. If you had changed the gunnery skill to affect mining there would be riots in Jita again. Just because the impact is smaller, does not make the error trivial.

I want the SP back for the skill I trained, which no longer exists. period.
MR rockafella
Santa's Factory
#130 - 2012-08-08 21:16:56 UTC  |  Edited by: MR rockafella
Drahcir Nasom wrote:
MR rockafella wrote:
Daedalus II wrote:
MR rockafella wrote:

The result is that a build of 100 runs/units of X-something that requires 50% of r.a.m.- tool one whould require 50 of r.a.m.-tool but build quota window wont accept 50 r.a.m.- tool it will only accept when 100 r.a.m.- tool is there and once build is press it only removes 50 r.a.m.- tool and there is 50 r.a.m.- tool left.

That is not necessarily a bug.
So you have a blueprint that requires one unit of R.A.M. Each R.A.M will then take 50% damage in the build process.
Naturally then you still require 100 R.A.M to start a run of 100 items. The game then could have returned the 100 R.A.Ms to your hangar with 50% damage, but instead it repackages them into 50 R.A.Ms with 0% damage.

Don't mistake something taking 50% damage 100% of the production runs for something taking 100% damage 50% of the production runs.



your wrong how, cause thats not how it uses ram, it takes 1 ram and cycles it once it starts building it, that process is very noticeable when lookin into a hanger when clicking build. and let me make it clear, there is nothing wrong with build process, ITS the build quota window that calculate an incorrect amount and certain bpo's where the ram usage is less than a certain procentage.



As I understand it, this was a deliberate change introduced with the Dominion patch in 2009. From what I heard it had something to do with restricting the number of runs of items T2 BPO owners could manufacture in a Rapid Array by increasing the amount of space taken up by the extra RAMs needed. It coincided with the change in production time of armor plates and microprocessors and the changes to T2 component requirements of the T2 ships. When I petitioned it back then, I was told by the GM who replied that it was a deliberate design change, but my petitions from back then have been deleted, so I can't quote from it (not that I would quote a GM reply in a forum thread anyway).

Drahcir


i'm gonna say that is nonesence cause when they changed industry - manufacturing/copying/building they introduced 30 day max run, that was because they changed it from being scripted that ran at every dt to more efficient db query or other way around(can't remember but still stands) thats why you can't make 15000 runs bpc anymore i got toon of thoose, they where in copy mode for like 3-4 month a time. and it doesnt account for the flaw that araise at 66,33333333333333% and below. (65%) cause there is no bpo with that procentage.
if you read one of my later post you will se a link with the rounding change in 2007 where they change rounding in industry and is then when this bug got introduced.

I think if you really havent been actively building t2 stuff, you wont and dont really see the problem, this problem only exist with bpo that requires ram.-tools that have usage below the 66.3333% (65%) is simple

1 run 65% = 0.65 ram tool
2 run 65%+65% = 1.3 ram tool
3 runs = 65%+65%+65% = 1.95 ram tool
but wait due strange reason it demands there be 3 ram tools but its less than 2 rams tools why must have i 3 it doesnt use it or unpackages it,
now
4 runs = 65%*4 = 2.6 ram tool - now it wants 4 ram tools
5 runs = 65%*5 = 3.25 ram tools but now it wants 5 ram tools
etc
100 runs = 65%*100 = 65 ram tools but now it wants wants 100 ram tools 35 more than it needs
This gets offset clearly indicates a rounding bug with ram tools in the quote window.



since 2007 ccp aka EA GAMING trademark "we keep bugs in game longer than we keep customers"
Jean Inkura
VOIDRUNNER REPUBLIC
Miners Inn University
#131 - 2012-08-08 21:49:54 UTC
Great job, on the summer expansion!

First thing I noticed though was the mining yield amount is missing from the pop up module tips.

I logged on this morning to find the shields on my Retriever at 20%, so I was pleased to see 1st hand how much more shield I now to charge back up to...

I was out mining and chatting till emergency DT so I didn't have a chance to check the Inventory, I really hope you fix the tree view from closing up all the time...

Thanks again on all the improvements to the game play.

Keep up the good work!
Bug Tau
Drama Llamas
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#132 - 2012-08-08 22:15:55 UTC
Daedalus II wrote:
MR rockafella wrote:

The result is that a build of 100 runs/units of X-something that requires 50% of r.a.m.- tool one whould require 50 of r.a.m.-tool but build quota window wont accept 50 r.a.m.- tool it will only accept when 100 r.a.m.- tool is there and once build is press it only removes 50 r.a.m.- tool and there is 50 r.a.m.- tool left.

That is not necessarily a bug.
So you have a blueprint that requires one unit of R.A.M. Each R.A.M will then take 50% damage in the build process.
Naturally then you still require 100 R.A.M to start a run of 100 items. The game then could have returned the 100 R.A.Ms to your hangar with 50% damage, but instead it repackages them into 50 R.A.Ms with 0% damage.

Don't mistake something taking 50% damage 100% of the production runs for something taking 100% damage 50% of the production runs.



That would be accurate, except all 100 jobs don't start at the same time hence having to wait an extra period of time for additional runs to the same job with the same blueprint.....
Myrkala
Royal Robot Ponies
#133 - 2012-08-08 22:20:28 UTC
Please add a delay for the module tool tips, its too large and obtrusive to be appearing instantly.

Better yet allow us to fine tune it with a slider or something.
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#134 - 2012-08-08 22:25:14 UTC
Had a problem with squad warping to corp bookmarks after the patch.

Could squad warp to celestials and gates fine.

https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Betrinna Cantis
#135 - 2012-08-08 22:32:47 UTC
Soooo. the Hulk got basically no love other than an ore holdSweet! Thx) and about 2k extra hp. Why is it now that a Mack with Orca support out-mines the Hulk now?

Alts have been changed to protect the Innocent. You may have mistaken me for someone who cares.....
Furious Ginger
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2012-08-08 22:52:40 UTC
Great patch, thanks CCP.

I like the atron buff, but there's no 3rd gun turret showing on the Atron hull when you fit 3 guns. How about some love for the model too?
MR rockafella
Santa's Factory
#137 - 2012-08-08 22:59:07 UTC
Bug Tau wrote:
Daedalus II wrote:
MR rockafella wrote:

The result is that a build of 100 runs/units of X-something that requires 50% of r.a.m.- tool one whould require 50 of r.a.m.-tool but build quota window wont accept 50 r.a.m.- tool it will only accept when 100 r.a.m.- tool is there and once build is press it only removes 50 r.a.m.- tool and there is 50 r.a.m.- tool left.

That is not necessarily a bug.
So you have a blueprint that requires one unit of R.A.M. Each R.A.M will then take 50% damage in the build process.
Naturally then you still require 100 R.A.M to start a run of 100 items. The game then could have returned the 100 R.A.Ms to your hangar with 50% damage, but instead it repackages them into 50 R.A.Ms with 0% damage.

Don't mistake something taking 50% damage 100% of the production runs for something taking 100% damage 50% of the production runs.



That would be accurate, except all 100 jobs don't start at the same time hence having to wait an extra period of time for additional runs to the same job with the same blueprint.....


that doesnt make any sence what your saying imo nor does it seem relevant to the point.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#138 - 2012-08-09 00:10:22 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
It's been fairly low priority in the grand scheme of things. We'll look into solutions and provide an update accordingly.

We're well aware usability has been low priority in the scheme of things.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#139 - 2012-08-09 00:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Chokichi Ozuwara
Bubanni wrote:
Soundwave... a patch should really not be deployed until every thing that people giving feedback about has been fixed... otherwise you really should delay the feature until you can fix it... :)

That's what responsible software developers do.

Lots of good developers ship fast, and ship often, but they don't ship with known issues. This is one of the few pieces of software I have seen follow this model of being fast and loose with a consumer end product, and one day it is going to bite them in the arse.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Regulator Rogul
Gesellschaft mit beschraenkter Haftung
THIS IS MY SAFETY
#140 - 2012-08-09 00:20:37 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Panhead4411 wrote:
CCP Fear wrote:
Regarding the module tool-tip:

We will be adding an option to disable them and possibly a delay as well in a patch very very soon! (Can't say specific dates yet I'm afraid)


Funny how this was asked for....from the first day it was on SiSi....oh ooops, we weren't spossed to give that secret away were we?

And all this talk about "we listen to your feedback and take it into account"....when really you mean, test all you want on SiSi...but we won't change anything till ppl complain about it on TQ...makes me wonder why i ever give SiSi feedback anymore.


It's been fairly low priority in the grand scheme of things. We'll look into solutions and provide an update accordingly.

As low as the Unifuc*ed Inventory? Shocked