These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev/QA: Delay assembling and consuming of RAMs.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rutger Janssen
Chanuur
The Initiative.
#1 - 2012-09-11 11:53:07 UTC
To reproduce an almost 2 year old bug, I need to fake server lag. Could you put a 2 second on assembling and consuming of R.A.M.s? This bug causes players to loose materials without a single trace on the server when even GMs say there should be.

As QA demands reproduction before making this a defect this change would make it a lot easier to reproduce. The bughunters are backlogged enough as it is. We don't want them to install 1000s of jobs do we?
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2 - 2012-09-13 13:43:45 UTC
Rutger Janssen wrote:
To reproduce an almost 2 year old bug, I need to fake server lag. Could you put a 2 second on assembling and consuming of R.A.M.s? This bug causes players to loose materials without a single trace on the server when even GMs say there should be.

As QA demands reproduction before making this a defect this change would make it a lot easier to reproduce. The bughunters are backlogged enough as it is. We don't want them to install 1000s of jobs do we?


Sorry we can't introduce server lag for a player reproduction (nor a BH for that matter). We would handle this reproduction internally.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Rutger Janssen
Chanuur
The Initiative.
#3 - 2012-09-16 16:12:03 UTC
Thanks for the info. I hope it won't be closed by the Bughunter team like it was done a bit over a year ago. Or that it won't take 6 months as materials being lost without a trace on the server( when GMs saying there should have been ) can be quite problematic for players when it happens :(



143109/102276 are the bug report numbers in case you want to check it out.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-09-17 22:27:36 UTC
they dont need to 'fix' RAMS, they need to get rid of them

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Rutger Janssen
Chanuur
The Initiative.
#5 - 2012-09-18 06:11:30 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
they dont need to 'fix' RAMS, they need to get rid of them

That's debatable. I just don't want anyone to loose materials when they are installing manufactering jobs to loose materials when the server is slow and either the process times out or because you repackaged a RAM during the process. Or if it happens. that it's logged so you can get your stuf back.

Apparently it has no priority :(
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-09-18 09:51:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Skippermonkey
RAMs are awful, here is a perfect example...

The prototype cloak requires 'RAM Electronics' and uses 10% of one per unit.

So if i want to build 1000 cloaks, it requires 1000 RAMs to start the build job but only uses 100 in total, which leaves me with 900 RAMs that i dont want and shouldnt have needed.

This is bad, and the devs should feel bad for allowing this to work in this way.

The whole idea of using a % of an item in the manufacturing process is terrible. I know the devs think this way in the manner that they handled the POS fuel with the faction POSes.

They need to rework RAMs so the build process doesnt create unneccesary waste at the manufacturing stage.

If this is impossible, then reduce the build requirements on RAMs by a factor of 10 and make all the blueprints that use RAMs to consume a whole RAM instead of only 10%

It would be nice to even know if this is on the DEV radar tbh... maybe in the next development cycle which i hear is all about Industry.

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Rutger Janssen
Chanuur
The Initiative.
#7 - 2012-09-18 10:13:43 UTC
The issue of R.A.M.s existance is not the point of this thread. I'll give you my opinion but if you decide to reply, please do so in a seperate thread.
That it requires 1000 R.A.M.s when only 10% will be used would be indeed stupid (I need to check this myself) and definatly something that looks sloppy and should be fixed imho (just like only able to change hangar to hangars you have view and take access to when changing blueprint).
The existance of R.A.M.s itself is a feature and not a bug and thus belongs in features and ideas discussion.

Yes, R.A.M.s did contribute to my issue as it delayed the installing process by assembling and using them up one by one. Yes it helped triggering the issue, but a possible underlaying problem is still there: If a job takes too long to install, the installation process is aborted on the server without notifying client or making a server log entry. Just like having faster serversand new inventory system (Yes a BH suggested this) , removing R.A.M.s will not fix this underlaying problem!
Rutger Janssen
Chanuur
The Initiative.
#8 - 2012-11-08 00:05:16 UTC
Bump. Almost 2 months later, bug report still open so I assume nothing has been done about it so might still be possible to loose materials when installing manufactering jobs....