These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Industry UI

First post
Author
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#141 - 2014-04-28 16:05:30 UTC
virm pasuul wrote:
Will I be able to manufacture from that container in a station given that I am no longer at the root level?
e.g. blueprint and all materials are in a container - can I manufacture directly from that container without tipping it all back into root please?


Yes you can manufacture from a container provided all of your materials are in that container.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

TonoRocker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2014-04-28 16:07:35 UTC
What about manufacturing using multiple BP at the same time, this would save tons of clicks. When you manufacturing Fuel blocks for example, i use 10BPC, it would be nice to select them all, ricght click, manufacture. ***Fairy dust***

Or maybe if im building a T2 ship for example, you can start the construction jobs needed for all the components from that T2 ship BP. ***Sparkles****

"Less clicks, more magic. " -TR 2014

Thanks.


CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#143 - 2014-04-28 16:09:14 UTC
TonoRocker wrote:
What about manufacturing using multiple BP at the same time, this would save tons of clicks. When you manufacturing Fuel blocks for example, i use 10BPC, it would be nice to select them all, ricght click, manufacture. ***Fairy dust***

Or maybe if im building a T2 ship for example, you can start the construction jobs needed for all the components from that T2 ship BP. ***Sparkles****

"Less clicks, more magic. " -TR 2014

Thanks.


For now you will need 10 quick clicks, the interface can be used with the keyboard now so click down arrow, and then enter to submit. Down and submit. etc

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Sylvanium Orlenard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2014-04-28 16:15:18 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
virm pasuul wrote:
Will I be able to manufacture from that container in a station given that I am no longer at the root level?
e.g. blueprint and all materials are in a container - can I manufacture directly from that container without tipping it all back into root please?


Yes you can manufacture from a container provided all of your materials are in that container.


Will I be able to use Giant Secure Containers in a POS module like I would a Station container in an NPC Station? currently I can't because the unified Inventory doesn,t know how to look inside a container that is located inside a POS module, it's . . . . . frustrating. :(
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2014-04-28 16:20:06 UTC
And here we see WHY we will no longer be able to use BPOs that are safely locked down in corp hanger to research and manufacture at POS.


"The installation gets picked automatically when you select a blueprint. It will select the installation where the blueprint is located and use a default location for inputs."

So make one less click, like "select location", they choose a game breaking short-cut of the BPO has to be at the location... non-lcoked down.

So, we have to create high sec alt corps for protect our BPOs, then produce copies and ship them to null sec.... just becasue CCP didn't what to add a "pick location" to the new UI screen.

ARG!
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#146 - 2014-04-28 16:21:02 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
And here we see WHY we will no longer be able to use BPOs that are safely locked down in corp hanger to research and manufacture at POS.


"The installation gets picked automatically when you select a blueprint. It will select the installation where the blueprint is located and use a default location for inputs."

So make one less click, like "select location", they choose a game breaking short-cut of the BPO has to be at the location... non-lcoked down.

So, we have to create high sec alt corps for protect our BPOs, then produce copies and ship them to null sec.... just becasue CCP didn't what to add a "pick location" to the new UI screen.

ARG!


That's not why, but it is a nice side effect.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#147 - 2014-04-28 16:21:49 UTC
^^ e: f; b :argh:

LHA Tarawa wrote:
And here we see WHY we will no longer be able to use BPOs that are safely locked down in corp hanger to research and manufacture at POS.


"The installation gets picked automatically when you select a blueprint. It will select the installation where the blueprint is located and use a default location for inputs."

So make one less click, like "select location", they choose a game breaking short-cut of the BPO has to be at the location... non-lcoked down.

So, we have to create high sec alt corps for protect our BPOs, then produce copies and ship them to null sec.... just becasue CCP didn't what to add a "pick location" to the new UI screen.

ARG!

No. The removal of remote BPO copying was to make you have to actually endure risk to enjoy the benefits of POS research. It wasn't a mechanical workaround.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

TonoRocker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2014-04-28 16:25:11 UTC
Thanks for the quick reply, bu , any thoughts on this??

"Or maybe if im building a T2 ship for example, you can start the construction jobs needed for all the components from that T2 ship BP. ***Sparkles**** "

TR
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#149 - 2014-04-28 16:25:34 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

That's not why, but it is a nice side effect.


So, what is the why? You dislike corps being able to make BPOs available for all players to sue, without risk of theft, because they are locked down in corproate hanger?

There is some "fun" aspect of the game that comes from us grinding out copies in 1-man alt-coprs to protect BPOs from corporate theft?


Was there really a meeting where someone said "Let's destroy BPO lockdow!" and someone else replied "YEAH!! It will make the game WAY more fun if industrialists have to create one-man alt corps to create copies to protect their BPOs from corp theft!"

Seriously?
Blastcaps Madullier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2014-04-28 16:30:10 UTC
lol the first blue print show, shows in the ship produced window a T2 MYRM... :) shouldn't that be a T1 Myrm? :)
BlackTalon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2014-04-28 16:30:51 UTC
HMM nice one ccp all the time running an poss for research and copy gone down the pan . All the time players took to me or pe there bpo also been an waste . Doing cap bpo me or pe take months should off waited an few yrs for this patch to come out . The new ui for the bp is way over the top can i buy some head ache tablets in an station
Sylvanium Orlenard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#152 - 2014-04-28 16:32:38 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

That's not why, but it is a nice side effect.


So, what is the why? You dislike corps being able to make BPOs available for all players to sue, without risk of theft, because they are locked down in corproate hanger?

There is some "fun" aspect of the game that comes from us grinding out copies in 1-man alt-coprs to protect BPOs from corporate theft?


Was there really a meeting where someone said "Let's destroy BPO lockdow!" and someone else replied "YEAH!! It will make the game WAY more fun if industrialists have to create one-man alt corps to create copies to protect their BPOs from corp theft!"

Seriously?



Industry is currently one of the safest ISK making ventures you can do in EVE. With very few and relatively simple precautions you can currently make ISK hands over fist doing industry and not have to risk much if any of that ISK. (before you say station traders enjoy a risk free ISK making venture, well try doing a bad bet on your trading and see how fast your profits go down the drain :) )

CCP wants all ISK making activities to have an inherent amount of risk attached to it. In Industry they decided to create that risk by making blueprints have to be in the factory and not in some station under lock down.

Do I agree with it, NO, but I can understand why they would do that, even if I really really hate it.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#153 - 2014-04-28 16:35:03 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

That's not why, but it is a nice side effect.


So, what is the why? You dislike corps being able to make BPOs available for all players to sue, without risk of theft, because they are locked down in corproate hanger?

There is some "fun" aspect of the game that comes from us grinding out copies in 1-man alt-coprs to protect BPOs from corporate theft?


Was there really a meeting where someone said "Let's destroy BPO lockdow!" and someone else replied "YEAH!! It will make the game WAY more fun if industrialists have to create one-man alt corps to create copies to protect their BPOs from corp theft!"

Seriously?

You can still lock down BPOs and use the infinitely available copy slots at a station to do exactly what you're doing now.

Alternatively, you should just not get into a situation where theft is a possibility. This may involve vetting potential recruits beyond the "paid attention to your ad in Recruitment."

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2014-04-28 16:36:29 UTC
Querns wrote:

No. The removal of remote BPO copying was to make you have to actually endure risk to enjoy the benefits of POS research. It wasn't a mechanical workaround.


You clearly do not understand how industrialists operate.

RISK destroys profit potential.

We're not going to put tens or hundreds of billions of ISK worth of BPOs at risk. Not when the profit on a capital is maybe tens of millions. We have to build 1000 capitals to pay back the purchase price of BPOs. There is not room in that for the risk of BPOs being subjected to the irsk of corp theft becuase they can not be locked-down.

We will create an alt corp with large POS in high sec, with a gazillion hardeners, and a couple labs, and crank out the copies. Transport them to null in regular jump freighter runs, since the copies take up virtually no space.

It is not risk v. reward. It is goint pain in the donkey, for no game-play value.


Industrialists do NOT accept risk. We find ways around risk, usually by destroying profitability, which is why 70% of players stay in high sec. The stupid hoops we have to jump through to avoid attempts to force us to accept risk destroys profitability of doing anything else.

CCP admitted in the blog about this that NO ONE is going to be putting expensive BPOs into POS.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#155 - 2014-04-28 16:37:04 UTC
Btw, where has the potential Profit part gone in your current final draft? That was something, which could really make the industry window a lot more informative about whether something is worth producing or not - without checking on 3rd party websites or personal spreadsheets. If would of course just give a rough value for the current region you produce in (which limits the usefulness if you don't produce in the region you want to sell your stuff in, naturally; unless you can set a specific sell place for the calculations), but at least you had an indicator on whether it's profitable at all or not.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#156 - 2014-04-28 16:39:52 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

Industrialists do NOT accept risk.

No, you mean YOU don't accept risk. You should be prepared to be outcompeted by those who do.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#157 - 2014-04-28 16:43:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
LHA Tarawa wrote:
RISK destroys profit potential.
That's kind of the point.
If you can afford the work-arounds, you can eliminate the risk; if you want the quick buck, you have to live with the risk.

Quote:
Industrialists do NOT accept risk.
Sure they do, in controlled doses. The point is that now there is an actual option where previously there were none. Whether or not people will use that option, and under what circumstances, remains to be seen. Each option has its pros and cons and everyone will have to weigh one against the other to suit their needs.

It's a bit premature to state what people will or won't do based solely on what they did when there was only one proper option available.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#158 - 2014-04-28 16:46:19 UTC
Querns wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:

Industrialists do NOT accept risk.

No, you mean YOU don't accept risk. You should be prepared to be outcompeted by those who do.


Thanks to people like you it's not going to be too many.

--

Also, are we going to be limited to 20 copies per copy process or can we create more than 20 copies in one go?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#159 - 2014-04-28 16:50:44 UTC
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:
CCP wants all ISK making activities to have an inherent amount of risk attached to it. In Industry they decided to create that risk by making blueprints have to be in the factory and not in some station under lock down.

Do I agree with it, NO, but I can understand why they would do that, even if I really really hate it.


Then CCP is doomed to fail, because we do not accept risk. We accept lower profit to avoid risk, until the profit becomes too low, then we move back to high sec.

If CCP wants everyone in high sec, then they are on the right track. Just keep putting more hoops for null sec industrialists to have to jump though to stay safe.

This idea they can get us to accept significant risk is beyond ridiculous.


They need to stop listening to GOONS, have 3000 pilots online at any time. Their POV is NOT the POV of the other 30,000 pilots.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#160 - 2014-04-28 16:52:38 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Then CCP is doomed to fail, because we do not accept risk.
You keep using that word.
As long as you keep using it, you will be inherently wrong.

Top tip: stop saying “we” when you mean “I”.