These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Crius] Manufacturing and general UI feedback

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
#301 - 2014-07-13 02:15:40 UTC
Hello,

I've started to test the Indus UI. So far I have the following remarks (sorry if already done):
- if you try to start a job but not enough ressources, there is a client exception popup with technical details (material id, missing quantity, exception code)
- I couldn't figure out the difference between the 2 symbols " > " on the circle, they both display same information to me. I've tried to put teams, to change BP to BPC or BPO, tried different kinds of research level, no change. The only thing I could see is that the second one becomes a backet when blocked but it's only graphical
- when you don't have enough ressources, the UI states on a tooltip the amount you have and the total. It is unpractical you don't have an direct overview of the numbers, in particular what is missing
- knowing the current tax applied and bonuses without having to look on each tooltip would be more practical and allow faster comparisons
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
#302 - 2014-07-13 11:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ten Bulls
The UI needs to filter by BP type and category.

Inventors might have a thousand BPO's and BPC's, currently the desired BP need to be selected from a 1/4 screen height window, to coin a phrase its a scroll fest.

To be honest, im not sure a scroll fest is any better than the current click fest, its going to drive people crazy movign that minimal sized scroll line between thousands of entries.

So create a filter with a drop down menu to select ship/module/ammo/rig whatever. A seperate filter for BPO/BPC might also be warranted.

Please
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2014-07-13 22:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
nevermind, browser did some weird ****
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#304 - 2014-07-14 11:45:18 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Let's seem where to start....

Just participated in the masstest.

1. Was able to create a Capital Turret copy job of 1 copy, but 40 runs. Job will take (edit, can't read a countdown clock) 4 days, 20 hours to run. Given that the UI explicitly states max run is 20, what gives?

2. Though I know it won't be acknowledged by an dev, because it means actually following through with a comment made by greyscale, here goes.

greyscale, how about commenting on this?:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4790983#post4790983


1. Which bit of the UI? Showinfo is I believe still inaccurate, you'll want to check the actual industry UI for real numbers. If you mean capital turret hardpoints, I believe we bumped the runs on those up so you could do a week's worth of bulid in one go.

2. See above, and also note if you haven't already that the displayed percentage is material reduction, not remaining waste. There is no explicit "waste" in the new system.


Update to this comment: after further poking we've identified that the update script is using old math which doesn't map properly; in particular, blueprints with an ME of 2 or 3 were being under-upgraded. This is getting fixed and should be fine for TQ. Thanks for the heads-up :)


Thanks for the attention. Sorry for being so blunt, but this is important, and you did not seem to believe me with your initial reply.

BTW, I have fiddled with the combinations and permutations of the max runs/copies when copying capital component BPO's. The UI will accept up to 7 copies at once, each 40 runs, for a duration of 31 days.

40 runs per copy is definitely the max cap on runs per copy, even for capital BPO's.
If you are going to allow this kind of carnage of the capital BPC market, so be it. (280 runs of capital components versus the 50 today in roughly the same time) Nothing I can do to stop you.

But at least fix the UI so it shows maximum runs at 40 rather than 20 (right above the BPO icon).


BTW, I can also do 3 copies of 1 run Archon's, in the same 31 day period.

Clearly, you have set this up so the max runs / copies is based on approx a 31 day cap, rather than quantity of runs/ copies.


Insider info: angry posts never make us more likely to read something compared to the same content presented as a calm post, and usually make us somewhat less likely to pay attention. People's judgements tend to be clouded when they're emotional, which means an angry post is generally likely to be less accurate than a calm one.

As you can see in this case, that doesn't mean that we ignore them entirely (and I have learned through significant pain that sometimes the "noise" is the signal in this regard, cf anomalies), but there are rational reasons for treating them with a more skeptical eye. In this particular case, if you'd just said "Your math doesn't add up: [math]" I would have read it and gone "holy **** my math doesn't add up", and I would've fixed it :) (Note also that none of this means you need to be nice, and indeed that always puts me on guard :P)


WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)


Luci Lu wrote:
yay nothing changes, if you're not massively bulk building.

doubt greyscale cares about small cap producers :)


I care about everyone, to at least some degree :) What's the problem you're concerned about?

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I am also looking at my invented BPC's on TQ. Most are -4, -4.
I see they have been converted to 6% ME, 14% TE, on Singularity

I also see that their raw material requirements, for the items that remain, are up 50-60%.
Is that going to stay that way, or is that efficiency formula also broken like researched BPO's?


This sounds like it's probably correct. 6/14 is essentially "bonus" stats due to the way we're doing the conversion; jobs that previously yielded -4, -4 (ie no decryptors) will in future yield 2, 4.

Also worth noting that the "efficiency formula" isn't broken, it's specifically the DB script that changes old blueprint values to new blueprint values was using the wrong number for ME2/3 blueprints. All the server code is working correctly :)
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#305 - 2014-07-14 12:33:53 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Sorry for being so blunt


You're no sorrier about being blunt than you believe Greyscale wasn't with that one post characterizing the social tendencies of highsec industrialists. Blink

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#306 - 2014-07-14 13:05:22 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Sorry for being so blunt


You're no sorrier about being blunt than you believe Greyscale wasn't with that one post characterizing the social tendencies of highsec industrialists. Blink


Which one was that?

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.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#307 - 2014-07-14 14:33:27 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Sorry for being so blunt


You're no sorrier about being blunt than you believe Greyscale wasn't with that one post characterizing the social tendencies of highsec industrialists. Blink


Keep gloating......

I look forward to the day you and the rest of the goon leadership stand up and say "look how powerful we are. We wiped out a 100 million dollar company with the highest level of meta-gaming possible."
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#308 - 2014-07-14 14:38:14 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I am also looking at my invented BPC's on TQ. Most are -4, -4.
I see they have been converted to 6% ME, 14% TE, on Singularity

I also see that their raw material requirements, for the items that remain, are up 50-60%.
Is that going to stay that way, or is that efficiency formula also broken like researched BPO's?


This sounds like it's probably correct. 6/14 is essentially "bonus" stats due to the way we're doing the conversion; jobs that previously yielded -4, -4 (ie no decryptors) will in future yield 2, 4.

Also worth noting that the "efficiency formula" isn't broken, it's specifically the DB script that changes old blueprint values to new blueprint values was using the wrong number for ME2/3 blueprints. All the server code is working correctly :)



All right then. Guess I have a lot of work in the next week burning off all my existing T2 BPC's, since the -4,-4's will be hopelessly inefficient when converted next week.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#309 - 2014-07-14 14:40:20 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)


Update: Nullarbor just fixed this so it shows the maximum number of runs you can do without breaking the 30-day rule. For copies this only calculates for one-run blueprint copies, it's too much work this close to get that working dynamically, but it's a much clearer number now :)
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#310 - 2014-07-14 14:49:57 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Sorry for being so blunt


You're no sorrier about being blunt than you believe Greyscale wasn't with that one post characterizing the social tendencies of highsec industrialists. Blink


Which one was that?


It was the one where Greyscale characterized high sec industrialists as people who refuse to interact with others in the game.

CCP soon is going to get an object lesson on how much this demographic does or does not like to "interact" with other players, and ultimately, "interact" with CCP, when the full impact of Crius is felt by all the players who don't read dev blogs.

The cartel propagandists can proclaim all they like that the sliding PCU and sub rate is due exclusively to the stagnation in null and how it is CCP's fault, but that is only part of the reason. The exodus from high sec continues, especially after Crius. And now, when we read mynnna's grand vision for mining on his blog, we can see another one of the cartel's targets. That, and of course, the constant drumbeat that Eve would be so much better if only missions were redesigned so only groups could handle level 4's.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#311 - 2014-07-14 14:57:15 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)


Update: Nullarbor just fixed this so it shows the maximum number of runs you can do without breaking the 30-day rule. For copies this only calculates for one-run blueprint copies, it's too much work this close to get that working dynamically, but it's a much clearer number now :)


So ultimately, with Crius, the cap on runs on a single capital BPC has been removed, and the 30 day hard cap is the only rule that affects copying. I have no real opinion on whether multiple 5 run Cap BPC's are inferior to a single Cap BPC that has 40 runs, but I would think it is a lot easier for a builder to plug in one BPC and let it run, if time is not a factor. Then again, given how cheap BPC's are going to be, and mfg slots are a thing of the past, why not simply create 20 two-run BPC's and build from them concurrently, if you have a vast army of mfg alts. You can pump out Capital Components, and ships, way faster.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#312 - 2014-07-14 15:07:48 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)


Update: Nullarbor just fixed this so it shows the maximum number of runs you can do without breaking the 30-day rule. For copies this only calculates for one-run blueprint copies, it's too much work this close to get that working dynamically, but it's a much clearer number now :)


So ultimately, with Crius, the cap on runs on a single capital BPC has been removed, and the 30 day hard cap is the only rule that affects copying. I have no real opinion on whether multiple 5 run Cap BPC's are inferior to a single Cap BPC that has 40 runs, but I would think it is a lot easier for a builder to plug in one BPC and let it run, if time is not a factor. Then again, given how cheap BPC's are going to be, and mfg slots are a thing of the past, why not simply create 20 two-run BPC's and build from them concurrently, if you have a vast army of mfg alts. You can pump out Capital Components, and ships, way faster.


remember that another one of CCP's weird maths things going on is that long multiple run manufacturing jobs get some material modifier that makes each run take less materials the more runs being manufactured. Im not sure what the month long runs cap for manufacturing capital parts is, but if if you manufacture more at a time the cheaper it becomes, so the 40 run might be better then the 20 runs in that way.
I havent run the math.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#313 - 2014-07-14 15:16:56 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)


Update: Nullarbor just fixed this so it shows the maximum number of runs you can do without breaking the 30-day rule. For copies this only calculates for one-run blueprint copies, it's too much work this close to get that working dynamically, but it's a much clearer number now :)


So ultimately, with Crius, the cap on runs on a single capital BPC has been removed, and the 30 day hard cap is the only rule that affects copying. I have no real opinion on whether multiple 5 run Cap BPC's are inferior to a single Cap BPC that has 40 runs, but I would think it is a lot easier for a builder to plug in one BPC and let it run, if time is not a factor. Then again, given how cheap BPC's are going to be, and mfg slots are a thing of the past, why not simply create 20 two-run BPC's and build from them concurrently, if you have a vast army of mfg alts. You can pump out Capital Components, and ships, way faster.


remember that another one of CCP's weird maths things going on is that long multiple run manufacturing jobs get some material modifier that makes each run take less materials the more runs being manufactured. Im not sure what the month long runs cap for manufacturing capital parts is, but if if you manufacture more at a time the cheaper it becomes, so the 40 run might be better then the 20 runs in that way.
I havent run the math.


Yeah, I forgot about that.
I play an old game, Paradox's Hearts of Iron, where you get gearing bonuses if your production line quantity is larger. There is some logic in that, as any real-life manufacturing company will tell you an optimized line is one that is pumping out the same item 24/7 (maintenance windows excepted), but ultimately, a point is reached quite quickly where the return is miniscule.

I have not run the math to see what the bonus on Sisi actually is (sorry CCP, that is a better indicator than any blog).
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#314 - 2014-07-14 15:21:35 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)


Update: Nullarbor just fixed this so it shows the maximum number of runs you can do without breaking the 30-day rule. For copies this only calculates for one-run blueprint copies, it's too much work this close to get that working dynamically, but it's a much clearer number now :)


So ultimately, with Crius, the cap on runs on a single capital BPC has been removed, and the 30 day hard cap is the only rule that affects copying. I have no real opinion on whether multiple 5 run Cap BPC's are inferior to a single Cap BPC that has 40 runs, but I would think it is a lot easier for a builder to plug in one BPC and let it run, if time is not a factor. Then again, given how cheap BPC's are going to be, and mfg slots are a thing of the past, why not simply create 20 two-run BPC's and build from them concurrently, if you have a vast army of mfg alts. You can pump out Capital Components, and ships, way faster.


remember that another one of CCP's weird maths things going on is that long multiple run manufacturing jobs get some material modifier that makes each run take less materials the more runs being manufactured. Im not sure what the month long runs cap for manufacturing capital parts is, but if if you manufacture more at a time the cheaper it becomes, so the 40 run might be better then the 20 runs in that way.
I havent run the math.


It was only ever a cost reduction, not a material reduction, and in any event we dropped it as it ended up not delivering enough value to justify the complexity and work. New blog coming out this week with final info on everything!
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#315 - 2014-07-14 16:35:33 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I am also looking at my invented BPC's on TQ. Most are -4, -4.
I see they have been converted to 6% ME, 14% TE, on Singularity

I also see that their raw material requirements, for the items that remain, are up 50-60%.
Is that going to stay that way, or is that efficiency formula also broken like researched BPO's?


This sounds like it's probably correct. 6/14 is essentially "bonus" stats due to the way we're doing the conversion; jobs that previously yielded -4, -4 (ie no decryptors) will in future yield 2, 4.

Also worth noting that the "efficiency formula" isn't broken, it's specifically the DB script that changes old blueprint values to new blueprint values was using the wrong number for ME2/3 blueprints. All the server code is working correctly :)

I'm having trouble parsing what this means about what happens to any existing T2 bpcs I have right now, after patch.

Do they get converted over as-is, so they retain their penalties and are essentially useless, or do they get converted so that if I have a -4,-4 bpc now, I will have a 2,4 bpc post-patch?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#316 - 2014-07-14 22:19:59 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I am also looking at my invented BPC's on TQ. Most are -4, -4.
I see they have been converted to 6% ME, 14% TE, on Singularity

I also see that their raw material requirements, for the items that remain, are up 50-60%.
Is that going to stay that way, or is that efficiency formula also broken like researched BPO's?


This sounds like it's probably correct. 6/14 is essentially "bonus" stats due to the way we're doing the conversion; jobs that previously yielded -4, -4 (ie no decryptors) will in future yield 2, 4.

Also worth noting that the "efficiency formula" isn't broken, it's specifically the DB script that changes old blueprint values to new blueprint values was using the wrong number for ME2/3 blueprints. All the server code is working correctly :)

I'm having trouble parsing what this means about what happens to any existing T2 bpcs I have right now, after patch.

Do they get converted over as-is, so they retain their penalties and are essentially useless, or do they get converted so that if I have a -4,-4 bpc now, I will have a 2,4 bpc post-patch?


Dev blog explaining this will be out later in the week, they will not be useless.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#317 - 2014-07-14 22:28:52 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

WRT the body of the post, we have a check in place (same as on TQ currently) where no run can start later than 30 days after the job as a whole starts, which is why you're seeing a lot of 31-day jobs. The 20 number you're seeing is a legacy from the current system on TQ (at least according to the code), but we've had another look at that, decided it seems pretty arbitrary and are looking at revising or removing it, given that we already have the 30-day cap anyway. Thanks for bringing it up :)


Update: Nullarbor just fixed this so it shows the maximum number of runs you can do without breaking the 30-day rule. For copies this only calculates for one-run blueprint copies, it's too much work this close to get that working dynamically, but it's a much clearer number now :)


So ultimately, with Crius, the cap on runs on a single capital BPC has been removed, and the 30 day hard cap is the only rule that affects copying. I have no real opinion on whether multiple 5 run Cap BPC's are inferior to a single Cap BPC that has 40 runs, but I would think it is a lot easier for a builder to plug in one BPC and let it run, if time is not a factor. Then again, given how cheap BPC's are going to be, and mfg slots are a thing of the past, why not simply create 20 two-run BPC's and build from them concurrently, if you have a vast army of mfg alts. You can pump out Capital Components, and ships, way faster.


remember that another one of CCP's weird maths things going on is that long multiple run manufacturing jobs get some material modifier that makes each run take less materials the more runs being manufactured. Im not sure what the month long runs cap for manufacturing capital parts is, but if if you manufacture more at a time the cheaper it becomes, so the 40 run might be better then the 20 runs in that way.
I havent run the math.


It was only ever a cost reduction, not a material reduction, and in any event we dropped it as it ended up not delivering enough value to justify the complexity and work. New blog coming out this week with final info on everything!


What about replacement for material efficency skill?

Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Ryuu Towryk
Perkone
Caldari State
#318 - 2014-07-15 00:01:36 UTC
Quote:

What about replacement for material efficency skill?


Here you go,
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=357640&find=unread

Quote:
During the mass test today, I noticed that the "Material Efficiency" (-5% material requirements per level) has been changed to "Advanced Industry" (-1% time per level).
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#319 - 2014-07-15 00:59:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
New blog coming out this week with final info on everything!



Does everything work correctly on SIsi?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#320 - 2014-07-15 06:08:19 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I am also looking at my invented BPC's on TQ. Most are -4, -4.
I see they have been converted to 6% ME, 14% TE, on Singularity

I also see that their raw material requirements, for the items that remain, are up 50-60%.
Is that going to stay that way, or is that efficiency formula also broken like researched BPO's?


This sounds like it's probably correct. 6/14 is essentially "bonus" stats due to the way we're doing the conversion; jobs that previously yielded -4, -4 (ie no decryptors) will in future yield 2, 4.

Also worth noting that the "efficiency formula" isn't broken, it's specifically the DB script that changes old blueprint values to new blueprint values was using the wrong number for ME2/3 blueprints. All the server code is working correctly :)

I'm having trouble parsing what this means about what happens to any existing T2 bpcs I have right now, after patch.

Do they get converted over as-is, so they retain their penalties and are essentially useless, or do they get converted so that if I have a -4,-4 bpc now, I will have a 2,4 bpc post-patch?


Dev blog explaining this will be out later in the week, they will not be useless.


Well, given that the release is in 7 days, many of us don't have time to wait on a new blog. Some manufacturing runs take quite some time, and I know that since I killed my mfg accounts sometime ago, I am relying on this char for the bulk of the work, so I start tomorrow a.m.

Case in point, my large shield extender BPC's are up 60% (5 is now 8) for most T2 intermediate product.

Don't you think it is a tad unfair to be "explaining" formulas mere days before this thing goes live, especially since you backed it off (quite wisely, I might add) many weeks, to get it right?