EVE Information Portal

You still don't get that this will be compensated through the market? And with more people ragequitting, it will most likely be overcompensated over time. The players who buy those ships to get them exploded will pay for it.

Industry UI - Field widths.

Security column input is never going to be more than 4 char's wide, call it 6 for blank space. Why default it to a much wider space than what is needed to put blank space around the waay tooo long label "Security"???

Same thing for the "Job runs", "Activity", "Install date" , and "End date" columns.

Every team apparently thinks their jobs rely on how many pixels they chew through.

Everyone who did build Archons years ahead to undercut a 2014 expansion is a genius. I will pay him tons of real life money to give me stock market tips ....
Wait, his RoCE was 0 for this time? Hmmm, think I'll stay with this old scary women that predicts my portfolio prices and is right 50% of the time.

I don't see the problem either.

The question is, what sounds more logical to you?
Having different ME levels producing the same result (before) or having a reason to reach the highest level (now)?
Having ME 10 is an unfair advantage? Wait...

You are only complaining because you don't want to adapt.

Becomes a point, you can't improve some aspects of the game without making changes that will, in a way or another, make some players temporary unhappy.

The key is to adapt, point.

I watched the picture, and that's why I answered you what I answered you.
Having same material imput at lower levels is less illogical and unfair that having the same at higher end levels.

Now, the communication by CCP might be the problem, but certainly not the changes.

Nope.

NP problem at all for a forum alt who never has or never will research a thing.

I'm seeing a lot of negative feedback, but I, for one, really like the changes, and want to see how they progress. On the other hand, I'm not doing capital production, and I don't have any expensive, heavily researched BPO's.

The window is a bit bulky, but getting away from "spreadsheets in space" is worth a little bulk. It's pretty easy for me to figure out what I'm spending and where, which wasn't the case before.

It doesn't seem like it was designed with bulk in mind, though. When I go to use the interface, I'm going to run twenty jobs at a time (10 production, 10 research). It's very flickery if you try to do that quickly. Like, the background color of the info pane changes from black to dark grey all the time, and there's no reason for that. It looks like it makes a great new player experience with the inviting "hey, drop the blueprint here!" slot, but within minutes, you're trying to do a lot with it and then it breaks down. I think it could use some smoothing out.

I've been doing this a while, though, and for me, it's still a difficult workflow. When I produce, I've got virtually identical blueprints all lined up. I imagine this is a very common use case. It's much better than it was before, but CCP has stated the want "every click to represent a meaningful decision." But I've already made all the meaningful decisions getting the materials and blueprints together; I just want to run some jobs. Ideally, that should be just two or three clicks total.

I really want to be able to just shift-click on ten blueprints and run them all. You're already storing parameters in between jobs (how many runs, etc.), so in theory, you could just have the client emit a click on the "start" button and then a click on the next blueprint, and go forward in that manner. The upper pane could either provide a summary of all the jobs or the info on just the first job.

If that's not practical technically, then at least advance the selected blueprint to the next blueprint down on the list whenever I click "start". When I start a job, the next thing I want to do is start the next job, not cancel the one I just started. The way it stands, I have to click "start job" then WAIT a difficult-to-guess amount of time for that job to actually go through, THEN click the next blueprint and WAIT a difficult-to-guess amount of time for that blueprint to actually get selected, THEN click start again. If I mess it up, I wind up with the wrong blueprint selected or accidentally click "stop" on a job, either of which wastes another cycle of waiting for the interface to settle down. It's frustrating to be racing ahead of the interface like that.

If the selection automatically advanced, then I wouldn't have to move my mouse around, I could just wait until the interface settled down, and then hit "start" again. Still not ideal, but much less error-prone, and probably very reasonable to implement.

On a related note, I like the idea of "used" blueprints show up in the blueprint list, but in 95% of cases, I really don't want them there. My blueprint list is my list of jobs to run. I don't want already-running jobs in my list of jobs to run. The only reason I'd ever need "in progress" blueprints to show up in the main blueprint list is if I'm trying to track down a particular blueprint whether it's running or not. So an option to turn "in progress" blueprints off, defaulting to off, would serve my needs the best.

Thank you for a long-overdue look at industry. I think many of the issues that others have listed are fixable, and what we see here is a big step in the right direction.

A point everyone this affects needs to be hammering is how the discrepancy is not simply a result of the removal of production efficiency. As, you have to remember, none of the devs play the game.

Screwing over a large group of your established customers is logical??

Badly designed and illogical?? How would you know, you never used it.

Back to your goonie main and go gank a noob in a T1 hauler, ya know something you can handle intellectually.