These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fuel blocks! (and CCP Soundwaves wildlife safety advice)

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2011-12-09 22:01:11 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Kelle
I like many obviously wish you good luck in makeing this happen as trouble free as possible and it is good to see you giving feed back. +1 for that.

However many of us have serious concerns over the forced need for not being able to tweek and carefully manage our fuel requirements based upon what we use on the POS, you have apparently simply assumed everyojne who has a POS is running full on 24 / 7 with every possible module online all the time. this was probably never the case for 100% of the POS's.
Seeing as you have forced the maximum consumption of Heavy Water and Liquid Ozone doewn our throats you should have ballanced that by allowing more of the same to be extracted from the ICE.

for two reasons.

1. to reduce the explosion in bots this is very likely to create in order to make up the shortfall.

2. You are famous for engaging and promoting EVE ballancing so whiy have you not prepared the correct ballance to the usage they are now going to consume; espesially for the smaller corps. Why are they being ignored and forced out yet again, not by players note, but by CCP's implementaion of something.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#182 - 2011-12-09 22:07:01 UTC
Zagdul wrote:
That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward.


If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes.




In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes.
Luvvin McHunt
The Church of Awesome
#183 - 2011-12-09 22:07:14 UTC
Just posting here to help soak up some of the POS owner tears.

Reading this thread reminds me of when you get out of the water in Crysis and all the drops are running down your visor.

But seriously -

Hire me to fill your pos's on changeover day.

I will 100% deliver your fuel. This is guaranteed as I will need the cargo room for datacores and blueprints + stuff.
Crias Taylor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2011-12-09 22:08:12 UTC
Boltzy Tsero wrote:
So, out of the 180 replies to this post only about 5 are positive!

CCP Greyscale, please ignore all 175 posts by trolls and griefers, and thanks for giving a DATE on when this conversion will take place.

As stated CCP have never given a date and only mention approx two weeks after Crucible regarding the fuel block change over period.

You guys need to give CCP some love for a change!  You have just had the best expansion for months!.

Safe!  o7


People are reasonable upset. Not everyone is as rich as Goonswarm and now they have to have even more float fuel made further crunching fuel supplies. 

In short, I'm going to make mad space bucks with my stock of pos fuel. Ka-Ching. 
Janssen
General Services
#185 - 2011-12-09 22:13:24 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Sorry, we're looking at different blogs, my bad. Original blog said "a couple of weeks", follow-up blog said "approximately two weeks". Sorry for the mix-up.


CCP Greyscale (and everyone else on this project) - some things I have noticed and appreciate:

1 - you guys are communicating a lot more - thank you.
2 - you are explaining things a lot more - thank you.
3 - I appreciate your patience here in this forum - mine has been sorely tested.
4 - I appreciate the care and responsibility you folks are taking with making sure that there is no "Great Starbase Pinata Bash of 2011".


I remember reading somewhere on the forum with the POS pellet discussion that we'd have to keep both kinds of fuel, just for good measure, until the switchover. This I have done. I did not assume that the switchover would take place in two weeks, I just prepared myself / my towers with a balance of both types.

In my opinion, CCP made the correct call on this - rather than take the risk and not have a full compliment of staff to handle any problems that might arise, they made the responsible decision to postpone until testing was completed and staff was available.

Kudos CCP and may you all have safe and happy holidays.
Blakslabeth
Perkone
Caldari State
#186 - 2011-12-09 22:13:37 UTC
I work with software implementations as well and am planning a break at Christmas - I too will not schedule a major change during periods of low support. It just makes sense. So, quit your bitching people and cut them some slack. They tried to hit a date; they can't for quality reasons. Do you want it done right or do you want to wake up one morning and YOUR pos has gone offline and your goodies have been swiped by someone else?

Keep up the good work.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#187 - 2011-12-09 22:15:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward.


If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes.




In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes.



this fuel bay increase will stay after the fuel changes right???

OMG when can i get a pic here
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#188 - 2011-12-09 22:17:20 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward.


If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes.




In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes.



this fuel bay increase will stay after the fuel changes right???


No, this will be a temporary thing. I'd want to sit down and have a proper think about the consequences of making this a permanent change, and I don't have the energy to do that right now, sorry.
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
#189 - 2011-12-09 22:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Madner Kami
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future.


Well, thanks for explaining why this push-back happens and I agree on why you push it back. Next time however, I wish you let us know of such uncertainties in advance, because Schroedinger's Cat is always going to screw someone or several for that matter. Expectation management and all ;)
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#190 - 2011-12-09 22:19:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward.


If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes.




In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes.



this fuel bay increase will stay after the fuel changes right???


No, this will be a temporary thing. I'd want to sit down and have a proper think about the consequences of making this a permanent change, and I don't have the energy to do that right now, sorry.


well it would be awesom if it was left in place and i can not see anyone calling it a bad change. less ball ache jobs the better

OMG when can i get a pic here
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#191 - 2011-12-09 22:20:15 UTC
Madner Kami wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future.


Well, thanks for explaining why this push-back happens and I agree on why you push it back. Next time however, I wish you let us know of such uncertainties in advance, because Schroedinger's Cat is always going to screw someone or several for that matter. Expectation management and all ;)


Yup, that was our bad, we'll try and do it better next time.


OK I'm going home, I'll check back in tomorrow hopefully.
Thalen Draganos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#192 - 2011-12-09 22:22:40 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Madner Kami wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I guess this is just a communication breakdown then. We said "a couple of weeks later" in the blog with the intention of giving a firm date later, and I think there was an assumption on our end that, until we actually announced a date, it was always "probably" rather than "definitely" happening before Christmas. Again, sorry about that - we'll try and be more clear about what is and isn't a definite date in future.


Well, thanks for explaining why this push-back happens and I agree on why you push it back. Next time however, I wish you let us know of such uncertainties in advance, because Schroedinger's Cat is always going to screw someone or several for that matter. Expectation management and all ;)


Yup, that was our bad, we'll try and do it better next time.


OK I'm going home, I'll check back in tomorrow hopefully.


No.....No.....try not. Do or do not there is no try.
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#193 - 2011-12-09 22:24:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
That said, the biggest issue being repeated in the thread I've seen is that the two major changes to fuel this expansion were the POCO's and the fuel blocks being in such a short timeframe. I'm sure in hind sight, you probably should have moved these two drastic changes to separate patches, however that's in the past and we need to move forward.


If we were doing this again, we'd probably consider splitting those two changes up, yes.




In other news, I've just gone ahead and doubled all the bay sizes internally. It still needs to get approval and pass testing, neither of which are a given, but I'd recommend holding off emptying towers for a day or so (if circumstances allow) while we see if we can push this change through all the relevant pipes.



this fuel bay increase will stay after the fuel changes right???


No, this will be a temporary thing. I'd want to sit down and have a proper think about the consequences of making this a permanent change, and I don't have the energy to do that right now, sorry.


A positive: the people in this thread most hurt by your announcement would love you very much as they'd be able to fuel pos's and not have to do that logistics for 2 months. Less frequent POS running around = more time to play the game all the while spending less time feeling like a slave to it.

If there's a real drawback to game mechanics because of this, I don't see any immediate ones. I'd say making the people who have been playing this game the longest (ya know, the bitter dudes who are trusted with roles/wallets/big ships to move this stuff around with) happy should be another big +.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2011-12-09 22:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
Oh, and can you allow fuel blocks in the Ore hold of the Rorqual+Orca.

that'd be freaking sweet.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2011-12-09 22:31:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Neo Agricola
OK.

you gave the only good reason for this "we have to pospone"-"Situation". I don't want to say you screwed up very big time or you are fail, but ...

Ok, after said that:

Honestly:
after thinking about that "Customer ownd Offices"/"PI"-"Situation": Doing PI is a major PitA (aka: Click-fest) which gives a roughly 1 mil isk per hour "payment" you increase the amount we have to pay to transfer PI from the Planet not by 10 or 20 %, no you increse it by 1.000%. So nobody wants to do PI anymore.
And now that....
OK guys, admit it: You are all doing those things on purpose. It is not us, playing eve, it is you playing us.
You sit there and laugh about our tears, looking for new wine in the forums and watch us not only enduring that **** you do to us. No. You even make us pay you for treading us like that.

I guess you are sitting there and think about new way to make us suffer.

[EDIT] sorry, that is my kind of working with this situation: sarcassm! CCP Greyscale: Dont take it to serious! ]
[/EDIT]
ok, lets get serious:
Please CCP, next time you plan something like this, and someone is saying give us more time, two weeks are to short, think about this situation and dopple your Timeline. And if that means, the deadline falls into a we are all on X-Mas-Vacation, so go ahead and add that time you need on top of it.
Why didnt you anounce the 24.01.2012 on the first time. (even if you think you have more than enough time to make it perfect)

Janssen wrote:

CCP Greyscale (and everyone else on this project) - some things I have noticed and appreciate:

1 - you guys are communicating a lot more - thank you.
2 - you are explaining things a lot more - thank you.
3 - I appreciate your patience here in this forum - mine has been sorely tested.
4 - I appreciate the care and responsibility you folks are taking with making sure that there is no "Great Starbase Pinata Bash of 2011".




5 - Please give us next time you make such big changes more time... I mean the original plan of swiching old fuel to blocks into two weeks, that was to short.


Kazanir wrote:
In light of the massive amount of effort being required from the playerbase by CCP's development choices, perhaps it would have been much better for you to not announce a "tentative 2 week changeover" date and then, 1.5 weeks after Crucible's launch, announce that you are moving it back...another 6 weeks?

You guys have painted yourself into a corner that is full of the rage of POS managers -- already one of the most notoriously thankless and annoying parts of EVE. You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens."

Grr, I say. Grr.


Hey Dude: you are forgetting those Logistic dudes... :-) they are even more pissed...

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2011-12-09 22:39:41 UTC
Neo Agricola wrote:

Kazanir wrote:
In light of the massive amount of effort being required from the playerbase by CCP's development choices, perhaps it would have been much better for you to not announce a "tentative 2 week changeover" date and then, 1.5 weeks after Crucible's launch, announce that you are moving it back...another 6 weeks?

You guys have painted yourself into a corner that is full of the rage of POS managers -- already one of the most notoriously thankless and annoying parts of EVE. You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens."

Grr, I say. Grr.


Hey Dude: you are forgetting those Logistic dudes... :-) they are even more pissed...


If you knew who the person was who you quoted, you would understand that his statement is is assumed to think of those Logistic dudes :-)

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#197 - 2011-12-09 22:44:32 UTC
Harris wrote:
Props to you Greyscale for staying to man the forums while others are partying!

I have visions of you waving a flaming torch at the baying wolves, what with the mood the forums are in at the moment! I can appreciate the angst for the mass-POS managers but understand how you got the place you're in.
.


Thank you for putting it into words...

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2011-12-09 22:47:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Neo Agricola
Zagdul wrote:
Neo Agricola wrote:

Kazanir wrote:
In light of the massive amount of effort being required from the playerbase by CCP's development choices, perhaps it would have been much better for you to not announce a "tentative 2 week changeover" date and then, 1.5 weeks after Crucible's launch, announce that you are moving it back...another 6 weeks?

You guys have painted yourself into a corner that is full of the rage of POS managers -- already one of the most notoriously thankless and annoying parts of EVE. You owed it to this section of your playerbase to treat their part of the game slightly more carefully, rather than busting out the snark with, "Sometimes this is a thing that happens."

Grr, I say. Grr.


Hey Dude: you are forgetting those Logistic dudes... :-) they are even more pissed...


If you knew who the person was who you quoted, you would understand that his statement is is assumed to think of those Logistic dudes :-)


Beleve me, I can feel his pain...

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
Bor'nak
Umbra Lupos
#199 - 2011-12-09 22:53:55 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hopefully this timeline will allow you to build up a sizable stock of blocks, without ruining your Christmas. I’m sure your family will appreciate you not bringing your laptop to the Christmas dinner to start production jobs.


Im pretty sure because of this screw up ill be bringing my laptop to Christmas dinner for the MASS FREIGHTER loads of fuel ill be needing to haul cause we turned everything into fuel blacks to match your "2 week" time line... so you have still managed to fek my Christmas up this year - thanks

on a side note an easier, less "community now hates ccp" fix for this would have been originally to introduce a whole new starbase structure concept (like the thread called - beating a dead horse) instead of a simple fuel change ... CCP would have gotten praises and been showered with thanks and we would have all at least at that point expected bugs and a longer deployment time and the new system could have used your new blocks!

or wait im dreaming - pinches myself - better solution would have been to slip in an additional pos mechanic, maybe MORE roles or tower options to make individual customization and pos naming mechanics to help increase security of a pos... would be nice if you could name an sma and then assign certain people to that sma and certain others to another (same goes with cha and other pos mods) - individualize pos settings, you would still or could still use mass settings but allow those that live exclusively out of a pos the ability to customize it to what we need~
SloMoJoe
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2011-12-09 23:34:39 UTC
Came to thread expecting poo flinging,

Got urine instead.

Thread still delivers.