These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kasulli
Gateway Mining Division
#221 - 2011-12-10 06:21:12 UTC
LethalGeek wrote:
Today I learned people actually converted all of their fuel way ahead of any official announcement of the change over date.

Would it have really been so hard to just make 2-4 days of fuel (depending on your level of downtime paranoia) and then convert the rest AFTER the switch? It takes 2-3 minutes to make 1 hour of fuel at a POS. Not really hard to play catch up with that.

Also LOL at the folks who are too broke to pay for a POS for any real length of time. L2isk fools.


You're right in that hisec really has no right to complain - storage is darn near limitless in stations, so no big deal.

What you fail to realize is that alliances, or even corps, with 50+ POS don't have the option to make only 2-4 days of fuel. Considering logistics in lowsec, nullsec, and WH - and the danger therein - 2 - 4 days of fuel isn't nearly enough to cover your needs, especially when you're talking THAT MANY stations.

So again, hisec can't really complain - time spent sooner rather than later for them. Everyone else though, it's a big bummer and a problem.
disasteur
disasterous industries
#222 - 2011-12-10 06:22:48 UTC
LethalGeek wrote:
Today I learned people actually converted all of their fuel way ahead of any official announcement of the change over date.

Would it have really been so hard to just make 2-4 days of fuel (depending on your level of downtime paranoia) and then convert the rest AFTER the switch? It takes 2-3 minutes to make 1 hour of fuel at a POS. Not really hard to play catch up with that.

Also LOL at the folks who are too broke to pay for a POS for any real length of time. L2isk fools.

Edit: I can't if everyone here is just really that upset or we're all trolling each other. It's like Poe's Law...



because the message was 2 weeks after the BPO's the change would be made jees man
Pasha Cracken
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#223 - 2011-12-10 06:26:13 UTC
I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....

Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.

Silly people...
disasteur
disasterous industries
#224 - 2011-12-10 06:34:00 UTC
Pasha Cracken wrote:
I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....

Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.

Silly people...


you can call em silly people or stupid people, but actually you and others who are flaming the complainers are the sheep who go along with anything CCP is saying or doing

flaming people is probably the only fun thing there is to do for some...
Icarus Helia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#225 - 2011-12-10 06:35:25 UTC
Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.

CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.

POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.

POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!

Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people.

Why you no care?
disasteur
disasterous industries
#226 - 2011-12-10 06:38:58 UTC
Icarus Helia wrote:
Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.

CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.

POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.

POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!

Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people.



some words written in a blog from the devs.......


CLARIFICATION:

Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.

Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens.

After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.


so whats with the couple of weeks??????
Pasha Cracken
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#227 - 2011-12-10 06:44:15 UTC
disasteur wrote:
Pasha Cracken wrote:
I just think its funny that everyone is crying about the new date....

Big alliance or not, no body should have ever converted all their fuel untill CCP released the definate date. They even said from day one that the process would take time and it wasnt like they where just going to flip the switch on a random downtime.

Silly people...


you can call em silly people or stupid people, but actually you and others who are flaming the complainers are the sheep who go along with anything CCP is saying or doing

flaming people is probably the only fun thing there is to do for some...



Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch.

Even with no definitive date set, no one should have converted all their stock. At a max, the most people should have done was to buy the bpos, research them, and produce / buy a weeks worth of the new blocks, other then that they should have continued stocking regular fuel.

Anyway you look at it, everyone has a little bit of fault.
Icarus Helia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#228 - 2011-12-10 06:44:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Icarus Helia
disasteur wrote:
Icarus Helia wrote:
Why are people scapegoating CCP for their own speculative failures? You complain that CCP fubar'd this but really they didn't do anything wrong at all. The only thing CCP made the mistake of doing was giving a vague time frame in the first place, this is why they love Soon(tm), because you people take guesstimates way too seriously and flip out over this stuff. They said "a couple of weeks after the patch day" - NOT - "December 14th" as I saw some people suggesting as the "possibly as early as" date. The word "couple"as a numerical term is not a standardized unit of measure - all it means is more than one. Relying on a player's speculative and vague "possibly as early as" date as being the words set in stone is pretty dumb, especially for the type of people in corps that are given the jump freighter keys, and all of the POS fuel, they should know better. CCP also suggested from the get-go to have equal amounts of fuel blocks and traditional fuels at all times in the POS fuel bays - not to convert anything that isn't about 2 weeks of fuel into fuel blocks as soon as possible.

CCP - You guys need to either be very specific or completely silent about dates for changes like this. This means not saying the following words with reference to ANY change; couple, few, roughly, several- etc.

POS fuelers who are complaining - You screwed up - re hauling all that crap seems like a fitting punishment for that kind of speculation, hopefully you will learn your lesson.

POS Fuelers who are relieved - You did it right, or got lucky - High five!

Corp leaders - if your fuel people are whining about this you should probably give those keys to more competent people.



some words written in a blog from the devs.......


CLARIFICATION:

Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.

Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens.

After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.


so whats with the couple of weeks??????


I still don't see a hard date in that post - and he further clarified that closer to that time they would give a certain date. currently - it is closer to that time, and they have given a certain date. also he used "approximately" before giving a time frame. something i did openly fault CCP for in my post - goading you idiots on.

Now, if CCP had given a specific date, like actually saying December 14th, then the rage in this thread would be justified. but they didn't, so it is not.

edit - I might also suggest that you do not fall into the "competent people" category, in case my post didn't do that already.

Why you no care?
LethalGeek
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#229 - 2011-12-10 06:46:39 UTC
disasteur wrote:

some words written in a blog from the devs.......
CLARIFICATION:
Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.
Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens.
After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.

so whats with the couple of weeks??????

I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems."
disasteur
disasterous industries
#230 - 2011-12-10 06:55:43 UTC
LethalGeek wrote:
disasteur wrote:

some words written in a blog from the devs.......
CLARIFICATION:
Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.
Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens.
After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.

so whats with the couple of weeks??????

I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems."



no i didnt left out a part

this is the blog i got the info

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143

the txt you referring to says... i quote
We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over.

@ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point

@ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part..

Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch.
LethalGeek
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2011-12-10 06:58:14 UTC
Ok so maybe I'm a tad more experienced with How Updates In Software works and could read between the lines a little better. Darn my experiance!
disasteur
disasterous industries
#232 - 2011-12-10 07:00:09 UTC
LethalGeek wrote:
Ok so maybe I'm a tad more experienced with How Updates In Software works and could read between the lines a little better. Darn my experiance!


im always suprised how many experienced people play eve... seems this game turns every noob into a technician
Icarus Helia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#233 - 2011-12-10 07:01:51 UTC
disasteur wrote:
LethalGeek wrote:
disasteur wrote:

some words written in a blog from the devs.......
CLARIFICATION:
Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.
Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens.
After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.

so whats with the couple of weeks??????

I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems."



no i didnt left out a part

this is the blog i got the info

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143

the txt you referring to says... i quote
We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over.

@ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point

@ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part..

Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch.


we already agree that CCP needs to clean up communications - but the point is that people took vague guesstimates as the word in stone, which I think places them far more at fault, especially if they converted their entire stocks to fuel blocks, and therefore makes them exactly the kind of people you don't want in charge of important stuff like keeping your isk farming moon goo bubbles, or jump bridge structures, or multibillion isk construction and research projects alive.

Why you no care?
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#234 - 2011-12-10 07:10:04 UTC
Icarus Helia wrote:
disasteur wrote:
LethalGeek wrote:
disasteur wrote:

some words written in a blog from the devs.......
CLARIFICATION:
Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.
Towers will continue to use the original fuel types right up until this patch happens.
After this patch is applied, they will use fuel blocks exclusively for fuel.

so whats with the couple of weeks??????

I believe you left out a part about "this is left vague since we don't want to do this until all the side effects of the expansion are addressed first so we don't cause a lot of towers to offline due to bugs or other unforeseen problems."



no i didnt left out a part

this is the blog i got the info

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3143

the txt you referring to says... i quote
We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over.

@ Pasha Cracken, you do have made a good point

@ Icarus Helia its not about me or anyone else failing, its about information feed by ccp that fails, pasha cracken made a good comment on that, i quote a part..

Im saying that people rushed into this, and they speculated and over worked themselves. I do believe that CCP is at fault because they should have given the turnover date when the BPOs where introduced, however they did tell everyone that they would give them plently of time to make the switch.


we already agree that CCP needs to clean up communications - but the point is that people took vague guesstimates as the word in stone, which I think places them far more at fault, especially if they converted their entire stocks to fuel blocks, and therefore makes them exactly the kind of people you don't want in charge of important stuff like keeping your isk farming moon goo bubbles, or jump bridge structures, or multibillion isk construction and research projects alive.


As the person that raised the issue on the first pageTwisted The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work.

I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Marcus Caspius
#235 - 2011-12-10 07:10:57 UTC
Hey Soundwave! Get your sh!t together and stick to the plan. You're causing issues because you don't have your house in order.

-> You tell me it gonna change! I plan and prepare.
-> You change the plan again so now all me planning goes to crap 'cause your playing God!
-> So a adapt and refine the fuel blocks back to raw and I loose again due to tax and waste

Wake up sweet-cheeks! Smell the roses and get you sh!t together...


Grammatical error and spelling mistakes are included for your entertainment!
Icarus Helia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#236 - 2011-12-10 07:16:01 UTC
Salpun wrote:

As the person that raised the issue on the first pageTwisted The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work.

I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening.


the kind of people who make all of their vital supplies semi-worthless based on a guesstimate date that hasn't been confirmed in any way are NOT the kind of people you want to be in charge of fuelling any important pos.

Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.

Why you no care?
ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2011-12-10 07:17:28 UTC
CCP Prism X wrote:
However, I'll make sure this is true. There's a fancy post-it here saying I should and post-its are law!


Especially when the post-its appear on a kanban board. Don't forget to take it off the backlog, or they'll post it on your coffin. I expect to be buried with an impressive collection of them myself.
ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2011-12-10 07:22:21 UTC
Icarus Helia wrote:

Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.


I haven't put any fuel blocks in any of our towers yet. I've been predicting it wouldn't happen before mid-January, but have been prepared for being wrong.

Should we consider that the difference between "proactive" and "hyperactive"?

I would have preferred an earlier date, but I'd have wanted that to be announced well in advance. It wasn't, so I'll take this instead.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#239 - 2011-12-10 07:25:44 UTC
Icarus Helia wrote:
Salpun wrote:

As the person that raised the issue on the first pageTwisted The people that converted blocks are the proactive ones. The players that you want in charge of stuff like that becouse you know that they will keep there eyes on the goal and do what ever work is neccessary to make it work.

I'll do the work neccessary but any changes we can get out of CCP like doubling the fuel hanger is a nice plus and shows the devs are listening.


the kind of people who make all of their vital supplies semi-worthless based on a guesstimate date that hasn't been confirmed in any way are NOT the kind of people you want to be in charge of fuelling any important pos.

Proactive is not synonymous with competent or good. Plenty of incompetent boobs are very proactive people.


TwistedTwistedIn WH's you are proactive or you die. CCP did not communicate well, they will make some changes and all will be well. I just feel bad for the guys in null with lots of posses.

Everyone took the info given and make a choice. As with CCP; they are eaither happy or mad about their choice.

Lets ease the pain a little if possible and carry one. o7

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
HoshinoRuri
Perkone
Caldari State
#240 - 2011-12-10 07:27:30 UTC  |  Edited by: HoshinoRuri
Thank you CCP greyscale for your timely and many comments on our posts. It shows a level of communication I do not see very often in the CCP devs.

Couple comments, I like that I have a hard date, I was not one that converted everything to blocks only made a 2 days run.

REALLY REALLY hating the increase in my fuel costs due to the PI changes, even with making most of it myself between me and all my alts, fueling towers is not fun and the market blowing up isn't either.

If possible maybe temporarily turn back on npc selling pos fuel to help relieve the market inflation caused by this and your previous announcements concerning POS and POCO.