These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sturmwolke
#101 - 2014-04-28 14:26:12 UTC
One more thing. Consider introducing an additional "BPC Block/Packet" option to make buying/selling/manufacturing from BPCs less painful for items with multiple parts requirements.
Similar to the Fuel Block concept. Random example.

Current packaged capital production requires :
1) Capital ship BPC
2) Capital part BPC

Manufacturing involves 2 stages, first assembling the capital parts and then combining them in the final capital ship manufacture.
While the above is valid for certain situations i.e where you've already got certain parts in stock etc, it isn't valid for a full fresh build from scratch.

The main aim for the BPC Block/Packet is to reduce this to 1 single stage - just listing the total minerals/materials required to build it (all parts included).
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#102 - 2014-04-28 14:27:22 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Will it treat the pos as one big storage?


This requires a POS rework and so no this will not happen for the summer release, but we agree that would be preferable.

:argh:

you don't know how irritating it is trying to fit the exact right proportion of minerals in a component assembly array to let you get a nice 100-run component job, you've got to move each mineral individually and it is a pain in the ass

please to be increasing the capacity of the component assembly array to get around that tia

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#103 - 2014-04-28 14:31:42 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Will it treat the pos as one big storage?


This requires a POS rework and so no this will not happen for the summer release, but we agree that would be preferable.

:argh:

you don't know how irritating it is trying to fit the exact right proportion of minerals in a component assembly array to let you get a nice 100-run component job, you've got to move each mineral individually and it is a pain in the ass

please to be increasing the capacity of the component assembly array to get around that tia

…or, even better, make POSes work as a cohesive unit with a single storage capacity comprised of all the modules activated at the POS. Same with all other capabilities you can attach to it.

Ok, so slots are going away, but let's use them as an example anyway: instead of getting a separate lab with 3 ME slots at 25k m³, we should simply get +3 slots and +25k to what's already there so that the POS, as a single installation, now has (say) 12 slots at a total storage space of 475k.
Sturmwolke
#104 - 2014-04-28 14:32:16 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
Sturmwolke wrote:
2) See http://zofu.no-ip.de/bpo
Well known to those involved in manufacturing and research. See those ME/PE projections? It should be default ingame.


Jercy's data is essential to most everyone who touches the spreadsheet side of EVE. I don't see that going away.

It's not meant to replace intensive spreadsheet references. Mostly, it's used for quick estimations than anything in detail.
Having a reasonable base for rough estimations ingmae is very useful for many players out there. You run your spreadsheets after, out of game.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#105 - 2014-04-28 14:33:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:

…or, even better, make POSes work as a cohesive unit with a single storage capacity comprised of all the modules activated at the POS. Same with all other capabilities you can attach to it..

that would be preferable but it's what they just said wasn't happening cause it requires reworking pos code :v:

a volume increase though hopefully is possible!

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#106 - 2014-04-28 14:34:56 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
With the comparison of different installation locations, how much lag can we expect? Currently, it is a major pain in the back to open the market window or Character info window (at least for me), because it causes the game to stutter and freeze until all the data (or whatever it does) is loaded. Can I expect this to be the case in the new Indu window as well?


This depends a little bit on your internet connection, swapping activity or blueprint will require a remote call in the background, however you no longer need to click a fetch quote button and we are optimizing this checking as much as possible to keep the interface snappy. A lot of the validation is now performed client side to help achieve this.


Of course it does, and you cannot expect wonders with a modem. But I don't have a modem and my connection is never fully utilized when I open the market or char windows. Neither the download bandwidth, nor the upload bandwidth; ping and package loss also don't show apparent issues.

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.

Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
#107 - 2014-04-28 14:35:37 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Theng Hofses wrote:
The ability to batch copy jobs and invention jobs would be a HUGE step forward and fundamentally fix the click fest problem that copy, invention and manufacturing is today. With what is see here you are putting a pretty band aid on the problem for small scale industrialists. I am not convinced based on what you have showed here is that you have fixed the issues when you do industry on an industrial scale. Think of it this way: How can I make the life easier of someone who builds several product lines of say thousands of identical T2 items (T2 Sentries for example) from scratch via invention a week? Does this really solve the issue?


We have been playing around with the idea of batch installing jobs, however the speed of submitting new jobs or resubmitting old ones may mean we just don't need the added complexity that batching creates. When this hits SiSi we'll be looking for feedback on exactly this.


Here's your feedback - most forms of industry have multiple runs. Ships, modules, ammo etc - all of them come together to igve me stuff that can take at least a sizeable number of hours, days or even weeks.

Invention doesn't have this.

Every job has it's length and that's that. While this is okay for people inventing the next marauder, invention jobs that last a single hour or so leave many wasted hours and have a god awful time requirement to get the most out of what you're doing - completely backward compared to the entire rest of the industry.

Unless you REALLY intend all industry to be semi-passive except for small scale invention jobs, it'd be nice to include batch manufacture and research.
Scarlett LaBlanc
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2014-04-28 14:36:44 UTC
As CCP Arrow asked for it, I'll add feedback even though I don't have anything earth shaking to add....

I do want to add voice to some things already asked for.

1. Some type of number separator for ease of reading.

2. The ability to see what stock will remain before starting the job. If you need 100 trit and you have it that is great. I would like to be able to see how much trit I will have left. Perhaps a tool tip where you could hover over to see remaining stock?

Overall I am very excited over the UI changes. This is the first update I have been looking forward to for the content of the update opposed to just the opportunities to exploit the market as the result of changes caused by an update.

This is also the first time I have ever desired to install the test server to see what is on the way.

Awesome job CCP. While eve should always be about spaceships, it's nice to see some attention shown to those who build them!
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#109 - 2014-04-28 14:37:30 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Tippia wrote:

…or, even better, make POSes work as a cohesive unit with a single storage capacity comprised of all the modules activated at the POS. Same with all other capabilities you can attach to it..

that would be preferable but it's what they just said wasn't happening cause it requires reworking pos code :v:

a volume increase though hopefully is possible!


1 upping volume increase. Mineral tetris is not fun.

On a related note: **** YOU JUMP BRIDGE ARRAY
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#110 - 2014-04-28 14:38:07 UTC
A quick question about the interface

Would there be an indicator of YOUR remaining production/science slots? i believe this will be very useful, but i'm missing it in the mock up.

Outside of that, pretty impressive, can't wait to put it in action. Can we get it before the actual expansion? It will save so many people so much pain.
H3llHound
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2014-04-28 14:38:58 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
re: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66065/1/SnI_TouchpointMatrix_Personas2.png

I don't know who on earth thought invention (queue up 10 one-hour jobs, repeat every hour on the hour) was "not repetitive" but they're crazy



You should have another look at that graphic. Invention has a full circle at 'task to repetitive'
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2014-04-28 14:39:02 UTC
So far i like the changes in the dev blog, but one of my personal main issues with the current mfg system remains.

CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Yes, you will be able to build using materials and blueprints inside containers in a POS or in a station. The materials and the blueprint however must be in the correct assembly array.


Why is it so hard to allow stuff to be taken from another array/hangar at a POS? I mean requiring BPs and mats to be inside the correct array still forces us to be physically present at the POS every time we need to move stuff between arrays, which imho is totally unnecessary... Just allow source location to be selected amongst all legal arrays/hangars at the POS in question, same to output destination, and make the UI remember those selections.

A simple example how i imagine the "perfect" POS manufacturing setup:

1 source hangar or LSAA
X labs
Y arrays, distributed across different types (drones/eq,comp)

Now the user can link labs/arrays to source and destination storage (or use the default of the array/lab itself) so that for large enterprises it is possible to centralize input and output into one single hangar/storage, instead of the current hassle. And to be honest, being forced to move insane amounts of mats between dozens of arrays (which each has a laughable small storage space) is the reason that lead me to move all manufacturing besides rigs and drones into a station, not the click-fest of installing jobs.

Storage pooling and flexible input/output locations are at least as important as the reduction in clicks required for a single job!

Oh, and definitely apply the previously mentioned pre-filtering of all optional materials based on the BP in question. Since racial decryptors are tied to racial BPCs, it is utter rubbish to even allow them to be selected for "foreign" target BPCs. And make the UI remember the selected decryptor for a given BPC (based on runs).
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#113 - 2014-04-28 14:39:11 UTC
Getting a fuzzy feeling inside.....need to test on sisi, so let us know as soon as it is live.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

Tetania
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2014-04-28 14:40:14 UTC
I was about to post asking about chaining CSAAs like silos and reactors together to allow assembly arrays to pull minerals from larger storage structures.

I'm now a sad panda.

I second the request to dramatically increase the size of assembly arrays to make the mineral juggling less time consuming. Restrict the allowed contents to only BPs and minerals if you are concerned about possible storage abuses.

Being able to put the minerals for around 1/3 of a titan in it would be great a whole titan would be ideal.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#115 - 2014-04-28 14:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Weaselior wrote:
that would be preferable but it's what they just said wasn't happening cause it requires reworking pos code :v:

a volume increase though hopefully is possible!

Sloppy reading. Oops
But yes, something needs to be done with the storage limitations in POSes. The only activity that doesn't suffer that much currently is invention and copying since they don't require massive volumes of consumables (and even then, it's just because the number of slots are so low compared to the storage space… the hassle of keeping each lab properly stocked is still there).

So just think of it as a +1 for the unified storage notion, and a reminder that other properties could and should be treated the same.


Kenneth Skybound wrote:
Here's your feedback - most forms of industry have multiple runs. Ships, modules, ammo etc - all of them come together to igve me stuff that can take at least a sizeable number of hours, days or even weeks.

Invention doesn't have this.

Every job has it's length and that's that. While this is okay for people inventing the next marauder, invention jobs that last a single hour or so leave many wasted hours and have a god awful time requirement to get the most out of what you're doing - completely backward compared to the entire rest of the industry.

Unless you REALLY intend all industry to be semi-passive except for small scale invention jobs, it'd be nice to include batch manufacture and research.

This is an example of why I feel it should be process/activity oriented rather than blueprint oriented. There really is no reason why we shouldn't be able to set up a type of job and then dump all the BPs we want processed into that activity. The game checks if all the required goods and skills and space and whathaveyou are present and gives a red ✗ or green ✓ depending on whether it can be done or not.

The batching process would then just be a matter of deciding if the jobs should be done in parallel or in series — a single check box — and then the proper abstraction layer sets it up as requested.

In the invention example, it would be: pick station X, select invention, then dump 10 BPCs into the queue, set to process in series, accept. Dump another 10 in, don't set as process as series (since the setting is remembered), accept. Repeat until the game says that I'll exceed my skill allowance for parallel jobs.
Theng Hofses
State War Academy
Caldari State
#116 - 2014-04-28 14:42:43 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Theng Hofses wrote:
The ability to batch copy jobs and invention jobs would be a HUGE step forward and fundamentally fix the click fest problem that copy, invention and manufacturing is today. With what is see here you are putting a pretty band aid on the problem for small scale industrialists. I am not convinced based on what you have showed here is that you have fixed the issues when you do industry on an industrial scale. Think of it this way: How can I make the life easier of someone who builds several product lines of say thousands of identical T2 items (T2 Sentries for example) from scratch via invention a week? Does this really solve the issue?


We have been playing around with the idea of batch installing jobs, however the speed of submitting new jobs or resubmitting old ones may mean we just don't need the added complexity that batching creates. When this hits SiSi we'll be looking for feedback on exactly this.


Great. Just to give you a better number for only one product line: Month to date slightly more than 17,000 T2 Sentries built which needed 3,518 copies to be invented, 176 copy runs @ 20 copies each...
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2014-04-28 14:45:01 UTC
I remember telling you guys to reduce the clickfest. Looks like you remembered :)

Can't wait to see this on sisi
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#118 - 2014-04-28 14:45:57 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Will it treat the pos as one big storage?


This requires a POS rework and so no this will not happen for the summer release, but we agree that would be preferable.


Then the remote skill is truly a waste now. Before it was used to use a BPO from station in a pos, now that that single thing is taken away it will be impossible to do this currently as you will physically have to be at the pos to deliver or our on build jobs as everything we pretty much do in a CAA requires the size to be much larger. Once you deliver jobs and overfill the array, you have to empty it before you can do everything else, so again, you have to be at the pos, so remote skill is freaking USELESS

CCP Greyscale -Yup, we have data on what happens currently, but we're expecting those use patterns to change substantially when this release. There's a degree of "suck it and see" happening here :)

Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#119 - 2014-04-28 14:48:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
that would be preferable but it's what they just said wasn't happening cause it requires reworking pos code :v:

a volume increase though hopefully is possible!

Sloppy reading. Oops
But yes, something needs to be done with the storage limitations in POSes. The only activity that doesn't suffer that much currently is invention and copying since they don't require massive volumes of consumables (and even then, it's just because the number of slots are so low compared to the storage space… the hassle of keeping each lab properly stocked is still there).

So just think of it as a +1 for the unified storage notion, and a reminder that other properties could and should be treated the same.


In case a completely unified storage system for POSes is out of the question, then at least the could allow us to link arrays/labs/storages much the same way it already works for reactions?

I have no idea how messed up the POS code really is, but can imagine linking of "consumer" modules at a POS might be doable without a complete code rework...
mkint
#120 - 2014-04-28 14:51:14 UTC
What's the deal with CCP's obsession with removing labels from icons, and forcing a hover over to actually get useful information? Build requirements as icons is stupid. No matter how familiar you are with the icons themselves, it will never ever ever be as fast as a glance at a written name. It is absolutely impossible to tell at a glance the material requirements without hovering over 11 different icons one at a time. That's called "worse." Even the name of what's being produced is tucked away at the bottom of the window after 4 different completely irrelevant images. Graphics heavy does not make something automatically better, and when a meaningless picture is substituted for useful text, it's automatically worse.

Can I get a text-only version of this new UI? The icons obfuscate useful information rather than provide any.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.