These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Crius Issues

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Maxpie
MUSE LLP
#641 - 2014-07-24 15:07:58 UTC
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
For users with many blueprints please refer to: this thread

In summary blueprints in a password protected container (with a password), will not be displayed in the Blueprint Browser. This should allow those of you who have blueprints you don't want in the browser to hide them (which will also improve the performance).



What about for those of us that now need to unlock, move and lock the blueprints? Any relief for us, or will I be getting carpal tunnel syndrome?

No good deed goes unpunished
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc
#642 - 2014-07-24 15:12:27 UTC
Any chance we could do this?

100 veld = 1 compressed veld
95 Concentrated veld = 1 compressed veld
90 Dense veld = 1 compressed veld

That would give us one big compressed veld market instead of three.
Clifton Oksaras
Doomheim
#643 - 2014-07-24 15:14:46 UTC
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
The thread has been updated, please refer to the patch notes for details on the fixes (http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-crius/) and let us known of persisting or new issues. We will be updating this thread as always throughout the day.


Would it be possible to instead of creating rounding errors on the blueprints to display their actual cost? For example, R.A.M. at max ME says 491 when in reality it's something like 490.34. What I'm asking is for you to display the 490.34, but we'll understand that you have to round up. It would make the resources required for large batches more predictable and much more intuitive. You can understand the players surprise when 500 runs of R.A.M. actually required an unpredictably less amount of materials than they were expecting.


Any word yet on the this display usability bug? I understand if it's low priority given the functionality bugs everyone else is experiencing, I'm simply looking for feedback from CCP to see if/when they will address this.
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp
#644 - 2014-07-24 15:16:15 UTC
Maxpie wrote:
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
For users with many blueprints please refer to: this thread

In summary blueprints in a password protected container (with a password), will not be displayed in the Blueprint Browser. This should allow those of you who have blueprints you don't want in the browser to hide them (which will also improve the performance).



What about for those of us that now need to unlock, move and lock the blueprints? Any relief for us, or will I be getting carpal tunnel syndrome?


To be clear this is not the only solution, this is an existing solution that got implemented and released today. We are investigating smarter ways to retrieve and present the data so performance is better and will continue to release those as we can.

Feel free to poke me on: Twitter
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#645 - 2014-07-24 15:16:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenneth Feld
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
The thread has been updated, please refer to the patch notes for details on the fixes (http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-crius/) and let us known of persisting or new issues. We will be updating this thread as always throughout the day.


Would it be possible to instead of creating rounding errors on the blueprints to display their actual cost? For example, R.A.M. at max ME says 491 when in reality it's something like 490.34. What I'm asking is for you to display the 490.34, but we'll understand that you have to round up. It would make the resources required for large batches more predictable and much more intuitive. You can understand the players surprise when 500 runs of R.A.M. actually required an unpredictably less amount of materials than they were expecting.


Any word yet on the this display usability bug? I understand if it's low priority given the functionality bugs everyone else is experiencing, I'm simply looking for feedback from CCP to see if/when they will address this.


or take it to a single digit, not whole numbers of multiple of 100 :)
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#646 - 2014-07-24 15:19:21 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
The thread has been updated, please refer to the patch notes for details on the fixes (http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-crius/) and let us known of persisting or new issues. We will be updating this thread as always throughout the day.


Would it be possible to instead of creating rounding errors on the blueprints to display their actual cost? For example, R.A.M. at max ME says 491 when in reality it's something like 490.34. What I'm asking is for you to display the 490.34, but we'll understand that you have to round up. It would make the resources required for large batches more predictable and much more intuitive. You can understand the players surprise when 500 runs of R.A.M. actually required an unpredictably less amount of materials than they were expecting.


Any word yet on the this display usability bug? I understand if it's low priority given the functionality bugs everyone else is experiencing, I'm simply looking for feedback from CCP to see if/when they will address this.


or take it to a single digit, not whole numbers of multiple of 100 :)




what he wants is the bp to show the real number and then have it rounded when he goes to build it. That way you don't need out of game sites and list of bp to see how much saving larger runs will get you.
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp
#647 - 2014-07-24 15:22:10 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
The thread has been updated, please refer to the patch notes for details on the fixes (http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-crius/) and let us known of persisting or new issues. We will be updating this thread as always throughout the day.


Would it be possible to instead of creating rounding errors on the blueprints to display their actual cost? For example, R.A.M. at max ME says 491 when in reality it's something like 490.34. What I'm asking is for you to display the 490.34, but we'll understand that you have to round up. It would make the resources required for large batches more predictable and much more intuitive. You can understand the players surprise when 500 runs of R.A.M. actually required an unpredictably less amount of materials than they were expecting.


Any word yet on the this display usability bug? I understand if it's low priority given the functionality bugs everyone else is experiencing, I'm simply looking for feedback from CCP to see if/when they will address this.


or take it to a single digit, not whole numbers of multiple of 100 :)




what he wants is the bp to show the real number and then have it rounded when he goes to build it. That way you don't need out of game sites and list of bp to see how much saving larger runs will get you.


I just had a chat with CCP Ytterbium about this, and have added it as a required change for Industry. We don't have an ETA but this is something we agree needs to be looked at and improved. There is some discussion to be had though and we don't want to rush anything out.

Consider it noted, but not part of our immediate Crius fixes.

Feel free to poke me on: Twitter
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#648 - 2014-07-24 15:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: asteroidjas
The teams that effect "damage" modules distinctly have no listing for "Drone Damage Amp", even though they have the four other low slot damage mods listed. Not a single one i can find includes the "drone damage" in lat list.

Is this on purpose, or left out because your QA is a bit lackluster lately?

*edit*
Seriously, there is a 5 second long sound for CLOSING the industry screen?
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#649 - 2014-07-24 16:00:46 UTC
CCP RubberBAND wrote:


I just had a chat with CCP Ytterbium about this, and have added it as a required change for Industry. We don't have an ETA but this is something we agree needs to be looked at and improved. There is some discussion to be had though and we don't want to rush anything out.

Consider it noted, but not part of our immediate Crius fixes.


You may later decide that was an unfortunate turn of phrase. Lol

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Clifton Oksaras
Doomheim
#650 - 2014-07-24 16:01:54 UTC
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
Clifton Oksaras wrote:


Would it be possible to instead of creating rounding errors on the blueprints to display their actual cost? For example, R.A.M. at max ME says 491 when in reality it's something like 490.34. What I'm asking is for you to display the 490.34, but we'll understand that you have to round up. It would make the resources required for large batches more predictable and much more intuitive. You can understand the players surprise when 500 runs of R.A.M. actually required an unpredictably less amount of materials than they were expecting.


Any word yet on the this display usability bug? I understand if it's low priority given the functionality bugs everyone else is experiencing, I'm simply looking for feedback from CCP to see if/when they will address this.


or take it to a single digit, not whole numbers of multiple of 100 :)




what he wants is the bp to show the real number and then have it rounded when he goes to build it. That way you don't need out of game sites and list of bp to see how much saving larger runs will get you.


I just had a chat with CCP Ytterbium about this, and have added it as a required change for Industry. We don't have an ETA but this is something we agree needs to be looked at and improved. There is some discussion to be had though and we don't want to rush anything out.

Consider it noted, but not part of our immediate Crius fixes.


You sir are my personal hero. I'd totally hug you, but given that you don't know me and live a 1000 miles away, we'll have to settle with this: Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smileSmileSmileSmileSmileLolLolLolLol
Xer Jin
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#651 - 2014-07-24 16:11:51 UTC
CCP Contra wrote:
Fixy FixIT wrote:
When installing a job at a POS, the cost of installing the job is being taken from the Corp Master Wallet........

Surely, this cost should come from the member who is installing the job. Even better if it was deducted from the member and given to the Corp Master Wallet as charge for using corp labs.

Currently its given to Secure Commerce Commission.

Is this intentional or is it a bug ?

Regards.


By Design


sorry can you explain why we are paying the SCC to use our own facilities???
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
#652 - 2014-07-24 16:14:43 UTC
I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but the Industry UI seems to show wrong numbers for ME/TE in active invention jobs.
To explain further:
I started invention jobs with use of process decryptors. If successfull, i'll get BPCs with ME -5% and TE -10%.
But viewing the still runnning invention jobs in the industry UI, it shows ME -2% and TE -4% in the outcome box.

Another thing:
Wouldn't it be less confusing, if the decryptor info page showed the actual saving in %?

For example, process decryptor again:

Material Efficiency Modifier: +3
Time Efficiency Modifier: +6

Why not display it like:

Material Efficiency Modifier: - 5%
Time Efficiency Modifier: - 10%



Damjan

Proposal: >>> New Inventory / Item Hangar <<<
Koenaika
B.L.O.O.D.M.O.S.E.S.
#653 - 2014-07-24 16:19:27 UTC
Xer Jin wrote:

sorry can you explain why we are paying the SCC to use our own facilities???


Because everyone pays to produce industry now. People who don't have their own facilities pay additional costs (fixed npc taxes, whatever tax rate a nullsec station owner decides to charge). But everybody pays.
CCP Contra wrote:
By Design
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#654 - 2014-07-24 16:25:01 UTC
Xer Jin wrote:
CCP Contra wrote:
Fixy FixIT wrote:
When installing a job at a POS, the cost of installing the job is being taken from the Corp Master Wallet........

Surely, this cost should come from the member who is installing the job. Even better if it was deducted from the member and given to the Corp Master Wallet as charge for using corp labs.

Currently its given to Secure Commerce Commission.

Is this intentional or is it a bug ?

Regards.


By Design


sorry can you explain why we are paying the SCC to use our own facilities???


Depending on who you listen to it's one (or more) of the following:
CCP is controlled by nullsec cartels and it trying to ruin the game for everyone else;
Grrr goons;
CCP hates you specifically and did it to spite you - as soon as you unsub they'll change it back; or
CCP felt that it was a reasonable change that would help spread people out and offer some diversity in the manufacturing landscape.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#655 - 2014-07-24 16:25:32 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
While i have been vocal and critical of this release - and RIGHTFULLY so, it does have a ton of fail in it


Invention is so much easier and nicer


Holy crap, i have invented more now then the past 3 years

6 guys, 11 slots each, going to town


That's why they are going to "improve" it in the next release
Clifton Oksaras
Doomheim
#656 - 2014-07-24 16:27:04 UTC
Koenaika wrote:
Xer Jin wrote:

sorry can you explain why we are paying the SCC to use our own facilities???


Because everyone pays to produce industry now. People who don't have their own facilities pay additional costs (fixed npc taxes, whatever tax rate a nullsec station owner decides to charge). But everybody pays.
CCP Contra wrote:
By Design


Not an objection, but it is rather strange that the cost of building at your own POS is affecting to how much construction is going on in the same system. Your labor force should be independent of everyone else's so it should only go up or down depending on your own workload. I'm guessing the labor force must be socialized to some extent.
Hadubrandt Koeppl
Hybrid Flare
#657 - 2014-07-24 16:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Hadubrandt Koeppl
CCP RubberBAND wrote:

...
There is some discussion to be had though and we don't want to rush anything out.

Consider it noted, but not part of our immediate Crius fixes.

Good one.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#658 - 2014-07-24 16:34:03 UTC
Still have BPC's locked out of invention with ghost team selection that I can't get rid of.
Irin Fidard
R-P Heavy Industries
#659 - 2014-07-24 16:37:06 UTC
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
Irin Fidard wrote:
Okey, so to show the devs how damn slow their new and fancy Industry UI is I made a screen capture to show what I have to endure everytime I open up the Industry, change any filter setting or god forbid - search for a blueprint.

please make it so that it only loads what I actually see in the UI. It seems that it loads the whole list of all BPC directly into the UI instead of virtualizing it and only show what is actually visible at any given time.

http://imgur.com/hKZEnTe


Out of curiosity how many blueprints do you have? We are aware of performance hit, but this should only affect users with tens of thousands of blueprints.



I have about 2000 BPO and somewhere arround 25000 Copies...Yes I aware that its because the huge amount of data the client needs to load. but I think it would help allready when it would load "Jobs" instead of "Blueprint" everytime the UI opens.
Koenaika
B.L.O.O.D.M.O.S.E.S.
#660 - 2014-07-24 16:48:45 UTC
Clifton Oksaras wrote:

Not an objection, but it is rather strange that the cost of building at your own POS is affecting to how much construction is going on in the same system. Your labor force should be independent of everyone else's so it should only go up or down depending on your own workload. I'm guessing the labor force must be socialized to some extent.


Obviously you have to hire the crew for your starbase assembly line from the local area, so if demand is high they have to be paid more to live on a dirty space station.



But here's a proposal for a new industrial POS module for you: Industrial Enslavement Module
(BPOs available in Amarr space obviously)
  • Can only be anchored > .5 security space
  • When installed in a player station, this module cuts the install cost of manufacturing jobs by 33%.
  • No effect on research, copying, or invention (skilled workers don't work well when enslaved)
  • Because this module violates interstellar laws, Concord will not respond to attacks on this station. All players can engage and only receive suspect status.


How does that sound?