These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#441 - 2014-07-28 13:48:13 UTC
Belle Wayrest wrote:
What about those characters who were training Drone avionics V, when they reduced the skill to lvl III?
Since to train lvl V, the rquirement is lvl IV my skill train got stopped and lost 3 days worth of training.
Doesnt sound much, but when you use dual training, it is quite a kick, especially if you are less than 3 months old.


Petition it. They should refund the skillpoints.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!
Tara Vorkosigan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#442 - 2014-07-28 15:03:51 UTC
Sent in a support ticket on the 24th, as told to by a GM on these forums, about my Drone Avionics skill being bumped from V to I, making me unable to fly my missioning ships. All I got was a link to this thread and a form letter. Still waiting on a fix.
Georgiy Giggle
Senclave
Apocalypse Now.
#443 - 2014-07-28 15:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Georgiy Giggle
Hello guys. Loving changes.

But today I got a problem:
My corp mates decided to use laboratory.
POS laboratory use = corporation jobs = have to give rights and access.
Well, ok, I can deal with it.
Corporation jobs = using corporation wallet.
Well, it sucks, but ok.

I wanted to give access to all industrial member to access one division of corporation wallet.
For example: wallet division #7 has zero isk on balance. If some one wants to use it, first he has to send some money to exact wallet division, then he can start a job.

BUT, we can not choose which wallet division to use!!! WHY? I do not want to give access to master wallet! Give us possibility to choose which wallet division to use! Please!

Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#444 - 2014-07-28 15:34:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Niko Lorenzio
Georgiy Giggle wrote:
Hello guys. Loving changes.

But today I got a problem:
My corp mates decided to use laboratory.
POS laboratory use = corporation jobs = have to give rights and access.
Well, ok, I can deal with it.
Corporation jobs = using corporation wallet.
Well, it sucks, but ok.

I wanted to give access to all industrial member to access one division of corporation wallet.
For example: wallet division #7 has zero isk on balance. If some one wants to use it, first he has to send some money to exact wallet division, then he can start a job.

BUT, we can not choose which wallet division to use!!! WHY? I do not want to give access to master wallet! Give us possibility to choose which wallet division to use! Please!


They can choose. Once you give them take rights to that wallet, they need to open their wallet, go to corp wallet tab and select that division.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#445 - 2014-07-28 15:38:58 UTC
Krystyn wrote:
Before the patch all of my freighter BPOs were optimal and competitive compared to everyone else. Also the time and cost to improve BPOs was still significant roughly a month per single level of research and the isk cost was relatively low. The main cost was time you spent not using your BPO. Now the costs are astronomically high in both isk and time to improve your BPO to the optimum level.


IMO, that's perfectly in-line with EVE's design philosophy.

You get the bulk of the advantage in a short amount of time, and optimization to "perfect" requires specialization/focus.

The high end industrialist (excepting those who already have ME10/TE20 BPOs) has to decide "do I spend my time researching this archon to ME10? Or is my money better spent on something else?"

A player having to decide that is what makes up industrial gameplay in EVE.
Qinby
ImNo6
#446 - 2014-07-28 16:11:21 UTC
What happend with invention using decryptors?

This worked after deploying crius but stopped working aprox 27/7.

When installing invention job with decryptor (in this case Incognito Accelerant Run +1 ME +2 TE +10) the Industry UI gives the wrong info on produced BPC.

In all cases im talking about inventing an Ishtar (Heavy Assault Cruiser).

Invention without decryptor is said to produce a BPC with ME-2 and TE -4 (According to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-industry-all-you-want-to-know/).

This is slightly confusing as well since in my World ME-2 and TE -4 should mean u need -2*1% (2% MORE MATERIAL) and -4*2%(8% MORE TIME).

IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS TO MEAN ME 2 AND TE 2 wich produces a BPC that uses 2% less material and 4% less time AND THAT IS THE RESULT YOU GET WHEN YOU INVENT WITHOUT DECRYPTOR.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A SLIGHT CONFUSION BETWEEN THE ME/TE VALUE AND WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE % OF EFFECT IT GIVES.
THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE A CONFUSION ABOUT WHEN THE VALUE SHOULD BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THERE IS NEVER A NEGATIVE ME/TE VALUE on a BPO/BPC (a positive ME/TE is Always a reduction so using a "-" sign is only confusing)

My conclusion of the "terminology" is that when talking about Blueprint research it is ME and TE meaning the max value is ME 10 (10%) reduction in material and TE 10 (20%) reduction in time.

When you talk about decryptors IT IS NOT ME AND TE IT IS % (otherwise why give a decryptor TE +10 since you get 4 without decryptor add 10 and you get TE 14 and no Blueprint can have more than 10)



The right info using a decryptor (Icognito Accelerant) should on succesful invention be, Runs 2 ME 4 (4% reduction) and TE 7 (14% reduction).

This is the result I got until yesterday (27/7).

Then this happened....
When installingt tje job i got the right info "Outcome" ME 4% TE 14% and 2 runs BUT when i look at "job in progress" and check the outcome it shows ME 2% (ME 1) and TE 4% (TE 2) and 1 run.

In other Words it seems to disregard the decryptor.
What it will deliver I dont know yet....

A small suggestion:

Scrap the ME/TE value and change them to % meaning making the Max values for a BPO/BPC ME10% and TE 20% (why the conversion to %?) "should be simple".

Stop Writing +/- when it regards ME/TE (cant realy see the Point) and declare all values regarding ME/TE are positive and they are "amount of reduction".

Looking forvard to feedback.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#447 - 2014-07-28 16:24:07 UTC
Qinby wrote:
What happend with invention using decryptors?

This worked after deploying crius but stopped working aprox 27/7.

When installing invention job with decryptor (in this case Incognito Accelerant Run +1 ME +2 TE +10) the Industry UI gives the wrong info on produced BPC.

In all cases im talking about inventing an Ishtar (Heavy Assault Cruiser).

Invention without decryptor is said to produce a BPC with ME-2 and TE -4 (According to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-industry-all-you-want-to-know/).

This is slightly confusing as well since in my World ME-2 and TE -4 should mean u need -2*1% (2% MORE MATERIAL) and -4*2%(8% MORE TIME).

IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS TO MEAN ME 2 AND TE 2 wich produces a BPC that uses 2% less material and 4% less time AND THAT IS THE RESULT YOU GET WHEN YOU INVENT WITHOUT DECRYPTOR.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A SLIGHT CONFUSION BETWEEN THE ME/TE VALUE AND WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE % OF EFFECT IT GIVES.
THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE A CONFUSION ABOUT WHEN THE VALUE SHOULD BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THERE IS NEVER A NEGATIVE ME/TE VALUE on a BPO/BPC (a positive ME/TE is Always a reduction so using a "-" sign is only confusing)

My conclusion of the "terminology" is that when talking about Blueprint research it is ME and TE meaning the max value is ME 10 (10%) reduction in material and TE 10 (20%) reduction in time.

When you talk about decryptors IT IS NOT ME AND TE IT IS % (otherwise why give a decryptor TE +10 since you get 4 without decryptor add 10 and you get TE 14 and no Blueprint can have more than 10)



The right info using a decryptor (Icognito Accelerant) should on succesful invention be, Runs 2 ME 4 (4% reduction) and TE 7 (14% reduction).

This is the result I got until yesterday (27/7).

Then this happened....
When installingt tje job i got the right info "Outcome" ME 4% TE 14% and 2 runs BUT when i look at "job in progress" and check the outcome it shows ME 2% (ME 1) and TE 4% (TE 2) and 1 run.

In other Words it seems to disregard the decryptor.
What it will deliver I dont know yet....

A small suggestion:

Scrap the ME/TE value and change them to % meaning making the Max values for a BPO/BPC ME10% and TE 20% (why the conversion to %?) "should be simple".

Stop Writing +/- when it regards ME/TE (cant realy see the Point) and declare all values regarding ME/TE are positive and they are "amount of reduction".

Looking forvard to feedback.


It seems to be working, when you invent now, it only uses 1 run from the bpc. Regardless of whether it is successful or not you'll get the blueprint back with 1 run remaining.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Torg Rann
Tor Industrials
#448 - 2014-07-28 17:32:37 UTC
After mining a large quantity of Pyroxeres and Jaspet I came to the conclusion that a better size for the unified block size would be 1000 vs 100. With the small number of units of Noxcium in Pyroxeres and Zydrine in Jaspet there is not much difference in the output based on the reprocessing percentages.

This would also make the volume of Mercoxit or Arkanor needed for reprocessing/compression HUGE.
Nolan Kotulan
Nova Tabula Rasa
#449 - 2014-07-28 18:46:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolan Kotulan
Krystyn wrote:
Nolan Kotulan wrote:
Capt GoodDeal wrote:

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

That is not the point.
The point is, what is logical?

If something is badly designed and illogical, are you really saying we have to keep it as it is just to keep YOU "happy"?

Oh, wait...

Adapt or not, it's up to you!

Therein lies the problem there is not adaption. One day you have the same costs to build an expensive thing and the next day you are hopelessly behind. What is the answer to that question?
You lose in the market as in your costs now are more than the market rate for the item. So to keep building you would lose money.
So the logical answer is to get out of that business.
Follow that to the next step. Lots of people invested in Large ship building got screwed over massively and will likely 'quit the market'

Also the previous system was very logical. It was just really complicated. That was pretty much why I liked it. People didn't understand it very well so I could exploit that and make isk from them.
Now we are dumbing down EVE to the WOW player level.

Here is your simple answer:
Dally Lama wrote:
Are people really arguing that ME 10 should not be better than ME 8?

Of course it should be. If ME 8 BPOs were offering the same result as ME 10 BPOs in the past, that is insanely stupid and it's a good thing they changed it.

Seems you guys are complaining that it will take time and $$$ investment to get the BPO to 10. That makes sense... why should it be received for free? Other players made the effort to get it to 10, you should too.

You say there is no possible adaptation. That's not true. Adapatation, here, is research, and it logically takes time, cost money and requires efforts. If you had your BPOs at ME8, then, you've got to deal with that by researching them to ME10. Once again, that is logical and that is what is called adaptation / research.

You just don't want to adapt, that's all and what all your complaints indicate. There is absolutely no good reason for ME10 to be given freely to you and your complaining comrades. Point.

As you said yourself, you've exploited (!) an illogical system long enough...

And what to think about, comparing EVE with WoW...
Come on...

Per aspera ad astra
Mara Kell
Herrscher der Zeit
Pandemic Horde
#450 - 2014-07-28 19:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Kell
Nolan Kotulan wrote:

You say there is no possible adaptation. That's not true. Adapatation, here, is research, and it logically takes time, cost money and requires efforts. If you had your BPOs at ME8, then, you've got to deal with that by researching them to ME10. Once again, that is logical and that is what is called adaptation / research.

You just don't want to adapt, that's all and what all your complaints indicate. There is absolutely no good reason for ME10 to be given freely to you and your complaining comrades. Point.

As you said yourself, you've exploited (!) an illogical system long enough...

And what to think about, comparing EVE with WoW...
Come on...


I have to object you when it comes to which system is more logical.

The old system was perfectly logical because it immitated the principle of diminishing marginal returns which is the base of real life industrial production.
The new system reduces waste linear for a certain percentage and after -10% there is some magical barrier. Are you seriously going to tell me that the new system is more logical? Oo

Just because the new system is easier to understand, its not automatically more logical. Sometimes the reality is complicated and i like eve because it is not (well unfortunatly more and more becomes) easy.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#451 - 2014-07-28 20:05:18 UTC
Industry Job UI - could we get some persistence/memory/whatevertheheckyoucallit for the Blueprints/Facilities/Jobs/Teams tabs? Much more of my time is spent in Jobs than in Blueprints - so having to reselect it every time is one more wasted click.
Meytal
Doomheim
#452 - 2014-07-28 20:44:39 UTC
Capt GoodDeal wrote:
Joseph Soprano wrote:
Nolan Kotulan wrote:
Joseph Soprano wrote:

So you don't actually see a problem in it taking over a year to research one level of ML?

Nope.


And from that answer you shall be judged. :)


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

What some people fail to understand is that one level of ME has a different meaning now than it had pre-Crius.

ME now reduces materials cost by 1% per level. "Perfect" occurs at level 10. Time per level is variable, reward is constant.

ME formerly reduced materials cost by a diminishing value for each successive level. "Perfect" depended on the BPO itself and the quantity of the highest count of non-extra materials. Time per level was constant, reward per level was variable.


Going from ME-9% to ME-10%, for a full 1% decrease in materials cost is about the same as going from old-ME 4.5 to old-ME 3200, in the case of EMP XL ammo.

So yes, it's not unexpected that one single ME level takes that long to complete, considering what it means now compared to what it used to mean.
Nolan Kotulan
Nova Tabula Rasa
#453 - 2014-07-28 21:10:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolan Kotulan
Mara Kell wrote:
Nolan Kotulan wrote:

You say there is no possible adaptation. That's not true. Adapatation, here, is research, and it logically takes time, cost money and requires efforts. If you had your BPOs at ME8, then, you've got to deal with that by researching them to ME10. Once again, that is logical and that is what is called adaptation / research.

You just don't want to adapt, that's all and what all your complaints indicate. There is absolutely no good reason for ME10 to be given freely to you and your complaining comrades. Point.

As you said yourself, you've exploited (!) an illogical system long enough...

And what to think about, comparing EVE with WoW...
Come on...


I have to object you when it comes to which system is more logical.

The old system was perfectly logical because it immitated the principle of diminishing marginal returns which is the base of real life industrial production.
The new system reduces waste linear for a certain percentage and after -10% there is some magical barrier. Are you seriously going to tell me that the new system is more logical? Oo

Just because the new system is easier to understand, its not automatically more logical. Sometimes the reality is complicated and i like eve because it is not (well unfortunatly more and more becomes) easy.

I didn't say it is more logical because it is more easy to understand. Don't make me say what I didn't. I say it is more logical because it is, globally, mathematically more logical, yes, and because there is finally a difference between (and so a (really good, cf. "the magical barrier") reason to reach) the final levels, yes.

Knowing that, how could be the old system more logical? Asking again and again...

You can discuss about little details and balancing, I don't object that, but through a global view, you can't seriously say that the new system is not better than the old one.

Per aspera ad astra
Qinby
ImNo6
#454 - 2014-07-28 21:16:26 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Qinby wrote:
What happend with invention using decryptors?

This worked after deploying crius but stopped working aprox 27/7.

When installing invention job with decryptor (in this case Incognito Accelerant Run +1 ME +2 TE +10) the Industry UI gives the wrong info on produced BPC.

In all cases im talking about inventing an Ishtar (Heavy Assault Cruiser).

Invention without decryptor is said to produce a BPC with ME-2 and TE -4 (According to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-industry-all-you-want-to-know/).

This is slightly confusing as well since in my World ME-2 and TE -4 should mean u need -2*1% (2% MORE MATERIAL) and -4*2%(8% MORE TIME).

IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS TO MEAN ME 2 AND TE 2 wich produces a BPC that uses 2% less material and 4% less time AND THAT IS THE RESULT YOU GET WHEN YOU INVENT WITHOUT DECRYPTOR.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A SLIGHT CONFUSION BETWEEN THE ME/TE VALUE AND WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE % OF EFFECT IT GIVES.
THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE A CONFUSION ABOUT WHEN THE VALUE SHOULD BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THERE IS NEVER A NEGATIVE ME/TE VALUE on a BPO/BPC (a positive ME/TE is Always a reduction so using a "-" sign is only confusing)

My conclusion of the "terminology" is that when talking about Blueprint research it is ME and TE meaning the max value is ME 10 (10%) reduction in material and TE 10 (20%) reduction in time.

When you talk about decryptors IT IS NOT ME AND TE IT IS % (otherwise why give a decryptor TE +10 since you get 4 without decryptor add 10 and you get TE 14 and no Blueprint can have more than 10)



The right info using a decryptor (Icognito Accelerant) should on succesful invention be, Runs 2 ME 4 (4% reduction) and TE 7 (14% reduction).

This is the result I got until yesterday (27/7).

Then this happened....
When installingt tje job i got the right info "Outcome" ME 4% TE 14% and 2 runs BUT when i look at "job in progress" and check the outcome it shows ME 2% (ME 1) and TE 4% (TE 2) and 1 run.

In other Words it seems to disregard the decryptor.
What it will deliver I dont know yet....

A small suggestion:

Scrap the ME/TE value and change them to % meaning making the Max values for a BPO/BPC ME10% and TE 20% (why the conversion to %?) "should be simple".

Stop Writing +/- when it regards ME/TE (cant realy see the Point) and declare all values regarding ME/TE are positive and they are "amount of reduction".

Looking forvard to feedback.


It seems to be working, when you invent now, it only uses 1 run from the bpc. Regardless of whether it is successful or not you'll get the blueprint back with 1 run remaining.



You seem to have missed the Point....

This have nothing to do with bpc runs.
Now have had my jobs finnished it does deliver the right BPC

THE POINT IS:

1. After installing a invention job you get the wrong info viewing it, THIS CAN'T BE AN ACCEPTABLE THING.
Propably thru away 20-50 jobs thinking i missed incorporating the incryptor.


IT STILL SHOWS THE WRONG INFO. AFTER IT'S INSTALLED, But now we know that we dont have to care about the number in the new UI (I Think its awsome...)

Would be nice if it werent just pretty Pictures...

Would be nice to get an CCP Dev "We know, will fix it"

Didnt bother with a petition "Im 23 an will propably be dead Before i get a response that way..."
No critique just realism "like EVE"

Rgds

1.
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#455 - 2014-07-28 21:24:42 UTC
Bug report it.

I mean unless you think flouncing on the forums will be more effective, I don't know?
Qinby
ImNo6
#456 - 2014-07-28 21:33:58 UTC
Pheusia wrote:
Bug report it.

I mean unless you think flouncing on the forums will be more effective, I don't know?



Dont realy care now that I know that the result is right its only the UI the displays wrong info.

"I have complained"

Now it's CCP
Mara Kell
Herrscher der Zeit
Pandemic Horde
#457 - 2014-07-28 21:40:17 UTC
Nolan Kotulan wrote:

I didn't say it is more logical because it is more easy to understand. Don't make me say what I didn't. I say it is more logical because it is, globally, mathematically more logical, yes, and because there is finally a difference between (and so a (really good, cf. "the magical barrier") reason to reach) the final levels, yes.

Knowing that, how could be the old system more logical? Asking again and again...

You can discuss about little details and balancing, I don't object that, but through a global view, you can't seriously say that the new system is not better than the old one.


The new ME system is more unrealistic and causes heavy problems with the rounding of needed part numbers (look at all small capitals)
Why is it unrealistic? Well imagine in real life you are building something. Now you are trying to reduce your resource consumption (aka improve ME). The first units of time and money you invest yield the highest return in terms of reducing the needed input. While investing more time and money the input saving will reduce and at some point come to a point where you wont get any improvement for you invested time and money.
Sounds familiar? Thats exactly how it worked in Eve before Cius and thats what Science calls diminishing marginal returns.

Now after crius the returns are constant for every ME level percentage wise(in fact they are increasing because of bad rounding). The diminishing returns have been replaced by massively increasing need of time and ISK and we have a magic limit where production suddenly is perfect. Where is the improvement?

So whats left that makes post Crius ME better?
Its more simple, and thats the only argument i would agree on. However as i mentioned earlier. Eve is allready simplified to much in my opinion.
Nolan Kotulan
Nova Tabula Rasa
#458 - 2014-07-28 21:53:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolan Kotulan
Mara Kell wrote:
The new ME system is more unrealistic and causes heavy problems with the rounding of needed part numbers (look at all small capitals)
Why is it unrealistic? Well imagine in real life you are building something. Now you are trying to reduce your resource consumption (aka improve ME). The first units of time and money you invest yield the highest return in terms of reducing the needed input. While investing more time and money the input saving will reduce and at some point come to a point where you wont get any improvement for you invested time and money.
Sounds familiar? Thats exactly how it worked in Eve before Cius and thats what Science calls diminishing marginal returns.

Now after crius the returns are constant for every ME level percentage wise(in fact they are increasing because of bad rounding). The diminishing returns have been replaced by massively increasing need of time and ISK and we have a magic limit where production suddenly is perfect. Where is the improvement?

So whats left that makes post Crius ME better?
Its more simple, and thats the only argument i would agree on. However as i mentioned earlier. Eve is allready simplified to much in my opinion.

I get your point of view but, personally, and to be honest, I don't care how it works in reality.

I play a sci-fi video-game (!), trying to have some fun (!) while forgetting a little bit real life mechanics and, first of all, want to have some good reasons to reach the last levels of whatever skill or task we could talk about, no matter the game.

Per aspera ad astra
BogWopit
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#459 - 2014-07-28 21:54:46 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
* The client noticeably freezes when loading the various industry tabs on a 3.6Ghz 3630, GTX 580 4GB OC with 32GB of 1600 Mhz RAM. I have many thousand of BPCs for when I was doing invention, it seems loading them all makes the client cry.

* Agree with a need to remove the giant tool at the top when I just want to view my jobs.

* The dark grey on even darker grey for the in-use blueprints is neigh unreadable. There needs to be another way to show that a blueprint is unavailable beyond giving me eye strain.

* When selecting to stop a job, the button changes to 'Confirm' but there is no cancel button. You can change the button back by clicking on another blueprint, but there needs to be an equally prominent cancel button.



QFT

Large amounts of copies in various cans mixed in with originals in other cans are causing a severe decrease in client performance. Even when you have filtered down to the prints you need the act of selecting / dragging and dropping becomes very slow. I'm talking up to 10 seconds to register that a bp has been selected and display the options for the print.

I like the changes in terms of look, not feeling the functionality from a copy perspective. And I really don't like the idea of having to pay to copy blueprints in my own pos. I've yet to study the costs, where the ISK is going and how the scaling will affect me so correct me if I'm wrong but it's a bit of a kick in the balls.
Qinby
ImNo6
#460 - 2014-07-28 23:10:28 UTC
BogWopit wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
* The client noticeably freezes when loading the various industry tabs on a 3.6Ghz 3630, GTX 580 4GB OC with 32GB of 1600 Mhz RAM. I have many thousand of BPCs for when I was doing invention, it seems loading them all makes the client cry.

* Agree with a need to remove the giant tool at the top when I just want to view my jobs.

* The dark grey on even darker grey for the in-use blueprints is neigh unreadable. There needs to be another way to show that a blueprint is unavailable beyond giving me eye strain.

* When selecting to stop a job, the button changes to 'Confirm' but there is no cancel button. You can change the button back by clicking on another blueprint, but there needs to be an equally prominent cancel button.



QFT

Large amounts of copies in various cans mixed in with originals in other cans are causing a severe decrease in client performance. Even when you have filtered down to the prints you need the act of selecting / dragging and dropping becomes very slow. I'm talking up to 10 seconds to register that a bp has been selected and display the options for the print.

I like the changes in terms of look, not feeling the functionality from a copy perspective. And I really don't like the idea of having to pay to copy blueprints in my own pos. I've yet to study the costs, where the ISK is going and how the scaling will affect me so correct me if I'm wrong but it's a bit of a kick in the balls.



Would say that if I understand this new thing (Crius)... It will solve itself...

Having thousands of BPO's (vey few have), having thousands of BPC, common among people who invent BUT
Nowadays instead of making large ammounts of 1 run BPC you make 20,50,300 run BPC (for hulls) depending on size/Time since every invention only decrease the BPC with one copy.

In other Words NO USE FOR THOUSANDS OF BPC and like all folders (even on local pc) have a hierarchy and not to much in every folder, saves loading time and confusion.

rgds