These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bring Stabity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#161 - 2011-12-09 21:16:32 UTC
Really this is a bad thread for you guys, because you've basically shown again that you're trying to completely change another facet of the game that you have no actual understanding of. Go fuel 500 towers for a couple months and come back to us.
Crias Taylor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2011-12-09 21:17:54 UTC
Most of these suggestions are completely beyond a SQL script. This is why they a resisting as they would have to write a whole new piece of program and test it.

Now, I you agree to let them just divide all the fuel types in a tower by a static value based on tower size, take lowest time, vaporize, and add blocks on the time not taking anything like sov into account you could do it with a stored proc and SQL script.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=494090#post494090
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics
#163 - 2011-12-09 21:21:38 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Actually, no, and that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I would assume for now that it's too late to get this in under the wire, but I'll ask about it at least. Please understand that this is 95% likely to be too late at this point though.


Update on this: I'd rate this at about a 50-50 chance of happening at this time, depending mainly on whether we run into any kinks. I pulled a bunch of people out of the christmas party and managed to get preliminary approval. Checking right now what happens if you over-fill a tower bay...


To be fair, you could just increase the sizes of the bays permanently; I'm not imagining anyone complaining or any horrific game imbalance being caused by it. Maybe that's just me.
Quote:


Ampoliros wrote:
Are they reprocessable at POS refineries with 0% waste, like ice blocks? Is that a quick fix you could manage to put in?

and just to say, i'm more comfortable with the delay till january than i am with the risk in everything going offline, i'm simply irritated that you guys couldn't have communicated better with us about the status of this.


Probably not viable, sorry. Starbase refining is arcane to say the least (remember the "you can only have one type of ore in there at a time" rule?).


fair enough, i suppose. Is there any bone you can throw to us w-space residents? I mean, if we can't break the blocks in w-space, we might as well go buy more fuel as the hauling blocks out, refining, and hauling fuel back in is going to be even more effort than just buying replacement fuel...

oh well. I appreciate the responses at least, greyscale.
Skeith Oumis
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#164 - 2011-12-09 21:22:04 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
On the first, if the starbase code was that robust, reliable and extensible they wouldn't break so often.

On the second, "I don't see how it could go wrong" is how all the really big disasters happen.


As someone who works with code that isn't remotely robust, reliable, or extensible on a daily basis, I feel your pain. However adding a simple hook where I mentioned is pretty safe in any programming structure, no matter how poorly it's written.

As for your comment on "how can this go wrong", this is why i mentioned testing, logging, and error handling. I realize things can go wrong, but testing is a pretty cool way to weed out those cases. You can even do cool things like test runs where you iterate though everything and do all the processing but don't run the final DB changes, allowing you to do neat things like sanity checks on live data without breaking anything. And running it on a DB copy (especially a second run with randomly filled bays) lets you work out weird edge cases that might crop up.

If manpower is such a problem set me up with the DB structure and some sample data (You can just pull out all the goon towers if you're paranoid, or random fill ****) and I'll gladly write this for you. You don't even have to pay me!
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#165 - 2011-12-09 21:23:17 UTC
Harris wrote:
The expanded POS fuel hangars lets people put their blocks somewhere but still doesn't give them a way out of hauling the other POS fuel products to their locations, the operations for which they'd have scaled back. What?


I'd be inclined to be philosophical and look at it this way (assuming we get the double bays in, see above for approximate probabilities): it just means that you're doing next month's logistics this month as well as this month's. Sucks more now, sucks less later.
ogletorp
Decisive Persuits
#166 - 2011-12-09 21:25:24 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Starbase structures begin consuming fuel blocks exclusively on January 24th. 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. Please keep in mind that on the day of the switch, POSs will ONLY consume fuel blocks and all the old items will no longer keep the starbase going.

On a slightly related note, here is a quick piece of wildlife advice that could save you or a loved one: If bitten by a snake, avoid attempting to suck out the poison from the wound, like seen in movies. You’ll remove insignificant quantities of poison, while transferring bacteria to the wound and subjecting yourself to the risk of getting poisoned. Instead, call for help and arrange transport to the nearest hospital emergency room. Like with bears, the safest bet is staying away from poisonous snakes in the first place.

We might be able to sneak a few more changes in, but for now, this is the timeframe for fuel blocks. Enjoy.


Nice knowing since I've spent the last week getting ready for the switchover now have to go back and pull blocks/pellets back out and haul them back, oh yeah and go buy more fuel and haul it to the POS' since i used all excess was used to build blocks.
Well since the launch for this has changed you obviously have time to write a script to convert existing fuel in towers to blocks on the launch date rather than using this moronic half and half plan.
Crias Taylor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2011-12-09 21:28:09 UTC
Towers usually need to fueled every 25 days. We have more than that time now.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#168 - 2011-12-09 21:31:07 UTC
@CCP Greyscale - here's another suggestion for a temporary code fix:

Can you change the current fuel consumption rate from N units per hour to N units per every 6-8 hours?

This would effectively stretch the existing fuel supplies in all of the towers, to last until the revised changeover date.
i hatechosingnames
Insert Corporation Name Here
#169 - 2011-12-09 21:32:01 UTC
A little solution that gets CCP to do some of the work to fix this..

Haul all your fuel cubes to the nearest station
Contract them to a CCP dev as an item exchange with you receiving back the raw materials and the cost of creating the contract.
wait for CCP to accept and turn around those contracts...
dump your fuel back in your towers.

or CCP make a script

:CCP:
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
#170 - 2011-12-09 21:33:39 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Two step wrote:
I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th.


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.
No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'.
Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'.

Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary.

Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......

Zagdul
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#171 - 2011-12-09 21:37:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
@CCP Greyscale

I have your solution:

ArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrow


Remove taxes on customs offices until Christmas to help offset the cost of increased fuel prices due to this change and your announcement.

"Concord has had an accounting error, collect $200"

ArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrowArrow
This would assist flooding the market with the fuels, allow for us to adjust to logistics and give POCO's a chance to get stabilized so the market can level out a bit.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#172 - 2011-12-09 21:43:48 UTC
Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Two step wrote:
I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th.


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.
No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'.
Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'.

Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary.


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.
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#173 - 2011-12-09 21:44:50 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
@CCP Greyscale - here's another suggestion for a temporary code fix:

Can you change the current fuel consumption rate from N units per hour to N units per every 6-8 hours?

This would effectively stretch the existing fuel supplies in all of the towers, to last until the revised changeover date.


Fuel use is tied to other starbase functions like moon mining. Reducing the rate of one affects the other.
Aineko Macx
#174 - 2011-12-09 21:47:54 UTC
Zagdul wrote:
Remove taxes on customs offices until Christmas to help offset the cost of increased fuel prices due to this change and your announcement.

That is a really ****** idea Roll
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#175 - 2011-12-09 21:49:17 UTC
increasing the fuel bays by 100% and leaving them at that after the switch over would be a very nice way of saying 'hey we know this screwed you all a bit, but we are nice guys honest fuel all your pos's less often from now on'

like an above poster, i wouldnt expect to see anyone bitching about game balance issue, id bet most would be very happy with that

OMG when can i get a pic here

Zagdul
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#176 - 2011-12-09 21:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Two step wrote:
I actually disagree with this. Assuming your testing fails, the worst case scenario is exactly what you guys are now proposing, delaying the rollout until later. You *could* have annouced the fuel switch would *probably* happen next week, and if it didn't, it would happen Jan 24th.


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.
No, the Blog did not say 'a couple of weeks later'. It said, and I quote: 'Fuel switchover will happen with a scheduled patch approximately two weeks after Crucible, details of which will be announced closer to the time.'.
Altough that indeed does not state a definite date, 'approximately' is not nearly the same as 'probably'.

Having said that, we anticipated multiple scenarios. So we have now at our W-space POS a couple of weeks worth of fuel blocks (made with ME 40 PE20 BPO) AND a three month buffer of regular fuel. I am glad we planned for the worst. But it should not have been neccesary.


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.


Thanks for the apology duder.

Don't want to think we're all here to hate on you, many people here are genuinely frustrated and I'm glad you're being involved in the discussions. There's some good suggestions in this thread and I hope that the frustrations of people are understood completely. 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.

The prices of fuel are going to skyrocket so even if we melt down the fuel to revert our stuff back, the market with how it's been with the POCO's and people now running to Jita to jack prices in anticipation for the spike that's about to happen is about to make a lot of corporations go broke.


Please find a way to compensate this and potentially find ways for more fuel to be injected into the game.

Removing taxes from empire CO's.
A special ice crystal that burns out and allows for increased yield.
Faster respawns of hotspots on planets.


Something... right now there's a shortage and with the changes so drastic, people's wallets are suffering because of it.

EDIT: The above suggestions would be temporary to provide for a brief injection during the shortage. The market needs a chance to rebuild and breathe.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Dick Jones
Omega Celestial Procurement
Omega Consortium Projects
#177 - 2011-12-09 21:55:07 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
MadMuppet wrote:
CCP - recommendation: Make fuel bricks reprocess to their component parts until the 24th to try and offset this mess.

-Mad


Fuel blocks should already reprocess to their component parts, although only in multiples of 40.


How about just making refining arrays reprocess FB at 100% efficiency.
This is a simple and relatively painless solution.
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
#178 - 2011-12-09 21:56:47 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.
Apology accepted. But I am under the impresion that a follow-up blog always supercedes the original blog. So in this case, the things stated in the follow-up blog are the ones that count.

Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......

Crias Taylor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2011-12-09 21:58:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Crias Taylor
CCP add this to your wish list this Christmas.

http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/book.aspx?ID=10329&locale=en-us

:iceburn:

Seriously though, sucks to be you.
Boltzy Tsero
#180 - 2011-12-09 21:59:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Boltzy Tsero
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