These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Combining Invention BPCS with identical me/te

Author
Mordachai
Eternal Darkness.
Initiative Mercenaries
#21 - 2016-11-02 12:35:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordachai
What about if you could "bind" bpc's into a book or something similar so you can condense them into 1 item and when using that "book" the game would take ... 1 book that consists of 7 hammer head II bpc's (just a random number) and just produce the first one then next one without you having to start finish start next one finish that way the crying about me reward per high number of runs becomes irrelevant.

im just sick and tired of bpc's that take so short time to produce that i have to use my gizillion alts to produce start finish several hundred jobs multiple times a day. and same goes with organizing all the damn bpc's and the lag of moving them and start and finishing the jobs.
Echo Mande
#22 - 2016-11-03 09:52:42 UTC
As a manufacturer this is something I can certainly use.
The ability to combine BPCs with identical ME/TE into a single new BPC with runs equal to the sum of the combined BPCs has any number of advantages. The ability to install jobs of meaningful lengths (24 hrs or so) when building T2 modules would be a big plus.

Adding this ability to one of the new industrial service modules would be a big selling point for that module.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#23 - 2016-11-04 21:38:27 UTC
Echo Mande wrote:
As a manufacturer this is something I can certainly use.
The ability to combine BPCs with identical ME/TE into a single new BPC with runs equal to the sum of the combined BPCs has any number of advantages. The ability to install jobs of meaningful lengths (24 hrs or so) when building T2 modules would be a big plus.

Adding this ability to one of the new industrial service modules would be a big selling point for that module.


I'm not sure they need extra selling points. They boast the highest efficiency in the game.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#24 - 2016-11-17 16:09:27 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
He's clearly talking about invention output, and the number of runs has nothing to do with the max the BPC can actually have.

You claim this is about the problems inherent in the current invention process, yet the actual complaint posted was specifically about the hassles of storing the BPC's created as a function of that process and the desire to be able combine them into a smaller number with more runs each. See below for more on this.

PopeUrban wrote:
Number of runs per BPC depends on the specific item you're inventing. You can not simply 'create a BPC with more runs'

So the simple reality here is that storage of BPC's is not the fundamental problem that needs to be solved the process that creates those BPC's and the BPC's themselves are the problem to be solved.

If you want BPC's with more runs then ask for CCP to change that, why all this nonsense about storage hassles and wanting to be able to combine them when a simple request would have been sufficient.

Combine versus stacking.
If the max number of runs possible on a BPC is 10 and you have a hanger full of these 10 run BPC's then combining them is impossible, you have to stack them and that gets us back to the problems with the database and how it stores information. But again if you had simpoly asked for the simple and elegant solution to your problem we could have avoided all they useless discussion about databases etc and simply replyed yes please CCP make this happen.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#25 - 2016-11-17 22:24:43 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
Donnachadh wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
He's clearly talking about invention output, and the number of runs has nothing to do with the max the BPC can actually have.

You claim this is about the problems inherent in the current invention process, yet the actual complaint posted was specifically about the hassles of storing the BPC's created as a function of that process and the desire to be able combine them into a smaller number with more runs each. See below for more on this.

PopeUrban wrote:
Number of runs per BPC depends on the specific item you're inventing. You can not simply 'create a BPC with more runs'

So the simple reality here is that storage of BPC's is not the fundamental problem that needs to be solved the process that creates those BPC's and the BPC's themselves are the problem to be solved.

If you want BPC's with more runs then ask for CCP to change that, why all this nonsense about storage hassles and wanting to be able to combine them when a simple request would have been sufficient.

Combine versus stacking.
If the max number of runs possible on a BPC is 10 and you have a hanger full of these 10 run BPC's then combining them is impossible, you have to stack them and that gets us back to the problems with the database and how it stores information. But again if you had simpoly asked for the simple and elegant solution to your problem we could have avoided all they useless discussion about databases etc and simply replyed yes please CCP make this happen.


You really are dense aren't you.

There is literally nothing "impossible" about a system that deletes a few BPCs and adds runs to existing BPCs. It is exactly the same simple mathematical system that removes remaining runs from a BPC when used in a crafting job, or updates HP when damaging/repairing a module, drone, ship, etc. You are modifying a single variable that already exists on the item's DB template. In this case the variable happens to be an INT named runs remaining.

Either you have an imperfect understanding of basic computer science, or you're being willfully obstructionist. Stacking implies that individual items exist in the stack, and can be split in to smaller stacks. The reason this is problematic for blueprints is because each BPC is effectively ALREADY a complex stack, and if you were to stack them in a conventional manner (where you could then unstack them) you'd need to continue to store the individual runs remaining on each one in a manner EVE's stacking code isn't formateed to handle (all stacking items are considered identical, which is why you have to repair/repackage them, so the stack can refer to a single base item ID with no additionable variables)

Further, the system that creates invention BPCs is limited in the current manner for a reason. The RNG that determines the output result is limited to small run BPCs in order to require the user to consistantly invent, and invent at scale unreliably. That RNG also controls the entire market for decryptors, meaning that if invention is too successful or reliable at its base value that decryptors and to a smaller extent datacores can't properly sink out of the economy, meaning demand drops. In fact the adjustments to invention in crius did exactly that, and seriously crashed the decrpytor and datacore market, which hurt exploration of data sites considerably, but that' a separate topic entirely.

Altering invention to simply create larger BPCs drastically changes the production flow of invention, and further wouldn't do anything at all to address the hangar clutter of similar BPCs like faction ships/modules. A system of BPC run combination packs up all those QOL issues in a tidier box, as well as fixes security issues inherant with BPCS not being lockable. That BPC issue is considerably more important now than it once was due to the much higher drop rates of faction blueprints and much more regular use of faction equipment now compared to a few years ago, which shows no signs of slowing down as CCP plans to continue to add more and more faction ships to the game.
Jonathon Silence
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2016-11-18 05:34:51 UTC
As someone that deals with thousands of BPC's I can actually see a value for this (and an isk sink).

I have literally thousands of BPC's (Multi run, part run, single run), so many that I have many different containers to story them all in my hangers.

I would like to see the ability to combine BPC's (of the same M/T values) so that it increases the runs available. I would even be willing to pay a few isk for each one combined (isk sink).

Conversely when I prepare a BPC pack for a capital ship build I would like to be able to go to my Chimera master BPC and 'split off' a single run (paying an isk fee again) then go to the capital ship component master BPC's and carve off BPC's with exactly the right amount of runs needed for the ship, instead of 2 5run's and 3 1runs' for example, and again I would be willing to pay a isk fee for this.

Why would I want to do this? So I can have 3 BPC's for my Amarr Battleships not 600. So I can have 1 can for my ship bpc's not 1 for each each races battleships, another for all battle-cruisers, another for Structure Components, another for Multi-run Structure Components, Capital Components, Multi-run Capital Components, etc etc etc.

As a side affect this will have the added bonus of removing potentially hundreds of thousands of items from the inventory management system, so no more multi-second wait for my inventory to load for my BPC hangers. Which means reduced Database CPU load.

And as I said if the isk change was appropriate would be more than worth to cost.

And besides the max run control was brought in during the old 'science slot' system to (ineffectively) deal with a problem of people producing massive copy runs of something to use up the slot so others could not have it. I do not think it is an issue in the current system as we have the 30day job limit now, so I could not put in a job that takes more than 30 days (except where 1 run tales long than 30 days or all the other exceptions). It does not apply to build runs from the BPO so removing it altogether would be another cleanup of legacy fixes and code.
Jonathon Silence
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2016-11-18 05:47:19 UTC
PopeUrban wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
He's clearly talking about invention output, and the number of runs has nothing to do with the max the BPC can actually have.

You claim this is about the problems inherent in the current invention process, yet the actual complaint posted was specifically about the hassles of storing the BPC's created as a function of that process and the desire to be able combine them into a smaller number with more runs each. See below for more on this.

PopeUrban wrote:
Number of runs per BPC depends on the specific item you're inventing. You can not simply 'create a BPC with more runs'

So the simple reality here is that storage of BPC's is not the fundamental problem that needs to be solved the process that creates those BPC's and the BPC's themselves are the problem to be solved.

If you want BPC's with more runs then ask for CCP to change that, why all this nonsense about storage hassles and wanting to be able to combine them when a simple request would have been sufficient.

Combine versus stacking.
If the max number of runs possible on a BPC is 10 and you have a hanger full of these 10 run BPC's then combining them is impossible, you have to stack them and that gets us back to the problems with the database and how it stores information. But again if you had simpoly asked for the simple and elegant solution to your problem we could have avoided all they useless discussion about databases etc and simply replyed yes please CCP make this happen.


You really are dense aren't you.

There is literally nothing "impossible" about a system that deletes a few BPCs and adds runs to existing BPCs. It is exactly the same simple mathematical system that removes remaining runs from a BPC when used in a crafting job, or updates HP when damaging/repairing a module, drone, ship, etc. You are modifying a single variable that already exists on the item's DB template. In this case the variable happens to be an INT named runs remaining.

Either you have an imperfect understanding of basic computer science, or you're being willfully obstructionist. Stacking implies that individual items exist in the stack, and can be split in to smaller stacks. The reason this is problematic for blueprints is because each BPC is effectively ALREADY a complex stack, and if you were to stack them in a conventional manner (where you could then unstack them) you'd need to continue to store the individual runs remaining on each one in a manner EVE's stacking code isn't formateed to handle (all stacking items are considered identical, which is why you have to repair/repackage them, so the stack can refer to a single base item ID with no additionable variables)

Further, the system that creates invention BPCs is limited in the current manner for a reason. The RNG that determines the output result is limited to small run BPCs in order to require the user to consistantly invent, and invent at scale unreliably. That RNG also controls the entire market for decryptors, meaning that if invention is too successful or reliable at its base value that decryptors and to a smaller extent datacores can't properly sink out of the economy, meaning demand drops. In fact the adjustments to invention in crius did exactly that, and seriously crashed the decrpytor and datacore market, which hurt exploration of data sites considerably, but that' a separate topic entirely.

Altering invention to simply create larger BPCs drastically changes the production flow of invention, and further wouldn't do anything at all to address the hangar clutter of similar BPCs like faction ships/modules. A system of BPC run combination packs up all those QOL issues in a tidier box, as well as fixes security issues inherant with BPCS not being lockable. That BPC issue is considerably more important now than it once was due to the much higher drop rates of faction blueprints and much more regular use of faction equipment now compared to a few years ago, which shows no signs of slowing down as CCP plans to continue to add more and more faction ships to the game.


As far as the database goes you have 2 types of items.

Stacks and singletons. (There is another term that gets used for stacks but I can not remember it).

Stacks are literally a pile of the unmodified item with a counter to say how many of them there are and a location (and a unique ID for the stack). They have no other information. a Pile of ammo is a good example of this. All items in the stack are identical and the only thing we care about is how many are left in the stack.

A Singleton is a single instance of an item, it can have additional 'features' or modified base values. But they are unique to this item, and they can be modified. Ships and Blueprints are good examples of these. Ships get assembled and then have additional attributes (the modules plugged into them, damage sustained etc). Blueprints get researched and have the ME and TE values specific to that instance of the Blueprint (the differ from the master example in the database for those values).

There is nothing, theoretically, stopping CCP from adding a function that allows you to combine to BPC' (as long as they have the same ME?TE values) into a single item with a runs remaining value equal to the sum of the runs remaining on the 2 initial items. It is a single database field that would change on one of the items and the second item would be deleted. Technically possible and not difficult as they already have a function that reduces the runs available when it is used in a manufacturing job or an invention job, this would just allow the addition of Run's to a BPC rather than the removal of Runs.
Mordachai
Eternal Darkness.
Initiative Mercenaries
#28 - 2016-11-18 07:48:59 UTC
Could we get some input from CCP about if this is at all possible concerning the database.

All i want is QOL changes regarding the lag due to insane amount of bpc's and all the damn can's.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#29 - 2016-11-18 15:27:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
PopeUrban wrote:
You really are dense aren't you.

I have chosen in the past not to go down this path, but this comment has changed my mind. If you are going to resort to name calling because someone disagrees with you then you get my real ideas and thoughts. What the hell if I am going to be called names might as well give you a real reason to do it.

You and you alone are the problem here not the game or any part of it.
Since you have hangers full of cans that are in turn full of BPC's waiting for the next step in the process it is obvious that your ability to produce these BPC's outpaces your ability to use them. So the simple solution here is to switch to the on demand sourcing model instead of the build or invent it as fast as you can and stock pile it model. On demand sourcing simply means that at each step you only produce what you will need for the next step in the process. Once you have this on demand sourcing figured out and the amount to produce at each step determined and your stock piles used up you will find it will make a huge difference in the amount of stuff you have to store. But game and not real world many will say and In this specific case I reject that as irrelevant. On demand sourcing can and will work here in EvE the indy corp I have a character in uses it all the time.

There you now have a challenge that will make EvE more interesting, you will eliminate as much of your storage problems as possible AND you will not occupy any developer time to do it. Win Win as they say.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#30 - 2016-11-18 16:55:01 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
You really are dense aren't you.

I have chosen in the past not to go down this path, but this comment has changed my mind. If you are going to resort to name calling because someone disagrees with you then you get my real ideas and thoughts. What the hell if I am going to be called names might as well give you a real reason to do it.

You and you alone are the problem here not the game or any part of it.
Since you have hangers full of cans that are in turn full of BPC's waiting for the next step in the process it is obvious that your ability to produce these BPC's outpaces your ability to use them. So the simple solution here is to switch to the on demand sourcing model instead of the build or invent it as fast as you can and stock pile it model. On demand sourcing simply means that at each step you only produce what you will need for the next step in the process. Once you have this on demand sourcing figured out and the amount to produce at each step determined and your stock piles used up you will find it will make a huge difference in the amount of stuff you have to store. But game and not real world many will say and In this specific case I reject that as irrelevant. On demand sourcing can and will work here in EvE the indy corp I have a character in uses it all the time.

There you now have a challenge that will make EvE more interesting, you will eliminate as much of your storage problems as possible AND you will not occupy any developer time to do it. Win Win as they say.


Man, you're just about utterly incapable of not sharing your thoughts on subjects with which you have no actual familiarity, huh?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Cade Windstalker
#31 - 2016-11-18 19:20:01 UTC
Cristl wrote:
Nothing to discuss. The database code says "no".

Now, here's the weather.

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I'd be all for your suggestion, but apparently it can't happen.


It can't happen with stacking the items in the same way you stack packaged modules, but you could take 2 10 run BPCs and combine them into a single 20 run BPC, since you're creating a new third item and removing the other two.

I actually like this solution. It fixes a common complaint with BPCs, gets around the known technical issues, and potentially lets someone obsessive try to get a massive run count on a single BPC.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#32 - 2016-11-18 21:14:08 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
You really are dense aren't you.

I have chosen in the past not to go down this path, but this comment has changed my mind. If you are going to resort to name calling because someone disagrees with you then you get my real ideas and thoughts. What the hell if I am going to be called names might as well give you a real reason to do it.

You and you alone are the problem here not the game or any part of it.
Since you have hangers full of cans that are in turn full of BPC's waiting for the next step in the process it is obvious that your ability to produce these BPC's outpaces your ability to use them. So the simple solution here is to switch to the on demand sourcing model instead of the build or invent it as fast as you can and stock pile it model. On demand sourcing simply means that at each step you only produce what you will need for the next step in the process. Once you have this on demand sourcing figured out and the amount to produce at each step determined and your stock piles used up you will find it will make a huge difference in the amount of stuff you have to store. But game and not real world many will say and In this specific case I reject that as irrelevant. On demand sourcing can and will work here in EvE the indy corp I have a character in uses it all the time.

There you now have a challenge that will make EvE more interesting, you will eliminate as much of your storage problems as possible AND you will not occupy any developer time to do it. Win Win as they say.


Sure. You've been civil about this the whole time. Cling to that notion.

For the third or fourth time you're completely ignoring the opinions, input, and calm explanation of the entire situation by people much more familiar with the topic and subject matter than yourself, making false claims and assumptions, and basically saying "it's impossible" rather than "I don't like it"

Your suggestions have amounted to "well if you played the game worse you wouldn't have a problem associated with playing it successfully"

I could make another long post attempting to explain to you why the concept of "on demand sourcing" is not always an applicable one, especially in the case of invention, but in stead I'll just list off some reasons in one liners so I don't have to waste more time explaining principles to you everyone else seems to understand just fine.

A: You may lose your research, but not your production capacity as a result of structure warfare (you overproduce as insurance against losing your research facility)

B: Invention is randomly successful, and thus you intentionally overproduce to ensure you can keep production running 24/7 without any gaps due to invention failures.

C: You overproduce because you aren't doing any other research anyway to sell the bpcs (empty lines are a waste of structure fuel)

D: You produce large stacks of multiple things because you are part of a large production chain. These blueprints are moved to multiple facilities for production once a month.

E: More reasons that don't fit in to your myopic view of how people should conduct industrial activity that I'm sure I haven't even considered.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#33 - 2016-11-18 21:25:34 UTC
PopeUrban wrote:


A: You may lose your research, but not your production capacity as a result of structure warfare (you overproduce as insurance against losing your research facility)

B: Invention is randomly successful, and thus you intentionally overproduce to ensure you can keep production running 24/7 without any gaps due to invention failures.

C: You overproduce because you aren't doing any other research anyway to sell the bpcs (empty lines are a waste of structure fuel)

D: You produce large stacks of multiple things because you are part of a large production chain. These blueprints are moved to multiple facilities for production once a month.

E: More reasons that don't fit in to your myopic view of how people should conduct industrial activity that I'm sure I haven't even considered.



And, nevermind the sheer agility afforded by having BPCs on hand. Temporary supply shortage of a particular good offering fat margins? If you have the BPCs on hand, you can take advantage of that. If you have to take the time to invent them, producers that had the BPCs on hand will have likely (over)corrected the situation long before you can get them invented and built.

Corp or alliance needs doctrine fittings for an op this weekend? Already have the BPCs: Piece of cake. Don't have them already? Too bad.

I'm not giving up that functionality as a workaround for inherently bad inventory management and a laggy industrial window. The suggestion is patently insipid.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Jonathon Silence
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2016-11-20 23:25:13 UTC
Mordachai wrote:
Could we get some input from CCP about if this is at all possible concerning the database.

All i want is QOL changes regarding the lag due to insane amount of bpc's and all the damn can's.


It's possible, the question is whether or not CCP want to implement the functionality.
Mordachai
Eternal Darkness.
Initiative Mercenaries
#35 - 2016-11-21 13:05:38 UTC
Jonathon Silence wrote:
Mordachai wrote:
Could we get some input from CCP about if this is at all possible concerning the database.

All i want is QOL changes regarding the lag due to insane amount of bpc's and all the damn can's.


It's possible, the question is whether or not CCP want to implement the functionality.



Well so many people have said that the programing side of it is hard/not possible unless a major rewrite of the code.
but id like some comment from a CCP employee regarding this issue.

After ascension patch the lag during these massive amount of bpc's has become much worse and ocassionally lock up compeltely and ive found out logging out and back in fixes it for me.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#36 - 2016-11-21 14:30:43 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Man, you're just about utterly incapable of not sharing your thoughts on subjects with which you have no actual familiarity, huh?

How do you know that I have no familiarity with the subject of this topic.
Is it because we disagree?
Perhaps it is because I think you are lazy and you want CCP to solve your problems for you, instead of taking the time and effort to learn about and then adapt and apply a real world process that can help you.

On demand sourcing is a thing in the world of business, it is a thing because it solves in the real world many of the same problems you need to solve here in EvE you know things like storage, inventory tracking, location of the things you need, making sure you have what you need, where you need it and when you need it. One does not need much in the way of experience with the invention process to understand the basic issues you face, all one needs is a little reading about the process and a little reading of your posts to get a basic understanding of the problem and then the ability to look for solutions somewhere other than CCP and the dev teams.

To recap where we are at.
What you want is not possible in the game as we know it today.
What you want is not likely to be available in the game anytime soon (meaning the next 12 to 18 months).
What you want may NEVER be available in the game because reasons known only to CCP.

So while we wait for CCP to decide when / if they will make this change you are still faced with the same situation that caused you to post this topic to start with. In that regard a smart player would be looking for ideas and suggestions that may help minimize or eliminate the problems they are facing. A smart player would not care where that idea came from. A smart player would not care how much or how little experience the person posting the idea has. A smart player would look into any and all ideas offered and asses if they could help them instead of questioning the experience level of the person that posted it.
So I guess the real question is simply this, are you a smart player, are you willing to invest a little effort by looking into and experimenting with an idea offered. Or are you a typical lazy EvE player that wants CCP to solve your problems for you.

In the end since you cannot do the things you want to do you can continue down the same path of frustrations you are currently on, or you can expend a little effort to look into an idea offered.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#37 - 2016-11-21 15:57:24 UTC
PopeUrban wrote:
For the third or fourth time you're completely ignoring the opinions, input, and calm explanation of the entire situation by people much more familiar with the topic and subject matter than yourself, making false claims and assumptions, and basically saying "it's impossible" rather than "I don't like it"

One does not need even a basic understanding of the process to realize simple facts gleaned from your original post, all one needs to do is read.
PopeUrban wrote:
Situation:

Your industrial element does a lot of invention. You do multiple day crafting runs of t1s and other materials before using the t2 BPCs to craft your final T2 products. Because your research outpaces your input/output stream of physical goods (because you want to overproduce invention BPCs to safeguard against RNG failure ******* with your assembly line) you end up with a hangar full of identical 10 run BPCs that don't stack, can't be locked down, and take up pages and pages and pages.

From this paragraph we know that your ability to produce the materials needed for your final T2 production out paces your need for those materials.

We know that your overproduction of these materials is causing you some significant problems with inventory and storage.

We know that due to some problems inherent in the process and the simple fact that this is a computer game you need to have a certain level of excess materials in storage to minimize or even possibly eliminate final production delays.

We also know from this that currently it is impossible to stack or to combine BPC's.

There we have a solid understanding of the basic problems you want CCP to solve and we have done nothing but read you own words. My answer from this is the same as it was in my last posts. Properly applied to your specific needs and your specific situation on demand sourcing can and will eliminate a lot of your inventory and storage hassles so why the reluctance to even try it.

PopeUrban wrote:
Your suggestions have amounted to "well if you played the game worse you wouldn't have a problem associated with playing it successfully"

This one is interesting and puzzling at the same time.
On the face it seems logical that streamlining your production process to eliminate as much of your inventory and storage hassles as possible would be considered as being better, smarted and more efficient at the game. Yet now you tell me that doing these things makes you "worse" at the game. I think I need to wander off into the mists of EvE and contemplate this revelation while taking some form of mind altering substance.

PopeUrban wrote:
I could make another long post attempting to explain to you why the concept of "on demand sourcing" is not always an applicable one, especially in the case of invention, but in stead I'll just list off some reasons in one liners so I don't have to waste more time explaining principles to you everyone else seems to understand just fine.

A: You may lose your research, but not your production capacity as a result of structure warfare (you overproduce as insurance against losing your research facility)

B: Invention is randomly successful, and thus you intentionally overproduce to ensure you can keep production running 24/7 without any gaps due to invention failures.

C: You overproduce because you aren't doing any other research anyway to sell the bpcs (empty lines are a waste of structure fuel)

D: You produce large stacks of multiple things because you are part of a large production chain. These blueprints are moved to multiple facilities for production once a month.

E: More reasons that don't fit in to your myopic view of how people should conduct industrial activity that I'm sure I haven't even considered.

You state at the beginning of this section that on demand sourcing is not always a good idea, and then you go on to this list of why it is not valid in your situation. The funny thing here is I do not see these as a reason why on demand sourcing WILL NOT work, what I see is a series of things that must be considered when setting up your on demand sourcing system. Yes at the most basic level on demand produces exactly what you need for the next step in the process, and yes I am aware that I stated that, but then I also stated that it needed to be adapted to your specific situation. I had given you and others credit for having enough intelligence to look at a basic process and then adapt it to meet your needs, I can see now that I was wrong.

A. Here is a really crazy thought, so crazy that you probably never even considered it. How about moving that BPO' research to an NPC station in low sec that CANNOT be destroyed. Surely this would be an easy thing for a group of nul sec industrialists like you to handle.

B. So you need to account for average loses and the time delays the could cause when setting up your on demand system. This is all part of the adapting the basic concept to your specific needs.

C. This is a decision made by you or another person, and as such it is not a problem with the game. No one forces you to add to your storage problems with this over production and I am sure that there are other things your corp / alliance needs that could be produced in those time slots instead.

E. And all of them can and should be considered when setting up an on demand system.
Like so many in EvE you simply dismiss something because you either do not understand it or you do not want to take the time to work it all out you simply want CCP to solve your problems for you.

One has to wonder, have you ever considered that CCP just might have put all these twists into the processes involved specifically as a way of limiting what you can produce? Or amybe they put them into the system as a way of making it more vulnerable to attack by other players.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#38 - 2016-11-21 22:08:26 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
Again, a really long post that can be summed up as "Play the game worse and you will not have interface annoyances associated with playing it well"

Despite the fallacies raised in your rebuttal (chief among them being that production and research ques are not the same resource, but separately tracked ones, and thus producing less does not in any way offer more in the way of research ques or vice versa)

It is not a matter of not knowing HOW to use the current system to achieve our goals. We are already doing that. You seem to think you are imparting some revolutionary new knowledge here. You're not. Everything you have said has been considered, and most here actively choose to use a somewhat annoying interface to deal with masive pages of BPCs because it is both more efficient and more profitable despite being poorly designed for this purpose.

You continue to say nothing about the suggestion at hand and suggest people actively nerf their production capacity to do what? Not have an opinion that multiple pages of BPCs are annoying?

Trust me when I say that everyone here knows full well how to run production lines, and how to deal with these massive BPC stacks. We're not simply going "ugh its so hard" and not doing it. We're saying "we are using the current system, and it would be less annoying if we had this little tweak"

Meanwhile you offer pointless "suggestions" about how to avoid the annoying bits by actively being worse at the game.

Consider that some of us will happily continue to use an annoying and laggy interface even if this suggestion goes nowhere, and will not adopt your insane "suggestions" just to avoid a few interface headaches. The point is that interface headaches add nothing to gameplay. They're just annoying things.

I suppose your answer to having to constantly pause and unpause the que to jump clone was "well then don't jump clone" because that's essentially what we're talking about here. How to do a thing we are all ALREADY DOING with less arbitrary UI based roadblocks.
Jonathon Silence
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#39 - 2016-11-21 23:07:32 UTC
Mordachai wrote:
Jonathon Silence wrote:
Mordachai wrote:
Could we get some input from CCP about if this is at all possible concerning the database.

All i want is QOL changes regarding the lag due to insane amount of bpc's and all the damn can's.


It's possible, the question is whether or not CCP want to implement the functionality.



Well so many people have said that the programing side of it is hard/not possible unless a major rewrite of the code.
but id like some comment from a CCP employee regarding this issue.

After ascension patch the lag during these massive amount of bpc's has become much worse and ocassionally lock up compeltely and ive found out logging out and back in fixes it for me.


Considering that I am an ex-CCP employee and have worked with this section of code. Admittedly it was some time ago and it could have changed significantly, but the database structure has not so as I said.

Possible, question is if CCP want to do it.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#40 - 2016-11-21 23:15:10 UTC
Jonathon Silence wrote:
Mordachai wrote:
Jonathon Silence wrote:
Mordachai wrote:
Could we get some input from CCP about if this is at all possible concerning the database.

All i want is QOL changes regarding the lag due to insane amount of bpc's and all the damn can's.


It's possible, the question is whether or not CCP want to implement the functionality.



Well so many people have said that the programing side of it is hard/not possible unless a major rewrite of the code.
but id like some comment from a CCP employee regarding this issue.

After ascension patch the lag during these massive amount of bpc's has become much worse and ocassionally lock up compeltely and ive found out logging out and back in fixes it for me.


Considering that I am an ex-CCP employee and have worked with this section of code. Admittedly it was some time ago and it could have changed significantly, but the database structure has not so as I said.

Possible, question is if CCP want to do it.


Yeah, I think its worth repeating what people have said about the minor effects bpc combination would have on the actual ME/TE discounts for items where those numbers do not currently do anything due to math, or the effect it would have on the ability to more passively do longer production runs on BPCs and what that means for the economy.

Every suggestion in the end boils down to whether or not CCP thinks its a good idea though but it seems thusfar that at least the general opinion in the thread is that people would appreciate some way to clean up the BPC clutter a little, though there are differing opinions on how significantly that ability affects production gameplay and thus the appropriate costs or lack thereof to use it.

They're interesting questions that I feel someone at CCP has better metrics based data available to answer.
Previous page123Next page