open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Blog: Planetary Interaction changes brought with Incursion 1.1.0
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2011.01.28 20:03:00 - [1]
 

EVE Online: Incursion 1.1.0 brought a number of changes and updates to the planetary interaction feature. CCP Omen's newest dev blog details those changes and provides some helpful tips. Read all about it here.

Berikath
Posted - 2011.01.28 20:38:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Berikath on 28/01/2011 20:45:00
First?

Also-

Thanks for the changes... but kan I haz upgradable launchpads pleez?

(launchpad level 2- twice the CPU, twice the grid, 20,000 m3 storage, etc)

It would make factory planets... well, not easier, but a whole lot less ANNOYING!

*edit*

To sweeten the pot- it would also mean I only do one import/export call per planet, instead of 2 or 3 (or more, if I import to the wrong launchpad and have to fix it). Less server load!Laughing

Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
The Laughing Men
Posted - 2011.01.28 20:57:00 - [3]
 

oh forget the feature requests...

I'd settle for more information about the routing changes. Specifically:

1 The production tab is a theorhetical maximum, requiring us to route for that. We can see the actual output in the graph.

a) Is the theorhetical maximum based on the number of pins and their size, or is it based on the resources present on the planet?

b) Is the actual output locked in? That's to say, can it be more or less than when the program was initiated?

2) What units are involved with each of the rates. In planning these colonies, there's nothing to indicate that m3/hour or units/cycle are used as the amount that must be routed for (the number under the production tab) leaving us to have to experiment with what link size we'll need.

Again, I'm fine with the implementation. I'd just like some of these numbers documented or labeled somewhere. (That's to say, I just need a little more clarification so that I can jump right in when I get off of work Smile)

Istomi
Posted - 2011.01.28 21:27:00 - [4]
 

Did you intend to nerf p0->P2 Production in 0.0? The ECUs take up way too much Power Grid to be effective in this case.

Nlex
Posted - 2011.01.28 21:41:00 - [5]
 

How exactly do long programs cause less depletion? All I see on the graph when making a program longer is time slices being added, with no fall in per-hour extraction of earlies slices. Does it only work when changing from 15 minute cycles to 30 or 60 minute ones?

Yuda Mann
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:15:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Nlex
How exactly do long programs cause less depletion? All I see on the graph when making a program longer is time slices being added, with no fall in per-hour extraction of earlies slices. Does it only work when changing from 15 minute cycles to 30 or 60 minute ones?


Look at the bottom right at the per hour and total numbers. The per hour goes down with longer programs. The more you pull per hour, the more you deplete the resource.

Circumstantial Evidence
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:19:00 - [7]
 

I'd like to know how planetology skill affects the current implementation.

Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
The Laughing Men
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:23:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Circumstantial Evidence
I'd like to know how planetology skill affects the current implementation.


YES, more questions like this! I took the trouble to max out all PI skills, but the topo map differences we're given on planet hardly justifies the time as PI is currently implemented. (From what I've observed)

Nlex
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:25:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Yuda Mann
Originally by: Nlex
How exactly do long programs cause less depletion? All I see on the graph when making a program longer is time slices being added, with no fall in per-hour extraction of earlies slices. Does it only work when changing from 15 minute cycles to 30 or 60 minute ones?


Look at the bottom right at the per hour and total numbers. The per hour goes down with longer programs. The more you pull per hour, the more you deplete the resource.


But, it's average per-hour, not actual per-hour. The ones on the graph, which show actual extraction, do not get smaller.

To illustrate, there're 10 cycles in the graph. Now I add another 10. Since generally bigger cycle number indicates less yield per cycle, average per-hour drops, but first 10 cycles do not extract less when I add more cycles (which were the case with old system). So how comes making program longer depletes hotspots less?

Rhys Onasi
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:31:00 - [10]
 

Dear CCP, would it be possible to instead of a "you can't route though here if you are overloading link", it instead routes all that is possible? (But gives warning, and makes link red or some such.)

I ask, because currently you can get an extraction that has a one hour spikes worth of extracting at a much higher rate, and the rest of the time it is less, so if you tried routing, you'd have to upgrade your link, and on long links this causes much higher PG/CPU usage.

For example:

First hour = 800m3/hour
Second hour = 1023m3/hour
Third hour = 900 m3/hour
Fourth = 850 m3/hour

Etc.

Currently I'd have to upgrade my link to be able to bring in 2000m3/hour, but I don't necessarily need that little bit extra, why can't I just have a little waste over the top, and just have a 1000m3/hour link?


This makes perfect sense when it is just one route, but if there's two then we might have issues and complaints about wanting a particular route not to get wasted, so make it so we can assign routes priorities? (Or just make it so higher PI goods have priority I suppose. Smile


And while I am in "vent mode", can we gt something done about the UI and shiny bright, white end colored planets? I can barely see my stuff when on an Ice planet! Those light blue links and white circles around my extractor nodes are impossible to see!

(And also, when you click "upgrade", on a link, the whole box closes. Some of us like to put our stuff very, very, very close together to minimize link costs, and sometimes it is hard to get your mouse in between those storage and the ECU. Could we keep the gosh darn link selected when we upgrade? Thanks.)


Oh and one more thing... Laughing

Why do Launchpads and storage cost exactly the same amount of PG? You mostly need storage on extraction planets to avoid hauling several times a day, and those setups don't require a lot of CPU, especially now that ECUs cost 2700mw making extraction AND production of higher end products on a single planet extremely difficult.

Couldn't PG of storage facility be lowered to make it a more viable/attractive option for intermediate storage, where products are being held before being used by a processor/factory, and leave launchpads for being the massive import/export centers?

Yuda Mann
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:33:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Nlex
To illustrate, there're 10 cycles in the graph. Now I add another 10. Since generally bigger cycle number indicates less yield per cycle, average per-hour drops, but first 10 cycles do not extract less when I add more cycles (which were the case with old system). So how comes making program longer depletes hotspots less?


I've found that ignoring the graph while experimenting with program times and extractor placement makes things make a whole lot more sense. In fact, the only thing I look at is the average per hour. The rest of the screen is useless to me.

Rhys Onasi
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:38:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Mikron Alexarr
Originally by: Circumstantial Evidence
I'd like to know how planetology skill affects the current implementation.


YES, more questions like this! I took the trouble to max out all PI skills, but the topo map differences we're given on planet hardly justifies the time as PI is currently implemented. (From what I've observed)


It's actually much more justified. Before, why would you ever need it maxed? You could just plop down a bunch of extractors in a grid, survey, and then find out exactly where the resources are highest, even if the scan showed it being like 3 inches to the right on the screen due to poor skills. And you'd never need to move the extractors for the rest of your life, since they'd give the same amount for eternity.

Now, since resources deplete, you need to move around the little nodes off the ECU sometimes, to help keep the stuff regenerating.

The survey estimates you get are NOT what the actual resources are going to be, until you hit SUBMIT, then check back in the survey screen to see the final numbers. And since starting-> canceling programs causes greater resource depletion, you have to base your yields off the estimated surveys - whose accuracy is determined by the Planetology/Adv. Planetology skills. Higher skills = greater accuracy, better choices.

Naga Tokiba
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:47:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Naga Tokiba on 28/01/2011 22:48:16
Thanks for all the nice changes Team PI.
Now it's allmost fun to PI Smile however, we are not there yet.

Somethings for you people to work on:
1. Upgradeable storage capacity in storage facility, 5000m3 is simply not enough.
2. Upgradeable storage capacity in command center or the posibility to plug in ship modules (low, medium and high slots).
3. Launch capacity from command center is way too small.
4. Power output in command center seems to be running low really fast, this needs to be improved. I feel it dosent improve enough with each command center upgrade.
5. The ability to place more than one command center on a planet, or a new structure - Powerplant - would solve pretty much all of the above.
6. A "route missing" warning would be nice to have.


Berikath
Posted - 2011.01.28 22:53:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Nlex
How exactly do long programs cause less depletion? All I see on the graph when making a program longer is time slices being added, with no fall in per-hour extraction of earlies slices. Does it only work when changing from 15 minute cycles to 30 or 60 minute ones?
Erm... really?

Are you asking about the mechanic, or does the overall concept not make sense?

The added slices are lower (extract less) than the previous ones, so the overall average rate drops, meaning less is extracted than spamming short cycles for the time period.

The question I'd have is how exactly depletion works; is it based on the cycle used to extract the resource, or the total resources extracted? I.E., how does extracting a million units over say, 10 days, deplete if you spam short, high yield cycles for part of the time (leaving the area unexploited for the rest of the time) vs extracting using longer cycles which are extracting for the entire time- will the depletion map look the same, or will doing it with the shorter cycles deplete more?

Franga
NQX Innovations
Posted - 2011.01.28 23:07:00 - [15]
 

My mouse thanks you. And seriously, some really good changes in here. A far more sophisticated and meaningful system.

Durin Sarga
Posted - 2011.01.28 23:51:00 - [16]
 

New PI >>> Old PI

Some things that I hope you guys are working on, but haven't released yet. If not, we REALLY need these.

Resource sharing nodes so we can interact with other planetologists. You guys love the sandbox, so why can't I play SimPlanet with my neighbors? If it costs me some PG and CPU, I'm totally fine with that.

Contracting/Trading at a Customs Office. If it's an office, then shouldn't it behave like an office, and not just a storage facility? Just a thought. Heck, if that means we have to pay for Customs Offices then so be it. This mechanic would be something I'd gladly pay a little more ISK for. For realz.

Also, a 'routing' red line on the survey graph to indicate if your ECU will pull more than your current route will handle would be a really nice touch. that is less important than the first two things I mentioned though. However, I think it probably would be easier to implement.

Kerdrak
GreenSwarm
Black Legion.
Posted - 2011.01.29 00:10:00 - [17]
 

I like the new PI, but I would split the ECU specs so it uses half CPU, half PG and half amount of extractor heads to give more flexibility. Also, I don't see any reason to use storage facilities because launchpads (that are mandatory in any planet) can hold twice the amount for the same powergrid (and there is CPU to spare in most cases).

iP0D
Posted - 2011.01.29 00:15:00 - [18]
 

Nice to see changes, but I'm not enthusiastic yet. It's still far from what it could and should have been, and it is becoming really curious where the Dust 514 Link is going to fit in with planetary interaction.

What strikes me most is that it seems conceptually out of sync with the tendency of players to seek maximum profit / efficiency / volume routines. Player excess, basically. Maybe that is by design? Right now it feels like it's been stretched a little just to make us use more characters for PI network completions.

Newly recruited
Posted - 2011.01.29 00:44:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Newly recruited on 29/01/2011 00:46:41
Nyuk Nyuk nyuk. I find PI very boring, even though it is incredibly lucrative. So, I'm going to take up PiVP. I'm going to find Hi-sec hotspots on planets and start-stop resources till they go dry huahahhaah >:3

-edit- I consider that to have very minimal impact, now that I think about how many planets there are in high-sec.

tpwh21
Posted - 2011.01.29 00:46:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: tpwh21 on 29/01/2011 00:47:47
Some missing features:
Some easy and reliable way to see if you are draining resources from another player or vice versa - this is a huge and incredibly irritating oversight.

Moveable command centres - or being able to change the zoom in point on planet.

Fix the really awful load time of the heat maps - and the bugs in generating them. If you have two ECU - and switch between them - and the second ECU never loads a heat map. (for example). Why the long delay in loading?

More planet storage - make launchpad have 25km3 of capacity - or make command centres have proper storage - which upgrades with the CC upgrades.

templates for building colonies - a better system for creating routes - being able to select multiple buildings and do a single action to them all.

shared features - so that you can build production chains across corp/characters. Or someone else can do your hauling.


General stuff:


Improve graphics, interface, and gameplay (ie introduce something that counts as gameplay)
If you are nerfing a number of methods of doing PI - which you have done - please at least bother to explain why.
READ AND RESPOND TO THE TEST SERVER FEEDBACK - thus avoiding ****ing everyone off. When you are getting free QA testing - it is only polite to actually respond to it.

I would like to supply an encouraging and positive comment, but nothing in this release of PI features deserves positive accolade. Lots of bugs, lots of oversights. No incremental improvement or sense that it is moving forward.
PI is still a very long way away from what we were promised originally. Some communication about what is coming would be useful.

Vertigo Ren
Posted - 2011.01.29 00:58:00 - [21]
 

I have a robotics setup on a plasma planet, I could extract all four resources with two, two, three and four extractors to cover each resource. I had room to spare on the grid and cpu and not even a maxed out command center.

With these changes, I had to upgrade the command center. I can place the four extractor heads, but they must remain very close to my starport, and I can only have one extractor per resource. The links could only be very short between the heads and starport otherwise I'd overburden the command center. Even this nearly breaks the command center. This means that I can't reach the same resource deposits that I could before. (meaning I could have really long links before)

I like the new control system but it seems like you guys forgot to adjust/scale the grid and cpu availability that goes along with the new units. I'm doing far far less production under much much greater power requirements. :/

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.01.29 01:01:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: iP0D
Nice to see changes, but I'm not enthusiastic yet. It's still far from what it could and should have been, and it is becoming really curious where the Dust 514 Link is going to fit in with planetary interaction.


We'll never know. It's all going to be slapped under an NDA...once it exists. Twisted Evil


Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.01.29 01:06:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Darth Mynxee
Originally by: iP0D
Nice to see changes, but I'm not enthusiastic yet. It's still far from what it could and should have been, and it is becoming really curious where the Dust 514 Link is going to fit in with planetary interaction.


We'll never know. It's all going to be slapped under an NDA...once it exists. Twisted Evil




^^Darth Myxee checking in!

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.01.29 01:49:00 - [24]
 

So there's still no player interaction planned for PI, a principle usually integral to Eve?

Argonaught
Minmatar
Cabbage Tea
Posted - 2011.01.29 02:06:00 - [25]
 

Just admit it, you f**ked up PI and now are trying to claim it was so it could be more interactive, what a load of old arse.

That nerf bat needs to be re-purposed and used on PI Devs heads instead of features in EVE.

Rolling Eyes

Argo.


iqplayer
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Posted - 2011.01.29 02:52:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: iqplayer on 29/01/2011 02:53:32
Originally by: Rhys Onasi
Dear CCP, would it be possible to instead of a "you can't route though here if you are overloading link", it instead routes all that is possible? (But gives warning, and makes link red or some such.)

....

Currently I'd have to upgrade my link to be able to bring in 2000m3/hour, but I don't necessarily need that little bit extra, why can't I just have a little waste over the top, and just have a 1000m3/hour link?


Actually, if you just want it to discard the extra, when creating the link manually type in the max capacity of the link (ie, 6250 units for a L1 that cycles every 10mins)and it will discard the rest.
Still, I agree that this could be simplified, as it cost me a whole days extraction when I added a mining head that caused extraction to exceed capacity in some slices. Worse, it deactivated the link without any warning or notification....

Xavier Ansatsusha
Stargate SG-1
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.01.29 06:20:00 - [27]
 

Ok real short response to this damn mess:


WHY IN THE HELL did you, CCP, just make it so we could reset all extractors at once and leave well enough alone. This is just a giant pain in the ass and really no more or less isk is going to be made from it, just ppl complaining cause instead of resetting extractors they have to moved the heads. THE IDEA WAS TO GET RID OF THE STRESS INJURIES FROM USING THE MOUSE NOT MAKE IT WORSE!!! Ya he graph crap looks all pretty but ffs, most of us wanna play the game not spend 2 hours figuring out the graph when we dont get anymore isk for doing it.

Sorry CCP, but this time you failed horribly. PI now officially sucks!!!

mkmin
Posted - 2011.01.29 07:09:00 - [28]
 

Good to see some polish added, but not convinced it would be fun enough to bother training skills for. The dust link better add some human interaction to it even without dust, because as it stands now, an upgrade out of painful is not an upgrade to fun.

Black Dahliala
Posted - 2011.01.29 07:23:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Black Dahliala on 29/01/2011 07:26:07
CCP - This was no change for the better.

You took something that needed to be tweaked, came back a year later starting all over with something that needs some serious fixing again.
Not holding my breath for another year on that one.

Depletion rates are too high, extractor head power usage is too high.
You can't keep enough 'spice' flowing to keep the units up to volume without tearing it down and moving it around.
There's almost no way to build a consistent production line which is what a proper entrepreneur would do.

I walked away from PI because of the click fest before.
It's a lot more fun and profitable running missions or even mining then this mess.

Epic fail!

TorTorden
Amarr
Posted - 2011.01.29 07:36:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: TorTorden on 29/01/2011 07:47:18
Just a teeny tiny thing. The two most important numbers, the total extracted, and average pr hour are so small Im almost about to grab a magnifier glass when I'm doing PI, could we have this bumped at least 2x, hell i think most people figured the all important data from the ecu was just purely for graphical fancy ness rather than actual data with a value, since I'm used to how CCP is completely unaware it seems that displaying text and numbers in colors poorly contrasted to it's backround I take a second look, But seriously CCP take a 101 graphical design class.



Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only