open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Some PI feedback on 13th October
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

kassie kelmar
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.14 01:56:00 - [1]
 

First i suggest CCP should seed the new command centres as soon as possible so they can get more feedback. Having a bunch of basic command centres in a corp hangar for planetary exploration i played about with it a bit on sisi today, when i could finally get on.

My impressions so far, unless you are doing PI in 0.0 or wormhole space it wont be worth doing, to get 3k mat (within 30 minutes) to supply a single basic processor required 8 extractors at minimum mining radius (and therefore the lowest program length, the mats tail off sharply towards the back end of the program too so even with those extractors it wouldnt have kept the processor running for the entire length of the program which was approximately an hour 20 minutes, admittedly it wasnt an abundant resource but it about the same level (actually is the same planet) as one i use productively at the moment with 4 basic processors and 1 advanced plus extractors to suit.

Note: For the love of heaven get rid of the damned icons that cover the processors and launchpad so that you can see what you are doing!

As far as can see PI has been balanced for 0.0 operations, squeezing out the smaller high sec fuel a pos and maybe get some mats to build t2 mods operations.

So i do suggest you ask CCP strenuously for the command centres to be seeded so you can give them your feedback. If it does go this way i can see the only valid careers in high sec being exploration, t1 manufacture from mins, mission running amd coffee klatch mining, (or use of macroing).

I may however, have missed some nuance in the new analysis window, so a guide to using that might also be helpful.

Also would CCP care to run through how they will changover from the current system to the new? Will existing command centres just change over and other structures be wiped or retained, if wiped will there be some restitution?

Considering all t2 and starbase manufacture now relies on PI, it would be a good idea to get a lot more specific in the information delivered.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.14 03:44:00 - [2]
 

High-sec was never intended to be good for resource extraction. Go to low-sec or 0.0 for that, and do higher-tier processing in high-sec.

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.10.14 05:27:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
High-sec was never intended to be good for resource extraction. Go to low-sec or 0.0 for that, and do higher-tier processing in high-sec.


That 0.0 is so much higher than high-sec is a joke. 0.0 is actually easier for PI because only people from the controlling alliance can do PI there, so the competiton is way lower.

Low sec should have the highest yield!

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.14 05:50:00 - [4]
 

needs work

Makko Gray
Pheno-Tech Industries
Crimson Wings.
Posted - 2010.10.14 06:44:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Makko Gray on 14/10/2010 06:52:14
I'm really liking the changes to the mechanic, though I'm sure there is balancing of outputs to do.

The fact minerals tail off towards the end of a program is offset by the fact that programs can last up to what looked like 2 weeks and the fact the you can stop programs and set up new ones rather than having to wait for them to complete, good if your not sure when you'll next come to it. I think the interface is reasonably intuative and you get good feedback on lose to production cause by area overlap and on area placement and head placement radius. I do think more indication is needed to highlight the heads associated with the current extractor control unit you're programming and sometimes the heads can be fiddly to grab hold of and move when placed next to other structures.

With these changes I think I'd actually bother investing the time into maintaining my planets rather than neglecting them.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.14 07:33:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
That 0.0 is so much higher than high-sec is a joke. 0.0 is actually easier for PI because only people from the controlling alliance can do PI there, so the competiton is way lower.

Low sec should have the highest yield!

If you're willing to spend a month sitting in a carrier shooting stations, pos'es and TCU's... I think we can arrange for you to get access to a couple 0.0 PI planets. Or you can pay rent as everyone else seems to do.

And low-sec is lol easy with a BR.

Makko Gray
Pheno-Tech Industries
Crimson Wings.
Posted - 2010.10.14 07:43:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
That 0.0 is so much higher than high-sec is a joke. 0.0 is actually easier for PI because only people from the controlling alliance can do PI there, so the competiton is way lower.

Low sec should have the highest yield!


There is also NPC 0.0 space and plenty of unclaimed systems so the barrier claimed is simply not an issue, so feel free to take advantage of the easy 0.0 planets. Laughing

StrawberryPocky
Posted - 2010.10.14 11:58:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: StrawberryPocky on 14/10/2010 12:02:30
Originally by: kassie kelmar
My impressions so far, unless you are doing PI in 0.0 or wormhole space it wont be worth doing, to get 3k mat (within 30 minutes) to supply a single basic processor required 8 extractors at minimum mining radius....


Ditto having some centers left-over I managed to set up a new colony in 0.0.
Your not exagerating, I think CCP are trying to annihilate the creation of p3 items on a single planet. Attempting to set up 5 extractors controls + processors makes it impossible to run more than seven nodes total. Around one to two per ECU. That left me on highly abundant resource around 800 units per hour and around 450-550 units per hour on hotspots for less-abundant(for the first hour or two). And is it me but hasn't the route MW usage skyrocketed? Even a short route pushes into the 1500+ range for the most basic. Unless somethings drastically wrong with the way I was attempting to set-up its looking like I'll only get two (maybe three) materials per planet at the same rate I previously got all five.


Knock-on effect to the higher-spec production could be massive.
Seems a rather drastic change.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.14 15:51:00 - [9]
 

Haven't been able to test with the current build, but in a previous one, they had cut the yield by a factor of 20–30(!) depending on how you carefully you tweak the extraction zones.

Is this still the case?

I set up the exact same processing line as I have running on TQ, only with the new extractors, but where I used to get 1600 units/15 minutes on average for each extractor in the cluster (5 of them feeding one production line), the new extractor gave me a total of 250 units/10 minutes for all five extractor pins, which is obviously bugged to hell and back.

Have you done the same kind of comparison with the 13 Oct build? What would the exact same setup give you on TQ, and how much does it yield on SiSi?

Don Kartel
Posted - 2010.10.14 16:10:00 - [10]
 

I Have had a look at the figures on SISI for the new system and they are massively different. I am using the same planet in the same 0.0 system on sisi and TQ and this is what i get.

TQ setup 4 extractors in 5 hours will extract 31000 Aqueous Liquids each giving around 122,000 units in 5 hours.

Sisi - 1 extractor control unit with 10 heads on the same planet will extract between 126-130 per head per hour meaning 1300 per hour and 6500 units for 5 hours.

Also its not just a case of deploying more control units as it seems only possible to deploy 2 control units with 10 heads each on an advanced command centre before you run out of power grid.

Did i miss something ? or are they actually being serious with these figures ?


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.14 16:50:00 - [11]
 

Well, I got my Windows SiSi client going so…

Right now, my test cluster of 5× Base Metal extractors set to 15 min cycles/5 hour depletion gives me on average 1600 units/cycle or 32k for the entire depletion cycle (160,000 for the entire cluster before depletion).

The same setup (only with 5 extraction heads tied to a single ECU, in place of the 5 old extractors) in the same location on the same planet (which shows the exact same heatmap) on SiSi gives me a yield of 2,855 units for the entire ECU after 5 hours. In other words, my 5-head ECU gives me less than one tenth the total yield of a single extractor on TQ.

That's a reduction of 56× — even worse than in the previous builds(!).

…and as the above posts show, this seems to be a universal decline in the yields, not some kind of sec-status balancing (and my test planet sits in a 0.4 system anyway), so unless they vastly increase the yields as we get closer to release, I would suggest hoarding many months worth of PI products…

I would imagine that they're aiming for long programs, and that instead of going in to RSI yourself restarting all those extractors, you're meant to go in and restart the program early, thus only getting the yummy head of the curve, but that doesn't work at the moment. It starts far too low and falls off far too sharply for that to be an option.

Optimising the setup above for long cycles and early termination only increased the 5h-yield to 5,138 units… it's not quite twice as much, but still some 155,000 units short of what TQ offers at the moment. Instead of 906 units the first cycle, I got 1189 (and the cycle was twice as long)… not nearly enough to make the "long plan cut short" strategy work.

StrawberryPocky
Posted - 2010.10.14 17:25:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Tippia
That's a reduction of 56× — even worse than in the previous builds(!).


It is pretty drastic a reduction. I'm going to have to assume that this can't be right or intended. With two-three heads the very best I could pull from a fairly abundant 0.0 world was 7500 units in 14 days. With a careful setup (hitting several different streams in different locations from one ECU) I could get almost 10k materials in 14 days.
Thats enough cycles to make ONE batch of P1 material... In two weeks.

What really makes it *pointless* at the moment is the way the graphs do their diminishing returns - its far, far too drastic. On a 14 day cycle it starts at around 550 units for the first cycle and the last thirty odd are for 15 units. FIFTEEN UNITS? I pull in 97.5% of the total in the first four days, then spend the other nine just picking up the last 2.5%.

This cannot be what CCP intends.

For what its worth CCP, the ECU is a great idea, the drastic diminishing returns and the obscene power-usage is not. I ought to be saving so much power in routing able to locate the ECU next to my base and still mine sources far away - but its crippling.

Has anyone else seen Routing taking a vastly increased amount of Grid or is it just me? Even short level-0 routes now taking almost 1,000 MW.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.14 17:32:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 14/10/2010 17:34:33
Originally by: StrawberryPocky
What really makes it *pointless* at the moment is the way the graphs do their diminishing returns - its far, far too drastic. On a 14 day cycle it starts at around 550 units for the first cycle and the last thirty odd are for 15 units. FIFTEEN UNITS? I pull in 97.5% of the total in the first four days, then spend the other nine just picking up the last 2.5%.

This cannot be what CCP intends.
I can see one way it's intentional: set up a 14-day program, then come back in 1 day and restart it — it would basically be the new way of picking 5h depletion cycles over 96h. By coming back often to an, on the whole, rather lacklustre extraction scheme, you boost the output and only ever get the higher end of that graph.

…but this notion would require the initial spike to be vastly higher than it is right now and/or the drop-off to be slower. The latter is probably to be preferred, or we'll have constantly overloaded routes, even at very high upgrade levels.

As for the ECUs' power usage, maybe I'm missing something, but I got the impression that a single extraction head took as much PG and CPU as an old extractor, and that the ECU itself took as much as well (but you got the first extractor "free"), so if you had the same total number of extraction heads as you currently have extractors, you end up with the same fitting requirements.

StrawberryPocky
Posted - 2010.10.14 17:44:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: StrawberryPocky on 14/10/2010 17:47:30
Originally by: Tippia
As for the ECUs' power usage, maybe I'm missing something, but I got the impression that a single extraction head took as much PG and CPU as an old extractor, and that the ECU itself took as much as well (but you got the first extractor "free"), so if you had the same total number of extraction heads as you currently have extractors, you end up with the same fitting requirements.


I didn't say that the ECUs have greater usage, I said that the routes seem to have greater usage.
Routes = Links in case that wasn't clear, sorry.

On that note; powergrid is definately a problem that its never been for me before.

Since generally routes of similar lengths from TQ appear to be vastly lower in power usage than in the new PI I wonder if this is the reason I can only run so few extracor nodes.

In my TQ setups I run two/three extractors per resource on 0.0 worlds for all 5 resources and all the processors needed to make P3 items in situ. On Sisi I can only run around seven or eight nodes total for all 5 extractors added together after building and routing my processors (Not that I need the processors, it'll take a full month to manufacture P2 goods).

Avoida
Posted - 2010.10.14 20:38:00 - [15]
 

I too have found that I cannot obtain anywhere near the same production with what appears currently on SiSi as I can on TQ. On most of my TQ colonies, I need at most 5 extractors to reach my 6,000 units/hour to feed 2 basic industries and that even provides some excess after 23 hours. The ECUs on SiSi (on the same planets with same heatmaps as TQ someone noted above) the extraction quantities are so low that I was unable to place enough ECUs and extractor heads to output enough materials to feed 2 basic industry facilities nonstop for 23 hours.

Max Crant
Posted - 2010.10.15 16:27:00 - [16]
 

Everyone should take a step back and remember that numbers on sisi are rarely correct when testing new toys... Rolling Eyes
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.15 16:56:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Max Crant
Everyone should take a step back and remember that numbers on sisi are rarely correct when testing new toys... Rolling Eyes
The problem is that this particular new toy is all about the numbers, and can't really be tested without correct ones…

Max Crant
Posted - 2010.10.15 17:43:00 - [18]
 


The problem is that this particular new toy is all about the numbers, and can't really be tested without correct ones…

Unless they've seeded the command centers and opened it up for actual testing we're still getting ahead of ourselves. I agree that testing should begin as soon as possible, but I'm willing to wait for them to let us know when they're ready...Wink

kassie kelmar
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.15 18:14:00 - [19]
 

The new command centres have been seeded and there appears to be no change in the extraction rates from what i experienced on the 13th.

I am concerned at this, if we have to go to low/no sec to do any worthwhile PI at all, then the gankers will just camp the no-low and low-high interface gates, cleaning up on the haulers bringing PI mats into empire. Doing PI in a wormhole is an available option but then you are reliant on the semi random connections to empire which could change at CCP's whim. And no i do not class sitting a tanked capital full of smartbombs on a gate as being in any way shape or form PvP, its pure gankage and it will happen, remember when CCP said no "pirates" would ever be able to afford MOMs? Shortly after that statement there was a pirate corp running around with 4 moms.

The rate changes also raises the barrier level to new pilots trying to move beyond t1 manufacture into t2 manufacture through invention, to be able to invent on a regular requires a pos with a couple of labs, if they have to buy all their pos fuels from market i can't see many having the patience, capital or contacts to maintain it beyond a month or two.

Having tied virtually all t2, POS and sov structures to PI, dropping the extraction rates as we see on Sisi could have a really massive impact on any manufacturing beyond t1.

I also see it as removing available options to pilots, closing niches, making the eve cluster a duller, blander place to exist.

Currently boosting all my PI lines on TQ to gather as much POS fuel as i can before the change, in order to weather it out until theres an extraction rate change.

Istomi
Posted - 2010.10.15 18:45:00 - [20]
 

Did you actually submit the program and recheck? I tested this yesterday and was seeing crappy results, but submitted anyway and got in the 150k+ range for 2 days extraction time with 5 heads.

Solra Wolfe
GunStars
Posted - 2010.10.15 18:50:00 - [21]
 

I think the extraction rates will be tweaked to give similar results, so I don't think we should get all worked up about it.

The icons over the pins have to go though. They don't scale well when zoomed out, and just look like a mess. Perhaps only show them when you mouse-over them.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.15 18:53:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: kassie kelmar
I am concerned at this, if we have to go to low/no sec to do any worthwhile PI at all, then the gankers will just camp the no-low and low-high interface gates, cleaning up on the haulers bringing PI mats into empire.
Oh, don't worry. With the current numbers, it won't be worth-while in lowsec either, and only barely (if you multi-account) in 0.0 Wink


But really, the question to the devs is: what are we supposed to test with the current incarnation? The UI? The extraction? The production lines?

Obviously, the two latter can't be tested now because of the thoroughly unrealistic numbers they're using: extraction is pointless due to that factor 50 reduction in output, and production line designs to make up for this reduction is impossible due to fitting constraints…

…but it would be nice to have CCP comment on this so we can worry about the right things and provide proper feedback on how it's working, because at the moment the only feedback possible is "it's not working".

Borgholio
Minmatar
Quantum Industries
Prime Orbital Systems
Posted - 2010.10.16 06:12:00 - [23]
 

The survey screen is simply wrong, the numbers when you click on the ECU are far more accurate. Using those numbers, I wanted to see how the correct extraction rate compares to TQ. For this test I set up colonies on TQ and Sisi as identical to each other as I could and compared the results:


TQ build:
20x extractors on a highsec world
4 day cycle - Approx 4k per hour, 382k total
23 hour cycle - Approx 14k per hour, 328k total
5 hour cycle - Approx 40k per hour, 200k total
30 minute cycle - Approx 72k per hour, 72k total

Sisi build:
20x extractor heads on a highsec world
14d cycle - 944 per hour, 313k total
4 day cycle (+ or - an hour) - Approx 1.7k per hour, 168k total
23 hour cycle (+ or - half an hour) - Approx 4k per hour, 97k total
5 hour cycle - Approx 3.4k per hour, 16k total
1 hour cycle - Approx 3.3k per hour, 2.4k total


I double checked the numbers for the 5 and 1 hour cycles and yes, they are accurate. So it seems that the hourly rate of return on Sisi ranges from 50% less than TQ on the 4 day cycle down to 5% at the 1 hour cycle. So while not quite as bad as 1/50th as previous posters mentioned...it's still pretty hideous. I find it interesting how the shortest cycles actually give you WORSE hourly numbers than the 1 day cycles...

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.16 18:13:00 - [24]
 

True: it does provide radically different data once you actually start the extraction compared to what the survey screen says. But that only raises more questions: what does the data actually mean? What is it it's showing? How does this translate into actual extraction rates?

Let's compare this image from TQ with this one from the current SiSi build.

The extractors are not in the exact same place, but they do sit in the same hotspot on the same planet on the two servers. They also pull at different rates (the TQ one is at the end of a 5h depletion cycle; the SiSi one is at the beginning of a 24h cycle, since I wanted to test how much you can gain by setting long cycles and only feeding from the beginning spike).

Still…

On TQ:
One extractor pulls 1585 units/15 minutes (31,700 total before depletion), and there are five of them pulling at roughly the same rate — roughly 160k units / 5h for the cluster as a whole.

On SiSi:
  • Problem #1:
    According to the survey screen, five extractors pull in 4,501 units over 24h (187/h)
  • Problems #2 and #3:
    According to the ECU data, the same five extractors pull in 68,495 units over 24h.
  • Problems #4 and #5:
    The ECU screen shows that the routed amount is the same as the first cycle on the survey screen
So what are the problems with this picture?
  1. The survey screen data is completely nonsensical. It shows the same numbers everywhere and is internally consistent, but it's apparently pulling the same amount from five extractors over 24h as three TQ extractors can pull in 15 minutes… apparently a nerf by a factor of 170(!) Granted, some of this can be explained by having a longer and less efficient depletion timer.

  2. With this as an input, the ECU itself shows that it will actually extract 69k units over the same length of time — 15× more than the survey screen. ugh

  3. …still, this is 69k units over 24h compared to the 768k the same setup could yield on TQ — a nerf by a factor of 11 (again, granted, they operate of different cycle lengths so realistically, the TQ output would probably "only" be 480k or 640k… but that's still an order of magnitude more).

  4. There are apparently some logical data connection between the ECU screen and the Survey screen — the extraction amount from the first cycle (not shown because I can only mouse-over one time slice at a time) appears correctly in the routing table… but how on earth does that 1081 units routed after 15 minutes translate into 69k over 24h? It's not a straight 1081 × 96 cycles (that would mean 103,776 units / 24h), so we guess it follows a similar fall-off curve to get a ~30% lower total… but it's also quite apparently not the same fall-off as the survey screen is showing: when it sums up all its cycles, it comes out as the aforementioned 4,501 units.

  5. And finally, why is it showing the first cycle's output in the routing list? Because this is the max load on the route? What happens if I install a different program on the same route 5h down the line? Will the route then consider itself as being under the same peak load, even though the extraction fall-off means it has gone down considerably by then (somewhere in the region of 400 units/h if the survey graph is to be believed)? And will it therefore refuse to accept new, larger, loads even though the pipeline is actually almost entirely clear of traffic?
No matter how you cut it, the survey screen and/or ECU info window are both wonky. The two are operating on vastly different models, and predicting one from the other is out of the question. No matter how you look at the numbers, we currently have an extraction rate cut of somewhere between 10× (best case) and 170× (worst case).

A word to explain what is and isn't working would be nice…

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.17 00:26:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 17/10/2010 00:31:15
As an addendum to the above…

So, 5h later I check back on my test installation, and my only conclusion is this:

Contrary to what Istomi and Borgholio say, for my installation it's the survey screen that tells the truth. 20 cycles in and my launch pad contains just under 4k units, which is exactly what the survey screen says I should have.

The "Total amount left" on the ECU has certainly been reduced by this amount, but this also means that the "Output per cycle" on the ECU is wa-a-ay off (20 cycles × 721 units, if the ECU is to be believed, would have netted me 14,420 units rather than the 4k I actually got — 5h in and I'm 73% short on the expected output). Also, the "Total amount left" quite obviously is not showing how much is left until the current extraction program is depleted.

…nor, apparently, does it show how much is left in the hotspot — restarting the program puts it right back at the original values.

So, in other words, the "Total amount left" is, so far, a completely arbitrary number that apparently doesn't actually measure anything, and the "Output per cycle" — since it is derived from that total amount — is equally nonsensical.

This, in turn, means that, at least for my test installation, I'm back at the point where 5× these newfangled extraction heads gives me 4,000 units over 5 hours, whereas the old 5× extractors would give me 160,000 units during the same period. …and that's even with me trying to optimise a bit and only getting the good, high-yield head of the extraction, and not waiting for the lacklustre tail. A nice nerf of, oh, a factor of 40×.

edit: At least Chronotis has confirmed that these are not the final numbers, but the confusion about what the ECU and the survey screen are showing, and how (if at all) the two sets of numbers are connected still remains.

Ancy Denaries
Posted - 2010.10.21 08:41:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Ancy Denaries on 21/10/2010 08:47:09
That's actually pretty terrible. If these numbers are final (which I doubt), I see myself quitting PI the day Incursion releases.

EDIT: DUH, I'm terrible. Thread with dev reply. Yeah, so numbers aren't final. Good.


 

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