EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-04-16 15:42
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 14:03
  • Number of Posts: 1,125
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

CCP Greyscale

Security Status 0.0
  • C C P Member since
  • C C P Alliance Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • The case against Thera in EVE Communication Center

    I am totally sold on this argument.

    Thera is cancelled! Next stop: deleting Syndicate and Providence.

  • [Dev Blog] Phoebe Travel Change Update in EVE Information Center

    Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.

  • Sov changes , when we will get next dev blog. in EVE Communication Center

    Nothing substantial coming in Rhea, I'm afraid; more information as the things we're working on become ready for public viewing.

  • Jump fatigue and jump clones - information wanted! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Looking like a big fat "nope" then. Until we find some actual evidence to the contrary, I think we're going to work on the assumption that this exploit never existed in the first place.

    (Of course, if this is wrong and we discover it does exist and people are using it, their names will be passed on to the relevant people in Customer Support as usual.)

    Thanks everyone!
    -Greyscale

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Thereon Tripel wrote:
    Cap booster 25, 75 and 100's all take 4:00 to build, cap booster 50's take 8:00 to build. Is this an error?

    Cheers


    Believe this has been broken since Crius; already fixed internally :)

    It's already in the patch notes:
    Patch notes for Phoebe 1.3 wrote:
    Cap Booster 50 blueprints have had their job times halved and max runs doubled, and should now be in line with Cap Booster 25s.

    But it's not actually fixed yet. Unless they need to be doubled / halved again.


    Yeah, I missed a step needed for it to be deployed, sorry.

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Thereon Tripel wrote:
    Cap booster 25, 75 and 100's all take 4:00 to build, cap booster 50's take 8:00 to build. Is this an error?

    Cheers


    Believe this has been broken since Crius; already fixed internally :)

  • Jump fatigue and jump clones - information wanted! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hey everyone,

    When we relased Phoebe last week, there was a fair amount of discussion about a possible exploit whereby jump-cloning would reset your fatigue timers.

    Has anyone here actually experienced this themselves?

    We're aware of the original report on EN24, quoting an alliance internal forum post, and we're aware of lots of people claiming they know of other people who've been using it. We're not aware of anyone who claims to have used it themselves, though.

    However, we tested this extensively before release; we retested it extensively once reports started surfacing; and we've gone over the code again to figure out how it could be happening. Thus far we have not managed to reproduce the behavior described at any point, and the code path involved is sufficiently simple that there's no clear way that it could ever have happened.

    We do know of some (now-fixed) issues that would occasionally cause the fatigue timer to no longer display, but these would not prevent the jump restrictions from functioning - they were just display/UI issues.

    Further, we are now seeing people state that "CCP fixed it", which raises further questions given that we've not changed that code at all since releasing it in Phoebe.

    Therefore, we're asking here if anyone has actually experienced actually executing a jump when they should be prevented by timers, so that we can establish whether this exploit actually ever existed, as we'd quite like to get to the bottom of it.

    Thanks,
    -Greyscale, on behalf of Team Game of Drones

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Sophos Mileghere wrote:
    Quite a few people have mentioned in here about attributes not being applied in training, I have exactly the same problem where skills are training at lower rate than they should. How come this has not been commented on by CCP?

    <------------ EDIT ----------->

    Something is wrong here. I used the equation (assuming it has not changed) ( SP_Needed - Current_SP ) / ( Primary_Attribute + ( Secondary_Attribute / 2 ) )

    I've manually calculated skills in my skill queue and it adds up. Example, Caldari Cruiser 5 (Perception 31, Willpower 21)

    (1280000-292656 )/( 31+( 21/2))=16.5 days and sp/hr of 2430 <--- this is actually correct!

    All third party apps that pull the my data through API are suggesting 2130 sp/hr and a training time of 19d 7h which would be correct if augmentations were not being applied.

    Has something intentionally changed in the API or are all third party apps broken since Phoebe?


    Yup, API changed, so third-party apps that haven't been updated will report training times without implants. See here for more info: https://developers.eveonline.com/blog/article/jump-clones-implants-skills-and-more

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Arcy Tander wrote:
    I don't have time to go through this whole thread, and maybe I just don't know how to use the search option - but has CCP commented on the way that making blueprint copies now works?

    The data sheet demand increased to to the point where it is cheaper to buy new blue prints for many items at this point. And that doesn't make sense. If they wanted to limit ship copies that's all fine IMO, but they've impacted a lot of smaller items too.

    Anyway, if there is an official reply saying "we're looking at it" or "oops we'll fix it" - and someone can point me to it, I'd appreciate it.


    Should've been fixed during downtime today, I believe.

  • Phoebe Feedback in EVE Information Center

    William Ruben wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

    I don't believe this is an intended feature of Phoebe. If they're still missing after a relog, I'd suggest filing a petition.

    Thanks for the reply. It might be an API issue with EVEMon; I'm on the road at present but will check when I get home.


    Oh, right. Yeah, that's probably broken, we changed the implant API format so everything that's not been updated won't read implants properly. I thought you meant they were actually missing ingame, rather than in a 3rd party app :)

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Makkuro Tatsu wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    It should be in tomorrow's build, barring unforeseen circumstances, I'm just hedging to avoid being told tomorrow that I "promised" it would go in that build and then something happening to prevent that :)

    Yeah. Just goes to show that in your position you not only have to be a game designer but also a politician. Which probably explains why you completely failed to comment on my question about reimbursement. Hint, hint. Bear


    Yes, exactly.

  • Phoebe Feedback in EVE Information Center

    Primary This Rifter wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Primary This Rifter wrote:
    So you should probably do something about capital ships bumping each other when they're coming out of warp onto gates, or coming out of gate cloak.


    There's really no good solution for an arbitrarily large number of titans trying to use a gate that doesn't end up getting pretty silly. We're currently operating on the assumption that player groups who can deploy large number of capitals have the skill and EVE knowledge to figure out how to mitigate these issues themselves.

    Nothing we can really do to avoid bumping out of gate cloak, or bumping on landing at a gate.

    You want capitals to take gates, so it's your responsibility to make sure we can actually do that without bouncing all over the ******* place and making it more awful than it already is.


    Yes there is.

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Makkuro Tatsu wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Update: just removed Reports requirement for copying all Construction Component and Advanced Capital Construction Component blueprints, and Data Sheets requirement for copying all Rig blueprints. Rolling this out to TQ as soon as practicable.

    Thanks for removing Reports as a requirement, that's a good decision. However, does the last sentence imply that the necessary fix will not be rolled out tomorrow? Actually, how about reimbursing industrialists for the lost days caused by CCP "fixing" (cough, cough) the underlying mechanic in Phoebe 1.0 without thinking the consequences through? Roll


    It should be in tomorrow's build, barring unforeseen circumstances, I'm just hedging to avoid being told tomorrow that I "promised" it would go in that build and then something happening to prevent that :)

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Update: just removed Reports requirement for copying all Construction Component and Advanced Capital Construction Component blueprints, and Data Sheets requirement for copying all Rig blueprints. Rolling this out to TQ as soon as practicable.

  • Phoebe Feedback in EVE Information Center

    WurstFlunze wrote:
    While I am completely good with the Jump Fatigue itself I strongly disagree to have it when using a player build jump bridge. If This is completely ridiculous. A JB is mostly a player build stargate. Its kind of essential when owning SOV in order to make logistics happen. Also this is essential to defend the own space, at least your constellation and/or region you live in. Keep in mind it requires a lot to build and keep a JB running. You making it obsolete with that changes!

    REMOVE THIS. You nerved it already. Please don't **** it up completely. There are borders how far you can change things without making people completely mad.

    Same goes with bombers. You had to step back from your complete 'balance' (you call it that when you break things). Make some adjustments, fix your code, refactor it but dont make people mad by changing everything. Just remember who pays your bill and you do things FOR your customers...

    Thank you.


    Haulers all get a large fatigue reduction bonus, so logistics should not be impacted too strongly. What ship were you trying to haul stuff around in?

  • Phoebe Feedback in EVE Information Center

    Milla Goodpussy wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Mr Omniblivion wrote:
    That must have been some serious data in favor of drone usage on Rorquals to keep that drone bonus instead of a 10ly max range.

    Right, Greyscale?


    Been busy, will revisit when I have time.




    busy with what? you have rorqual fatigue now?


    Shipping Phoebe, mainly, and also further nullsec-related planning.

    Primary This Rifter wrote:
    So you should probably do something about capital ships bumping each other when they're coming out of warp onto gates, or coming out of gate cloak.


    There's really no good solution for an arbitrarily large number of titans trying to use a gate that doesn't end up getting pretty silly. We're currently operating on the assumption that player groups who can deploy large number of capitals have the skill and EVE knowledge to figure out how to mitigate these issues themselves.

    William Ruben wrote:
    So was I supposed to have lost all my +3 attribute implants? And was the 150k I received supposed to compensate for the nearly 60 million they cost?


    I don't believe this is an intended feature of Phoebe. If they're still missing after a relog, I'd suggest filing a petition.

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Bora Vyvorant wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Following up on this, does anyone see a problem with just stripping reports as a required material for copying Construction Component Blueprints and Advanced Capital Construction Component Blueprints? (Note that this does NOT include Capital Construction Component Blueprints, which anyway don't require them.)

    Obviously the requirements are too high right now, but when we started asking "why are they there at all?", we couldn't see a significant justification for them, and given that they're sold by NPCs for less than 30 ISK a unit, it doesn't seem like a significant impact on costs either way. This fix would roll out on Thursday unless there are major objections.

    Any chance you can take a look at the requirement for Data Sheets in blueprint copies for small rigs at the same time? The way things are today, you need three of these things per run. As well as the cost and inconvenience of acquiring large numbers of these, given that a Data Sheet is 1m3, three of them are 60% the volume of the item you're going to produce.


    Will have a look at this too, thanks.

    Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Obviously the requirements are too high right now, but when we started asking "why are they there at all?", we couldn't see a significant justification for them, and given that they're sold by NPCs for less than 30 ISK a unit, it doesn't seem like a significant impact on costs either way. This fix would roll out on Thursday unless there are major objections.


    Soo, what your saying is, at some point in your production meetings for this release you all though, "hey i know, lets increase this material input requirement without telling anybody...that sounds like a great plan!".....yet somehow, you now are saying, that after meeting, you aren't even sure why this requirement is there? Shouldn't that have come up in the initial meetings about increasing it?


    No, you're misunderstanding the chain of events. We didn't change the quantities of reports at all, we just changed the way the code uses those quantities, so it requires the desired amount once per run rather than once per job. One of the side-effects of this is that report usage is through the roof, so we're throttling that back.

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Juff Lumsk wrote:
    After jumping through a Jump Bridge the Jump Fatique timer and the Reactivation timer comes up.
    When hovering over Jump Fatique timer - a text box comes up. It states the time of reactivation in the bottom of the text, that doesn't match up with the separate Reactivation Icon.




    The text *should* say "Your next jump reactivation timer will be:"; this is the length that your *next* timer will be if you jump right now, not the length of the current timer (which is visible in the other tooltip).

    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Makkuro Tatsu wrote:
    CCP Claymore wrote:
    This was a defect we fixed for Phoebe. Input materials should be required when increasing the number of 'JOB RUNS' or increasing the number of 'RUNS PER COPY'.

    So you are saying it now works as designed while it did not work as designed before Phoebe? That the immense number of reports required (and the cost for them) is deliberate?


    The functionality is working as intended; we're looking into the balance right now :)


    Following up on this, does anyone see a problem with just stripping reports as a required material for copying Construction Component Blueprints and Advanced Capital Construction Component Blueprints? (Note that this does NOT include Capital Construction Component Blueprints, which anyway don't require them.)

    Obviously the requirements are too high right now, but when we started asking "why are they there at all?", we couldn't see a significant justification for them, and given that they're sold by NPCs for less than 30 ISK a unit, it doesn't seem like a significant impact on costs either way. This fix would roll out on Thursday unless there are major objections.

  • Phoebe Feedback in EVE Information Center

    Mr Omniblivion wrote:
    That must have been some serious data in favor of drone usage on Rorquals to keep that drone bonus instead of a 10ly max range.

    Right, Greyscale?


    Been busy, will revisit when I have time.

  • Phoebe Issues in EVE Information Center

    Makkuro Tatsu wrote:
    CCP Claymore wrote:
    This was a defect we fixed for Phoebe. Input materials should be required when increasing the number of 'JOB RUNS' or increasing the number of 'RUNS PER COPY'.

    So you are saying it now works as designed while it did not work as designed before Phoebe? That the immense number of reports required (and the cost for them) is deliberate?


    The functionality is working as intended; we're looking into the balance right now :)