Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 05:35:00 -
[271] - Quote
Alsculard VanHellsing wrote:So far the new CHA is being universally hated by the major entities in W-space. Besides what is listed above and in countless (to me) other posts in this thread on this subject, it creates more problems than it solves. Bareface trolling and an increased potential of corporate interpersonal relation degradation will be the main result of the new CHA. (in its current form) Some anonymous entities is not a valid argument. Please explain how it leads to "bareface trolling" and degradation? |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 05:42:00 -
[272] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Rand McKikas wrote:If it has to be put up as a corp item, (player item hangar ) then I think directors should have access to everything, if you don't trust your leadership you should find a different corp.... plus having to waste stuff because someone quits is just bad "Trusting your leadership" ended badly quite a few times in the past, I'll be damned before I trust anyone with anything when it comes to EVE. Happens every time people are forced into communism. More options for capitalism, please. Personal hangars as a guarantee of private property is a right decision. Also want to implement a market on my POS. |
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 05:42:00 -
[273] - Quote
I have to agree with many of the posts here. There should be some way for ceo's, directors, or corp members with some certain role to be able to move items to and from other people's hangar bays.
On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable. It also greatly decreases the chances of them continuing their subscription. I had one corp member who was with us for the better part of a year, left for a few months, returned, and, because he had been dropped from corp while he wasn't playing, lost the expensive ship he had logged out in to our own automatic POS guns. He stopped playing shortly after that and has not returned. Imagine how much this would be amplified if someone returns to find out all the items they've been collecting in their WH home are now gone.
Now, of course this happens currently when a corp theft happens, and when the POS is attacked. But, there's a key difference here. Currently, the person to blame is the corp thief, or the attacking force. But, with the change, the person to blame for all your stuff being lost would be the corp CEO or directors. You're the one that took down the POS. If you don't want to destroy people's stuff, you'd have to keep up old POSs indefinitely, making moving or changing POS models prohibitively expensive.
I don't want to be forced to decide between preserving billions of isk worth of my corp member's items, and moving to a new system so that my corporation can grow and thrive.
My corp has lived in quite a number of different wormhole systems over the years, and every time we've moved, we've hauled everyone's stuff out and saved it for them, whether they were currently active or not. |
Hitoni Jaynara
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 06:04:00 -
[274] - Quote
Here is one thing that I havent seen (I will admit that I didnt read ALL of the thread) - allowing the ability to have super-capitals stored in lo-sec/wh areas. With that ability (mainly in lo-sec), wouldnt it be easier for the large, null-sec alliances to move closer into high-sec by denying acess to the lo-sec area for people who arent in those alliances? I dont know about you, but this fills me with dread - giving the ability to these alliances to "take over" another part of EVE is an even more dreadfull idea and limits exploration for everyone.
Just my badly worded ha-pennies worth there. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 06:10:00 -
[275] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable. 1. You can always choose to never anchor a new PHA, only use CHA. 2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc. 3. You're a CEO, damn it, not a baby-sitter. If corpmates connot care for themselves and their property - should you care? If you choose to be a baby-sitter though, you have an option #1.
PS: I bet that player who lost his tengu to POS guns whould have quit anyway. |
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 06:37:00 -
[276] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable. 1. You can always choose to never anchor a new PHA, only use CHA.
That's another way of saying "your corp can never have more than 13 members". This change would let us do away with that restriction. I'd rather like to finally be able to grow my corp above this arbitrary limit we've had to live with so far.
Sinzor Aumer wrote: 2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc.
I wasn't talking about evacuation due to being attacked. I was talking about moving to a wormhole system that better suits the needs of our corp members.
Also, you seem to have missed the part where I stated:
Now, of course this happens currently when a corp theft happens, and when the POS is attacked. But, there's a key difference here. Currently, the person to blame is the corp thief, or the attacking force. But, with the change, the person to blame for all your stuff being lost would be the corp CEO or directors. You're the one that took down the POS.
Additionally recall that I was trying to prove the following point:
this change will lead to "corporate interpersonal relation degradation"
Sinzor Aumer wrote: 3. You're a CEO, damn it, not a baby-sitter. If corpmates connot care for themselves and their property - should you care? If you choose to be a baby-sitter though, you have an option #1.
We have always been a corp where RL comes first. If something happens in RL that pulls you away from EVE for weeks, or months, we want our members to know that their stuff will still be there when they come back, even if you had to stop playing suddenly, with no time to prepare in game.
And, as for option #1, well, I don't want to be limited to 13 members.
Sinzor Aumer wrote:PS: I bet that player who lost his tengu to POS guns whould have quit anyway.
It wasn't a tengu, and while he may have left anyway, this occurrence increased the chances of him leaving quite a bit. Seems to me that CCP wouldn't really want to alienate returning paying subscribers. |
Gelatine
EverBroke Geeks
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 06:48:00 -
[277] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I can confirm that we're not removing CHAs, the Personal Hangar structure is a separate structure and the two can exist alongside each other to meet different needs.
Letting directors and/or CEOs access the member's sections of the PHA is not going to be within our scope for the first iteration due to technical limitations, and I am honestly not sold on ever adding it. These structures are not intended to completely replace CHAs for all purposes, and the added difficulty to rapid evacuation provides slightly more incentive for wormhole invasions.
The Personal Hangar does not have any limits to total storage, which significantly reduces the amount of management that needs to be done to keep it running smoothly.
And a reminder once again, we are not allowing people to build supercaps in wormholes or lowsec, don't worry.
This is probably the best news I've read regarding EVE for a very long time. Thanks CCP and CSM7
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 07:16:00 -
[278] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: 2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc.
I wasn't talking about evacuation due to being attacked. I was talking about moving to a wormhole system that better suits the needs of our corp members. "Any reasons" was exactly as I said. EVE is a dark cold place, let me repeat that.
"13 members" - while role system is bad, it's not that bad.
Anyway, I have a solution for your type of corporation ("go play kids, daddy is always there to bail you out"). When a corpmate returns, and finds out he've lost all his hard-earned pixels - he's upset, no doubt. But then you send a corp mail: "Let's help him all we can, cause we're one family!" Folks a glad to help, they stockpile some isk. When presented, he says with tears of tender emotion: "So nice of you guys, but I cannot accept this. Let those isk go to the corp wallet to help our friendly family to prosper even greater!" Everybody happy. And I'm not trolling, even if it may seem so. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 07:52:00 -
[279] - Quote
Seems to have been some love for this post - any chance it could get a response from Fozzie or Masterplan?
|
Alsculard VanHellsing
The Dark Space Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:05:00 -
[280] - Quote
So far all the posts from my last to this one seems to continue to support what I have written. Even the counter arguments have done nothing more than reinforce it. The prospect of just having the mod available and corp denying the use of them will contribute highly to potential corp dissent. It is a lose/ lose situation in that regard. The base of the mod and the arguments to support it have been about the individual however, it is being placed in a small (compared to a station or outpost) corporate based field. The attention needed either on the fly and/or a daily basis for a w-space pos precludes a complete hands off approach. For those that read the 1st post, it was a synopsis and analysis of all the previous posts to that point. Again, more in overlords and beyond have rejected this as a good intention but it will cause more problems for w-space corps than what it will solve. |
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:34:00 -
[281] - Quote
As a small portion of the community I got to say this is great to hear, planning for living in wormholes is back on the table
Regarding CCPgames expectation management towards it's paying customers about many features in the past, IF I was making promises at my company without delivering or delivering in time or as stated, I would be fired a long time ago. Chris Roberts - I think the CCP guys did a very nice job, what they do on eve online, but it is not the style of game the first person visceral-áWing Commander, Privateer, Freelancer style (was).
Scource:-áhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU#t=16m35s |
Kamil Kamilov
Terrelian Republic.
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:34:00 -
[282] - Quote
Please do so that we could bring to the village anchored another corporation or breaking Pos anchored by hacking! |
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
423
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:36:00 -
[283] - Quote
If you get the personal SMA working this will be an awesome expansion :) If not however, the most important part will be missing.
There is a major problem with the planned new personal storage system though. Almost every serious player has alts, especially wormhole players. Many alts in fact. We usually keep all our stuff in one place where all our alts can access it because the same roles are granted to all alts of a player. But with the new system each character will have its own storage and no other character can take stuff from it. What this means is that if I deploy my main to another wormhole and then want to get one of my ships with one of my other chars, I can't because my main was the one who stored it in the SMA.
This will be a huge problem and will in fact force me to continue keeping all but the most expensive stuff in general storage.
Please consider other options and make them work if at all possible, like: Grant access to personal storage for other characters based on PERSONAL standing. This way we could set our alts or trusted friends to excellent standing and they could access our storage but no one else could. . |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
251
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:58:00 -
[284] - Quote
Very nice first pass.
2 teams on it? I guess you guys decided it's a bigger priority than it sounded like you thought it was before that threadnaught on the topic.
I'm sure many will appreciate these first steps. |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
86
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:59:00 -
[285] - Quote
Unfortunately the priority of the corp hangars is higher than the prio for the ship hangars.
Personal ship hangars would be much more important for us as a wormhole corp since they hold much higher value stuff.
|
Nalha Saldana
Sickology
701
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 09:29:00 -
[286] - Quote
I find it quite silly that you can get more storage by having more alts, its a cheap solution from ccp tbh.
Another way to design personal hangars would be to make a hangar with say 20 x 10k m3 hangars and have a ui where you can enter character names in rows. If you want to give more storage to someone you enter their names in more then one field, their storage is simply increased by 10k for each row. |
Celestis Kudzu
Grimlock Technologies
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 09:35:00 -
[287] - Quote
Maybe u introduce bigger arrays ?
building ammo in 20 arrays really sux
access in pos shield help but it will still stupid
secound why we can`t invent / produce more jobs at once ?
|
Max Teranous
THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:38:00 -
[288] - Quote
Sup,
I like the design on the personal hangers, the only change i would suggest is that rather have the unanchoring outright destroy everything in it, instead it drops some of the contents on unanchoring like loot in the same way as if the PSH had been destroyed.
What will happen with the current design is that if a POS needs to be moved or whatever, it's better for the owner to shoot the PSH themselves and at least get some of the contents back than unanchor it and definitely have all the contents destroyed if there's a few corp members that can't long in. (let's face it this always happens lol) It seems cockeyed for the design to encourage such behavior. |
Qual
Cornexant Research Sleeping Dragons
18
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:43:00 -
[289] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:I find it quite silly that you can get more storage by having more alts, its a cheap solution from ccp tbh.
Another way to design personal hangars would be to make a hangar with say 20 x 10k m3 hangars and have a ui where you can enter character names in rows. If you want to give more storage to someone you enter their names in more then one field, their storage is simply increased by 10k for each row.
Its hard to satify everyone. I'll rather take cheap solution NOW than a slightly better one in 12 months.... |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
877
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:50:00 -
[290] - Quote
I do think that ceos / directors should be able to take out of wormhole hangers, but with a rule, when items are taken from a hanger a notification should be issued to their owner.
Half the problem with CHAs isn't just that people can take things out, it's that there's little if no way to keep things separated once inside a particular division. The upcoming changes take a significant amount of pain out of the separation woes, but put people in a position of potentially losing all their stuff if they so much as take a weekend break or fall ill for a few days (RF Mode time).
So, IMO, it needs the option for "trusted" parties to extract all the assets. |
|
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:57:00 -
[291] - Quote
Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2406
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:06:00 -
[292] - Quote
Alternative implementation of personal hangars:
- implement titles as selectable roles in POS structure access management (we need to separate POS management roles from hangar access, really)
- increase the number of divisions per CHA to something reasonable, 12, 16, 24 or whatever
- everyone with correct title to access a CHA can set a password for a div
- CEOs and directors can override this password, or if easier, enable a master password
- same kind of divisions in SMAs
This would allow alts or even friends sharing hangars, and giving temp access to your stuff to someone else when needed. Password would cling to your pod, like POS pwd.
Separating CHA and SMA access from Starbase Fuel Tech and Config Sbase Equipment is really the most important thing we need, and having titles as roles would achieve this.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:06:00 -
[293] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:put people in a position of potentially losing all their stuff if they so much as take a weekend break or fall ill for a few days That's why you dont want to store all your stuff in a personal hangar. The choice between CHA and PHA is not obvious, and as stated by Fozzie, it's intentional. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5064
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:16:00 -
[294] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved.
Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:19:00 -
[295] - Quote
Could we have some answers for those questions?
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Q1: Will we be able to research and/or copy blueprints from our personal storages?
Q2: Can we issue contracts from/to our personal storages?
Q3: I didnt understand the reasons behind CSMA changes, could anyone explain?
Feature request: market facility. A director creates a list of trade-able goods, with prices. Any corp-mate can sell those goods to get isk from corp wallet, or can buy some. Goods are stored in a CHA tab, which is linked to the market facility. No orders are seen on a regular market, the interface looks more like a POCO. You cannot over-estimate that feature. It would make running corporate projects (including, but not limited to idustry) so much more efficient! Did you ever try to organize a mining operation with fair rewards? What about T2 or T3 production chain? Almost impossible, unless all of your corpmates are your own alts. Do it please - it's a rather simple feature that would incredibly tighten connections within corporation, solidifying community.
|
brinelan
The Flying Dead
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:25:00 -
[296] - Quote
How feasible would it be to be able to use a corp hanger (or the new personal hanger) or even some new R&D array for all inputs and outputs for all manufacturing and research jobs in pos arrays?
Also, having the ability for the preference settings like input and output location to be saved like they can with sell order creation.
Another annoyance is you start a job from array X, why do we then have to select that array as the first step to creating the job, why not just have it auto select the array and the input location that your blueprint etc was in when you right clicked it? It always seemed odd that I had to tell it to use the array for the job when that is where my blueprint was to begin with.
Otherwise, the changes in the blog look good and I hope they all make it to release, especially the one where you can use arrays from anywhere in the pos shields. Moving the big ships around a pos and trying not to get hung up on stuff is annoying, and having a bunch of bookmarks to the various arrays gets messy. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:32:00 -
[297] - Quote
Private Starbase Arrays --
make director access parallel current access to member hangars at stations with offices.
That is allow directors to drop but not take items into private hangars.
Not allowing drops into private hangars can however make distribution of secured corp items (e.g. ammo) to individual players unnecessarily difficult. The most likely workarounds are mandatory logon overlap between directors and each member to receive items. OR setup unsecured areas or cans where less privilege members are simply trusted to take their items only...which takes us back to where we are NOW in many ways.
If you think fumbling items into private hangar space instead of corporate space is more likely at POS - then put a default popup warning which can be disabled by the user.
Frankly I can see NO drawback to allowing directors to drop items into personal hangars. Any issue with undesired items and overflow can be solved on the private members next access where they can just jetcan the unwanted stuff ... or politely drop it back in shared corp hangar areas. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:33:00 -
[298] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved. Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge.
A checkbox poll on every POS mod! |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:49:00 -
[299] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved.
Same problem I envisioned myself, at least directors or the CEO should be given a way to move stuff to a new location. Hell, it would even be good enough to have a shinkwrapped item out of any personal hangar if need be, so nobody can use it but can only move it to the new location so the owner can unwrap it once he's back. but destroying all the stuff (presumably valuable stuff if it's in the personal hangar) if you need to relocate is plain dumb. I'd never put my personal stuff in a place where it gets blown up if the tower needs to be relocated for any reason, due to the constant danger and the shifting needs of WH life that's going to happen sooner or later. |
Seatox
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:55:00 -
[300] - Quote
Is the current PoS code as truly awful as rumor has it? Someone should keep an eye on CCP Masterplan, lest he end up in a padded cell somewhere scribbling "POS = PIECE OF SKYNET IT ALL FITS HAHAHA" on the walls in crayon. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |