Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3381
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 13:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello people,
As you know it by now, we are focusing on industry for summer and bringing significant mechanic and UI changes to this feature as a whole.
There is one specific point we wish to receive your feedback on, which is assembly line settings.
Those settings (which are illustrated here) serve to control cost and access to POS / outpost industry lines.
We are thinking of streamlining this a bit by removing character and corporation security settings, which don't seem used that much in the first place.
We are also not certain of the usefulness of the "good standing discount %" and "bad standing surcharge %" entries since player groups usually do not want to allow access to such lines to their enemies in the first place. But we could be missing something.
Do you have any use for character and corporation security options? How useful is the good / bad standing surcharge options to you / your corporation / your alliance? Anything else you would like to change, add or remove on these settings?
Thanks for your time - and see you at Fanfest for those attending. |
|
Chandoraa
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 13:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
first |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7127
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 13:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
there is nobody in nullsec ever who has cared about restricting their stations based on security status: those should go away Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Kagehisa Shintaro
We Make Weapons Northern Associates.
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 13:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
I could be way off the bat here but there isn't a need for a Security setting for using lines. But with the changes coming to Manufacturing I can see some Corporations downsizing their POS outlay somewhat. So the ability to perhaps (through Titles/Roles) set it so that people within a certain group in your Corp can operate the lines with priority over people not in that group might be useful.
For example, if we as a corp are building Dreadnoughts, and we use (currently 4) Component Assembly Arrays in our POS to build the parts, I would want those Corp members who are actively involved in building Corporate Dreads to have first use or reduced cost use of the lines, over someone in the Corp who is building a Dread to sell for personal profit.
I don't think that directly relates to security or standing settings atm, so apologies if it's way off the mark. But I think some way of managing Assembly Lines (or Labratory Slots) on Starbases is needed. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1351
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 13:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
providence probably wants to talk to you about this. GRRR Goons |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 13:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kagehisa Shintaro wrote:I could be way off the bat here but there isn't a need for a Security setting for using lines. But with the changes coming to Manufacturing I can see some Corporations downsizing their POS outlay somewhat. So the ability to perhaps (through Titles/Roles) set it so that people within a certain group in your Corp can operate the lines with priority over people not in that group might be useful.
For example, if we as a corp are building Dreadnoughts, and we use (currently 4) Component Assembly Arrays in our POS to build the parts, I would want those Corp members who are actively involved in building Corporate Dreads to have first use or reduced cost use of the lines, over someone in the Corp who is building a Dread to sell for personal profit.
I don't think that directly relates to security or standing settings atm, so apologies if it's way off the mark. But I think some way of managing Assembly Lines (or Labratory Slots) on Starbases is needed.
This, but also for stations and then applied to diffrent corperations instead of raw standings. Coz everyon ehas the same standign in an alliance and you cant differentiate between.
My corp owns a station and i want all our alt corps to have no tax on that, but **** the rest of the alliance basicly :D |
Nicholas Aideronne
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 13:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
Reddit user Nuadi said the following;
"Can't post on the forums, so hopefully this gets back to them somehow. If they would make the lines open to the public, I could see a tower setup for public use where the good/bad standings are part of the service. However, I'd make the standings Good/Excellent. I don't think a bad standing surcharge is very useful since you'll simply block them from use anyway using the min standing setting. I'd gut the security settings since that's not in control of the tower owner (e.g. I can't control that you've ganked people). Leave access control to standings settings."
Thought I'd help him in getting his message to the forums.
And my thoughts on it are that this looks pretty awesome. As leadership of a rather large corporation that accomadates newbies I think this will really help our newbies be able to take full advantage of our "public" production POSes.
I'd also hope that along with this POS production update we can get something of the like for invention, and copying, or producing from a public BPO. Something that would keep the BPOs and BPCs only in the hands of those with roles to access them but usable for production, copying, invention, material research, or time efficiency. We've tried this in the past but we could find no combination of measures currently in-game that'd allow this without the possibility of the jobs being shut down by other users or blueprints being stolen. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
373
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
I don't agree that standard charges like assembly line / research fees can be discounted by station holding corporations. Where does the money come from to pay for the discount? The same applies to station repair fees, it makes no sense that players can repair for free in captured outposts. Who pays for the replacement parts and the workload? |
Kagehisa Shintaro
We Make Weapons Northern Associates.
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Just to clarify, when I mentioned a reduced cost for certain members in my Corp, it was more aimed at allowing me to set a Tax on using the Corporate Starbase and then allowing that Tax be set based on Titles/Roles.
|
Drake Ichosira
ForgeFire Industries Aegis Requiem
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think that the roles should be redone as well as the interface. I would like to see it whereyou can see the jobs being run and directors and slot managers can cancel jobs being done in pos structures but you dont need permissions to use them |
|
Hoarr
TYR. Exodus.
176
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
While those current options aren't widely used now, I'm not sure that removing them is the best option. Doing so severely hampers the (however remote) possibility of free-trade zones in the future. If I'm not completely mistaken, it appears to me that CCP is trying to encourage more small entities to move into null-sec. Allowing people to set up small fiefdoms and set standings to their bloc overlords to encourage some of the bloc industrials to build in their stations by setting up favorable tax rates. It could also be used by the same blocs to set up their own hubs by telling people that they can build wherever they like, but if they do it in these specific systems they won't pay any tax to do so. Just because the systems currently in place in the game don't support a lot of nullsec manufacturing and research doesn't mean that they won't in the future and it seems to me like an overabundance of industrials in null sec is a problem that CCP WANTS to have in the future.
I guess the real questions is what is the specific purpose that you want to achieve by taking away those options? Do you feel that the interface is too cluttered? Do you feel that those options are intrinsically "bad"? Is it just streamlining the window by removing unused options? |
Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
85
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ideally:
Security can be disregarded. It factors into bugger all within a corporation/alliance setting.
Allowing use to be public would be great - except that the way you've set things up means no office to starbase usage, diminishing 99% of potential there. No one is going to use my starbase for their research and manufacture when they cannot even reach it.
Otherwise, the best system [for non alliance/corp] really would be to go similar to how customs offices are set up, with variable rates for all those standings. As much of the industry changes are working on % of product, the lines can be taxed at % as well.
Finally, being able to set % prices by role within corp and by corp within alliance would be grand.
|
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
392
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
Station settings for assembly lines are so archaic, rigid, useless, and undocumented that dealing it with has been a complete and utter headache. I say this is as one of the people runs the executor corp in Brothers of Tangra, which owns 111 outposts that service hundreds and hundreds of corps both in and out of the alliance. Thanks in advance for addressing this issue.
Instead of suggesting what modifications we'd like to see made to that particular existing UI, I will list what overall changes I would like to be made in the hopes that it will help guide you.
- Security status restrictions and bad standing discharge is useless for the vast majority of null but you should wait to hear feedback from Providence station holders as some of them RP as anti-pirates. Also some of their stations have allowed bad standing characters to dock and use services (so it's still feasible albeit unlikely they'd want to use assembly lines) - I would like to have the ability to block out particular corps (or conversely only allow certain corps) within the alliance from using assembly lines - I would like to have the ability to set different tax rates set for different corps (instead of the same blanket cost for all corps within an alliance) - same as the previous two points except with different alliances - When setting job costs for different lines, I'd like to be able to set the same costs for multiple lines at once instead of having to click each one individually, although I guess this will be irrelevant after the industry changes - I'd like to allow/restrict use of Reprocessing services for different corps within the alliance, or at the very least modify reprocessing tax based on the corp that uses it
Maybe there is a way to do all of this but there is no documentation and we never get help from petitions so maybe release some kind of guide or explanation for setting up stations overall, although I guess this request goes beyond the scope of this thread. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7144
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
penifSMASH wrote: - When setting job costs for different lines, I'd like to be able to set the same costs for multiple lines at once instead of having to click each one individually, although I guess this will be irrelevant after the industry changes
you can do this right now, shift-clicking lets you select all of them Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
393
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:59:00 -
[15] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:penifSMASH wrote: - When setting job costs for different lines, I'd like to be able to set the same costs for multiple lines at once instead of having to click each one individually, although I guess this will be irrelevant after the industry changes
you can do this right now, shift-clicking lets you select all of them
mother of God, why didn't anyone tell me this before |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
207
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:07:00 -
[16] - Quote
penifSMASH wrote:Weaselior wrote:penifSMASH wrote: - When setting job costs for different lines, I'd like to be able to set the same costs for multiple lines at once instead of having to click each one individually, although I guess this will be irrelevant after the industry changes
you can do this right now, shift-clicking lets you select all of them mother of God, why didn't anyone tell me this before
and Ctrl+click lets you select things as you click on them. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2744
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
I think "standings" should effect NPC stations too. Something like + or - 5% on the install cost as your standings (corp and faction, added together) swing from extreme to extreme. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Shiganaru
Ignis Aeternus Imperium
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
This is probably a little outside scope. . . .
An example of how I would like to see things work, although some things may change with upcoming industry changes.
We have 4 labs and 2 assembly arrays anchored on a corporate POS.
Two of those labs and the assembly arrays are dedicated to a specific project and only members in the "R&D" division (by title) of the corporation may install / deliver the jobs in these facilities
The other two labs are general purpose and any member may install jobs into them, but only the installer or a director can deliver / cancel.
In the current system, POS facilities are pretty much off-limits for all but the industrial officers, who can be trusted not to steal or cancel another member's job. If someone were to steal/cancel the job, there isn't even a record of who did it. Thus being able to limit who can use facilities, and what they can use those facilities for, would be fantastic.
|
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries Intergalactic Conservation Movement
143
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:21:00 -
[19] - Quote
The only line settings that I currently use are allow corp and alliance members. Not that I'm opposed to the possibility of renting my pos slots out the the public, If I can charge enough to cover the fuel costs and maybe a little profit, I'll anchor and maintain another POS, no problem.
With the rise job costs, this might actually be feasible. However seeing as the blueprints now need to be inside the pos modules in order to be researched, I'm not sure how you would do that.
Unless you want to anchor a module outside the pos that people could put their blue prints in and research from there using any of the labs inside the pos.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
650
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:22:00 -
[20] - Quote
There are two areas that have to be looked at separately because they work differently.
POSes:
As a corp CEO, I'd like to point out that if you are not a member of the owning corporation with access to at least one hanger division, one wallet division, and certain roles, you can't use the tower arrays at all. With the removal of remote research and the changes to job install costs and taxation, that entire menu can simply be removed as it serves no purpose what-so-ever.
Now, I'm totally in support of having a way to enable access for randoms based on standings and such, as well as a way to set corp taxes on the arrays. But until out-of-corp users can actually put stuff into the array and take out a finished item, that will never happen.
As far as setting cost/taxes, why not have the array taxes directly coupled to the corp tax rate? If having the ability to set arbitrary tax rates on individual arrays is desired, then add that as a column in the interface. Right-click to change it in a small dialog box.
tl;dr: Add a personal hanger division to all POS arrays. Then we can talk about more POS array security and standings changes.
Stations:
As far as stations, now we some wiggle room. A player sitting in station has unlimited storage and a personal hanger from and to which they can move stuff. Now there that interface makes sense. Providence being freeported, it is vital to be able to set all of those settings.
With the removal of individual lines, station (and POS) managers will no longer have to set everything on every line. \o/ This is a huge quality of life improvement for managers. Thank you.
Now the question is more along the lines of "Who do I want to have access to service x, and not to service y?" How much differentiation do we need on a service by service basis. Do we want to be able to manage access to each and every possible service, like ME research, TE research, copying, Invention, manufacturing... et al? Do we want to have the ability to set a blanket policy for everything all at once?
I think the answer is yes to both.
So I say eliminate this current menu. Move the functionality to the individual services, and have an "Apply Blanket Policy" option for managers. If it takes a revamp of the station manager's menu, then so be it. But changes to industry necessitate changes to industrial interfaces. And the Station Manager's interface is a part of that. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:
With the removal of individual lines, station (and POS) managers will no longer have to set everything on every line. \o/ This is a huge quality of life improvement for managers. Thank you.
you could have selected multiple slots with the shift button |
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars Fatal Ascension
93
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Consider using the POCO system, where we can set costs based off of standings, etc. This basically does that the station settings thing show, but without being overly confusing. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
367
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:10:00 -
[23] - Quote
Not specifically related to the settings themselves, but it solves many other issues that others have raised in this thread, and not just with assembly lines.
Allow us to define arbitrary groups and then provide permissions based on those definitions.
Alliance A has member corps Corps A-One, A-Two, A-Three, and A-Four. Alliance B has member corps Corp B-Alpha and B-Beta. Bob, the CEO of Corp A-One, has an alt named Chuckles in Corp A-Four.
Corp A-One owns a manufacturing facility.
They define a "Unrestricted Manufacturers" group that:
- includes Corp A-One
- includes character Chuckles
- restricts (the rest of) Alliance A
- includes Alliance B
- Everyone else is restricted by default
They define a "Taxed Manufacturers" group that:
- includes Corp A-Three
- includes +10 standings
- Everyone else is restricted by default
They define a "Restricted Manufacturers" group that:
- includes Corp A-Four
- includes Corp B-Beta
- includes +5 (and higher) standings
- Everyone else is restricted by default
They grant permission:
- "Unrestricted Manufacturers" = full access, no tax
- "Taxed Manufacturers" = full access, 15% tax
- "Restricted Manufacturers" = specific assembly line access, 15% tax, group may only run one simultaneous job
If someone is in multiple categories, such as Corp B-Beta above, whatever is first is what takes effect; so B-Beta receives the permissions from Unrestricted Manufacturers because that the earliest they are mentioned.
Wherever you might have used a role or title or alliance or corp previously, allow use of these custom-created arbitrary groups instead.
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:21:00 -
[24] - Quote
This is a little off topic but could we get an X-Large Personal Storage Array. Right now most miners are using ship assembly arrays to store minerals if they mine in systems without stations. This works but at the same point is extremely frustrating that something better has not been implemented yet. With the new compression arrays this would be a nice addition to the indy patch.
Thanks |
SpaceSaft
Sub Par. The East India Co.
73
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:38:00 -
[25] - Quote
Install cost and cost per hour are taken care of by the new industry update, I assume there will be a taxation option.
Good/bad standing are irrelevant in high because nobody owns stations as well as in null because I don't think alliances set members too good/bad that doesn't make sense. So that option is pointless.
Surcharges or discounts for people that can actually use these slots (I.e. your corp or alliance members) don't make sense based on sec status. At all.
As someone already said, about the only situation any kind of settings like these are desirable or useful are individual settings for corps or alliances.
And they are better dealt with in a list with "set tax for copr/alliance [name] to x" entries. I don't even know anymore what to think about CCP... |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
238
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:POSes:
As a corp CEO, I'd like to point out that if you are not a member of the owning corporation with access to at least one hanger division, one wallet division, and certain roles, you can't use the tower arrays at all. With the removal of remote research and the changes to job install costs and taxation, that entire menu can simply be removed as it serves no purpose what-so-ever.
Now, I'm totally in support of having a way to enable access for randoms based on standings and such, as well as a way to set corp taxes on the arrays. But until out-of-corp users can actually put stuff into the array and take out a finished item, that will never happen.
Basically, what this man has said.
I really wish POS arrays could be opened to the public (as that menu originally intended?), but the coming expansion has negated the need for offering "for-rent" research slots, etc.
Taxing corp members for usage is very interesting, but not a part of any of my corporations' structure. Security is one of the bigger issues I see with expanding the settings, and that may or may not have to be tied to corporation roles, for that is a godawful mess. |
Catherine Laartii
Knights of Xibalba
160
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 22:18:00 -
[27] - Quote
I do agree with the sentiment that relative empire standings for hisec POS are fairly useless and should go away. One thing I really do think needs to be added is a method of hacking abandoned control towers; real estate is an extremely valuable thing in this game, especially in places like wormhole space. Adding that would actually help industry in a variety of ways because more real estate would open up, in all areas of space people like to base out of.
That being said, the entire system for starbases needs a serious overhaul. While the changes listed with increases manufacturing efficacy with starbases over stations are a VERY good step in the right direction, since it reflects the risk/reward schema, there are things related to that that need to be addressed.
The industry tutorial currently is extremely outdated and near-bogus. Revising it with the intention of including a detailed, in-depth instruction into PI and its uses, and then an expanded tutorial with the addition of an "advanced industry" agent, along the same lines of advanced military. This agent would teach advanced PI concepts, t2 production for components to build ships and t2 modules, and how R&D works in-game. The advanced industry agent would help teach you to build fuel blocks, a skill that would be extremely useful for all players in-game to know how to do.
Reducing fuel block consumption rate is ideal; solo or small-gang players don't necessarily have the funds to prop up their own starbase in wh space or hisec for that matter, and so for allowing the fuel costs to drop somewhat would help alleviate that. Empowering more players to do industry is a VERY good direction to be going, as it helps make the market a healthier place. Poor regional markets have the opportunity to open up more with reduced costs to establish and maintain infrastructure, which allow for smaller groups of players to have stronger returns to offset high market prices. You'd see regions like Ammatar and Khanid have their markets bloom into something beautiful and appealing to outside investors, and more people would move there.
The points listed in the ongoing dev blogs about the coming industry changes are fantastic in every way, and I hope that more will continue to be done to address the issues the eve market has as a whole with distribution inequality, flow of capital, and most importantly, inflation. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
240
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 00:43:00 -
[28] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote: Reducing fuel block consumption rate is ideal; solo or small-gang players don't necessarily have the funds to prop up their own starbase in wh space or hisec for that matter, and so for allowing the fuel costs to drop somewhat would help alleviate that.
Seriously???
A large costs <500m/mo to fuel.
This is significantly less than a plex, which droves and droves and droves and droves of players manage to afford on a monthly basis, doing even stupider things, like mining in highsec.
Don't even need to critique the folly of reducing demand for fuel blocks (and their components) |
Tetania
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 09:07:00 -
[29] - Quote
I think Penifsmash was on the right lines. Rather than trying to suggest specific changes to the existing UI it's probably better to define what we as station owners want to be able to achieve and let you decide what you want to allow us to do and then let the UI guys facilitate it.
So from the PoV of a corp that ownned a refinery and owns a Factory and a Research outpost.
For all of the types of permission bellow the ability to set them in the following ways would be ideal By standings which creates rough tiers with scaling costs. By White / Black lists of corps and alliances for precise lockdown. Ideal case make arbitrary groups of corps and alliances which can have tax and costs applied to them. Security status. (I was going to leave this out but Provi block might care. Nobody else will.)
Restrict docking. Whitelist / Blacklist binary option. Docking Fee set per grouping or by scaling with standing
Restrict services use per service which would include cloning, assembly, research etc. Whitelist / Blacklist binary option. Flat rate tax set per grouping or by scaling with standing
If it's too hard to impliment groups a possible alternative would be to support standing ranges in those boxes. Set station to use Corp standings rather than alliance standings and then give a specific standing like 9 or 9.5 instead of 10 to corps you want to be able to use facilites. We could then set "Instal Job" to require 8.5-9.5.
The end goal of any of these systems in broad goals.
Allow or deny docking from "deadzoning" a station to a "freeport" Allow basic station services, Docking, Fitting, Cloning, Insurance etc to be used by anyone with docking rights. Allow some assembly and Research capacity to be used freely by people able to dock and potentially profit from it in the form of tax. Allow privately owned stations to be set up to allow only specific manufacturing and research corps to use the majority of the capacity and to use it for cheap / free. In an ideal world you could just give the station to that corp but with stations so heavily linked to SOV this isn't considered viable at present. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1189
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:28:00 -
[30] - Quote
You'll need to make another pass at this later CCP. Many of us haven't been doing much with manufacturing because it's too difficult to use the system. Once we've spent some time enjoying something less obfuscated, we will be able to do a better job explaining what we like or dislike about each individual feature.
For now I'd like to see a focus on improving the accessibility. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |