Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Abramul
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:08:00 -
[61] - Quote
Quote:So no way to partial lock a station to avoid congestion in said station? Or to separate access between different corporations in an alliance, instead of standings which are flawed as hell. Only the ability to allow access by standings means everyone in your alliance has access instead of maybe just a few corps. Or just your own corp has access. Really need an option of something in between Would it work to allow a station to have its own standings? Still would need an interface to set them, but might be faster. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
137
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:32:00 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright people, here is the plan so far after we internally discussed this issue based on your feedback.
- Starbases: we are removing all those settings altogether. Mainly because, as many of you mentioned, this was only relelvant for Remote Research, which is going the way of the dinosaur. Since we are not making Starbase public for now (it's just too much work for the time allotted, if anything we need another release to fix Starbases at the very least), there should be no use case left.
- Outposts: we will most likely move those Industry settings to the "Station Management" window, since individual lines are going away. We will not remove any of the options currently listed until we have a proper overhaul of Starbases and Outposts in general.
Please let us know if we forgot something.
So what is happening with the skills that we got to Do Remote Research? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:40:00 -
[63] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright people, here is the plan so far after we internally discussed this issue based on your feedback.
- Starbases: we are removing all those settings altogether. Mainly because, as many of you mentioned, this was only relelvant for Remote Research, which is going the way of the dinosaur. Since we are not making Starbase public for now (it's just too much work for the time allotted, if anything we need another release to fix Starbases at the very least), there should be no use case left.
- Outposts: we will most likely move those Industry settings to the "Station Management" window, since individual lines are going away. We will not remove any of the options currently listed until we have a proper overhaul of Starbases and Outposts in general.
Please let us know if we forgot something. So what is happening with the skills that we got to Do Remote Research?
There answer so far is you can still do remote research, you just have to take the BPO to the POS first, then rather than put the job on right then when you don't need the skill, you can go 5 jumps away, THEN put the skill on.
SEE, the skill is useful |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 21:02:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright people, here is the plan so far after we internally discussed this issue based on your feedback.
- Starbases: we are removing all those settings altogether. Mainly because, as many of you mentioned, this was only relelvant for Remote Research, which is going the way of the dinosaur. Since we are not making Starbase public for now (it's just too much work for the time allotted, if anything we need another release to fix Starbases at the very least), there should be no use case left.
- Outposts: we will most likely move those Industry settings to the "Station Management" window, since individual lines are going away. We will not remove any of the options currently listed until we have a proper overhaul of Starbases and Outposts in general.
Please let us know if we forgot something. You forgot to inform us about where abandoned control tower reclamation is going. I and many other would be very eager to hear about anything resembling a mechanic that allows for the hacking of offlined structures, and possibly by extension, the structures that are anchored to it. This would be an excellent mini-profession that we would all love to see happen, and would be a godsend to wormholers everywhere. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7339
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:27:00 -
[65] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: So what is happening with the skills that we got to Do Remote Research?
i continue to train them so i can adjust jobs in our research station while i'm sitting in our factory station Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 02:41:00 -
[66] - Quote
This could be gotten away from completely, except for Public access, when you redo the roles for Corporations and convert Alliances to a Corporation-like structure, complete with cross-corp roles, wallets, etc.
As a director and CEO, I would like to enable my pilots to install jobs at specific additional cost, based on the location from which the job was started. If it was, say, a "corp jobs" hangar, I'd be able to set it to 0% corp, 5% alliance tax. If it was a shared hangar, I'd be able to set it to 5% corp, 5% alliance. Additionally, I'd like to give additional criteria based on Role and/or Title...such that for personal jobs, Directors would get a -5% corp tax, -3% corp tax for senior members, -2% corp tax for members, and no adjustment for trial members. Once alliance roles/hangars/etc are available, you could set 0% alliance tax for alliance jobs, etc. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3595
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 05:52:00 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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? Both security and standing settings were likely intended for public use of labs, but since that never happened, the settings are not really useful.
If you plan to make them public, then both may be of some use. |
Kire Erquilenne
New Eden Pioneers Violent Declaration
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 07:06:00 -
[68] - Quote
I would like to see the security status stay, they are only useless because there is no value among capsuleers. It is really only used by the NPC empires. Maybe if there was a way to place more value to having a positive security status (or negative security status) among players. Access to certain services seemed like one value, but it not enough for players. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
351
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:32:00 -
[69] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright people, here is the plan so far after we internally discussed this issue based on your feedback.
- Starbases: we are removing all those settings altogether. Mainly because, as many of you mentioned, this was only relelvant for Remote Research, which is going the way of the dinosaur. Since we are not making Starbase public for now (it's just too much work for the time allotted, if anything we need another release to fix Starbases at the very least), there should be no use case left.
- Outposts: we will most likely move those Industry settings to the "Station Management" window, since individual lines are going away. We will not remove any of the options currently listed until we have a proper overhaul of Starbases and Outposts in general.
Please let us know if we forgot something.
Huh?
So the corporation will no longer be able to set tax or fees for members using installations at a POS? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
685
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:42:00 -
[70] - Quote
Wasn't honestly expecting to lose the entire POS menu. The ability to set POS array taxes is desirable.
I'm expecting that the POS aspects will be revisited when it comes time for a corp role and POS revamp since the two are currently and inextricably linked. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
|
Tek Handle
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
54
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 01:46:00 -
[71] - Quote
Whatever you guys have in mind to change at these settings, please have it extensible since it's hard to make a final decision on that now before the entire alliance / corp / coalition / whatever community overhaul which is coming up according to your road map. Some good things have been posted here already, white or black listed based for certain alliances or corps e.g. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
219
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 20:53:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
So basically we can't use the Scientific Networking skills we've trained anymore since we can't do remote research, right?
Since I have a corporate office in an NPC station and I use corp roles to prevent access to the few BPO's at my disposal to safely perform remote research on them, I can't play the game the way I was told I could play it? Does this mean I get a refund on my corp office rental fees, too?
This means that labs are useless, and we'll get a refund on what you think they're worth versus what we spent on them.
This also means we should be getting a refund for the skillbook for SciNetworking, and a skill point refund as well.
Or does it mean you can't fix the corp roles and POS issues and you're going to slowly scrap them, remove POS'es completely since you can't fix them either, and eventually roll out modular POS'es sometime in the distant future when you figure out how to bring them back?
This is so brilliant it's stupid!
Seriously, stop what you're doing and find someone that PLAYS the game versus WHAT YOU THINK happens in the game!
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"! Player Owned Station fix dated back to 2006!
|
Absinyth
Pacifica. M I R A G E
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 07:36:00 -
[73] - Quote
You should consider renaming the entries to make it more meaningful to the end user. That way each entry can be read quickly and easily understood by even a novice player. There also needs to be a way to prevent access based on security status and standings. The fact that a job will cost more money to someone without the required security status and/or standings is irrelevant as they simply do not get access at all.......period.
I would also love to see the ability to make Starbases a place your allies can utilize themselves to include the arrays and structures. this should extend to the ability to share access on structures like refining arrays, manufacturing arrays, silos, moon harvester, etc. The SMA is the only structure I have seen to be shared in this manner successfully. For example, I see no reason that if set to Alliance use that another corporation in that alliance should not be able to use their own Corp Hanger Array if the corporation who owns the Starbase sets to online that structure. Of course there needs to remain some checks and balances so that member corporations cannot online structures freely that is why the owner corporation needs to approve all structures to be online.
For instance, maybe have an option that will show Pending Online Structure Requests that the CEO and/or Directors will view and approve.
I think the reason why people don't have this setup in the first place is because it's currently impossible for that feature to work correctly. Also, don't see why people would be opposed to something like this as it values the Risk vs. Reward belief philosophy. |
Absinyth
Pacifica. M I R A G E
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 08:01:00 -
[74] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote: ...
So basically we can't use the Scientific Networking skills we've trained anymore since we can't do remote research, right? ...
This means that labs are useless, and we'll get a refund on what you think they're worth versus what we spent on them.
This also means we should be getting a refund for the skillbook for SciNetworking, and a skill point refund as well.
Or does it mean you can't fix the corp roles and POS issues and you're going to slowly scrap them, remove POS'es completely since you can't fix them either, and eventually roll out modular POS'es sometime in the distant future when you figure out how to bring them back?
This is so brilliant it's stupid!
Seriously, stop what you're doing and find someone that PLAYS the game versus WHAT YOU THINK happens in the game!
I fully agree with you but to clarify a little the Scientific Networking skill can still be used after the expansion in June or July (since some of these features got delayed) but only from starting a remote job from where the blueprints are physically located at. i.e from a NPC station or from the POS labs itself. So you won't be seeing a removal of any skill as a result of taking away the ability to store Blueprints at a NPC station and research them at a POS; something I'm calling Remote Research. (Probably a bad term but on well)
I invite you to comment about your thoughts on this forum: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345070
I am hoping that if people are more aware of this thread then we can get some feedback from people who actually research correctly. There's also the chance that if enough people who think they way you do respond in the forums in an effective way CCP might change their minds about whether or not to remove this feature. We can definitely use more people like yourself to clearly express their ideas and thoughts in a constructive way.
|
Laura Agathon
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:02:00 -
[75] - Quote
How about add an option for the usage fees to be charged to the pilot, and not the corporate wallet division that pilot happens to use? |
Alia Ravenswing
DARK HAT
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 19:05:00 -
[76] - Quote
Part of the Assembly line needs to include Rigs and modules, so we have an option to produce a complete product. This is great if manufacturing a large number of ships for a fleet and we want them all the same. |
Apelacja
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 20:01:00 -
[77] - Quote
rather usefull will be some mechanic for renters alliances to allow only chosen corps to use station.
Nowhere else i see usefulness of this |
Apelacja
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 18:22:00 -
[78] - Quote
something is not clear here for me.
Are u able to set up outpost lines to be used ONLY by alliance members AND with standings high enough?
Or is there only 1 filter allowed?
|
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 13:29:00 -
[79] - Quote
Apelacja wrote:rather usefull will be some mechanic for renters alliances to allow only chosen corps to use station.
Nowhere else i see usefulness of this
I completely agree with this. I do not see a reason to leave character / corp security standings on poses post Crius. Additionally, much like the previous poster, I have long desired to have a single-click option to restrict outpost researching/manufacturing lines to corps who rent an office in an outpost. If possible, please add "restrict lines to corps renting an office slot" as an option to the lines mask for Cirus.
|
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:58:00 -
[80] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:What in hell is going with you Dev's man you think folks do not use the security settings..
Provi for one does!! for petes sake do you even log into the game??
I think you are confusing standings with sec status.
Standings is what we use in provi to determine who can dock and who can't, who can access certain areas of the station services and who can't, and who our POS` shoot and do not shoot. Sec status is pretty irrelevant.
o7 Celly Smunt.
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |
|
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 14:14:00 -
[81] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote: I and many other would be very eager to hear about anything resembling a mechanic that allows for the hacking of offlined structures, and possibly by extension, the structures that are anchored to it. This would be an excellent mini-profession that we would all love to see happen, and would be a godsend to wormholers everywhere.
I wholeheartedly agree and think that it would be useful for more than just Wormholers too.
Of course, I wouldn't want to see something where a POS goes offline and 5 minutes later there are 15 people trying to hack it, that would just be silly even though it would make an interesting conflict driver in some cases, but let's say a POS goes offline and after 30 days (similar to the anchored secure cargo can destruction timer) it becomes hackable unless someone puts it online before that timer expires. There could even be a notice when you click the tower in the overview: "insert tower name here" Offline (29d 3h 42m) and folks would be able to tell when they could attempt to hack it. Require the hacker to fuel the pos and bring it online within a short period of time or it reverts back to the original owner. no structures can be un-anchored, or accessed until the POS has been online for 24 hours, but, if the hack is successful and you fuel the thing up and online it, you get everything in it for your work. Make the percentage of success of the hack low, (even if the person has good skills) that way people have to "work" for it, but if successful, the work will be worth it.
just a thought.
o7 Celly Smunt Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |
Qalix
Four Pillars Brothers of Tangra
279
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 16:01:00 -
[82] - Quote
You should consider adding to the filter masks. I'd like to be able to restrict usage by something more specific than just corp/alliance. I'd like to see an interface like the Operator and Permitted settings pages in the Channel Settings UI for chat windows. That way, I don't have to let everyone in corp use it or figure out some standings scheme. I can just add or remove people at will. |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 18:41:00 -
[83] - Quote
Qalix wrote:You should consider adding to the filter masks. I'd like to be able to restrict usage by something more specific than just corp/alliance. I'd like to see an interface like the Operator and Permitted settings pages in the Channel Settings UI for chat windows. That way, I don't have to let everyone in corp use it or figure out some standings scheme. I can just add or remove people at will.
Agreed. For outposts, the masks in place are woefully inadequate. As I mentioned earlier, I would like to see a mask based on office slot rental to avoid the current clickfest that is necessary atm to do that. I also agree that allowing a certain toon to use a line would be nice.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
79
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 16:20:00 -
[84] - Quote
Any idea when this might hit SiSi??
So far, I can't find a way at all to tax or restrict assembly lines in station |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 16:36:00 -
[85] - Quote
I'm 70/30 that this thread is dead. Sad really, some nifty ideas have come about as of late. I hope that I am incorrect. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
79
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:42:00 -
[86] - Quote
Destiven Mare wrote:I'm 70/30 that this thread is dead. Sad really, some nifty ideas have come about as of late. I hope that I am incorrect.
I KNOW it is dead, but SOMETHING has to be done
Right now on SiSi, there isn't even a way for station owners to control tax or use of assembly lines other than to limit station access. |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 07:29:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Can be completely removed. Didn't worked in the last >7 Years.
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.
Make Sense...
But for this, you will be in need to overhaul the complete right management.
|
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 18:39:00 -
[88] - Quote
Laura Agathon wrote:How about add an option for the usage fees to be charged to the pilot, and not the corporate wallet division that pilot happens to use? This is something which I questioned from the very first time I installed a job at a POS. There's no reason this change can't or shouldn't be made.
Further, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to install POS jobs from a Personal Hangar Array. Quite the opposite, in fact. It'd encourage people to band together in R&D corps in order to reduce costs as opposed to the current model of encouraging people to have 1-man R&D corps because of the ever-present fact that somebody's going to steal your stuff when you're not even getting ganked for it while flying around in an industrial ship or whatever.
Niko Lorenzio wrote: Huh?
So the corporation will no longer be able to set tax or fees for members using installations at a POS?
We'll be spending a lot of time making sure people paid their POS access fees and manually adding/removing roles. Come on, CCP. You're better than this. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
157
|
Posted - 2014.08.03 16:38:00 -
[89] - Quote
I like the new Assembly Line Mechanics. More streamlined and involved, more technical to weed out the shirkers.
When using workers we should have the ability to recruit workers from other systems but at a much higher price.
There should also be a way of enticing workers to come to a system that does not have any workers available.
This could be achieved by deploying a Worker Infrastructure Hub where LP from the local station agents could be converted into Worker Recruitment LP's that would then be donated to the Infrastructure Hub. When enough LP had been donated the WIH would transmit to other systems that said system was in need of workers.
The Infrastructure Base Flip would see Team's brought in and depending on the Infrastructure Hub size would determine how long they stayed for before retiring or being recruited to another system.
Small IH - one week - 10,000 LP needed to recruit / 1000 LP used per day by the Team Medium IH - two weeks - 50,000 LP needed to recruit / 6000 LP used per day by the Team Large IH - Three weeks - 100,000 LP needed to recruit / 13000 LP used per day by the Team
To keep the Team present longer than the normal work schedule a higher percentage of LP is needed to be contributed once the system has been flipped to recruit Teams.
Small IH - additional day 1500 Medium IH - additional day 7500 Large IH - additional day 15000
The Infrastructure Hubs could only be anchored at Moons without a POS could be operated by the owner of the IH or those that owner allows to contribute to the LP pool. If the owner allows multiple users other than theirselves to add LP the additional users are then added to a queue that when the Teams are finished with the primary LP contributor's jobs they would then move onto the next users jobs.
LP Trading would also come into play where a pilot could buy LP from another pilot for a certain amount of ISK.
First the pilot with the LP would convert the LP into an Assembly Line chit from the LP store with the total amount of LP to be sold imprinted on the LP Chit. The pilot would then sell the LP Chit to another pilot or in a Contract. Once sold the Assembly Line Chit would be reversed engineered by the purchasing pilot into Worker Recruitment LP's and then used within the Infrastructure Hub.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |