| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Verys
The Black Ops
Black Core Alliance
   |
Posted - 2009.02.22 02:21:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Verys on 22/02/2009 02:21:20
I had the idea of adding the possibility of having a que for deploying posses making it possible to stack onlining jobs in the control tower so you dont have to wait for every structure to go online and manually online the next one after 10 minutes. Could also be used for anchoring of course.
Thread explaining the entire idea is here:
Click Me (including fancy photoshop example)
Show your support at this thread and leave constructive criticism at the other one.
Anyone who has ever deployed a few posses will support this I bet 
|
Legionos McGuiros
Judicial Blade
Novus Aevum
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 16:37:00 -
[2]
|
Karentaki
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 16:40:00 -
[3]
supported
 Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 00:12:00 -
[4]
so we can go from macro mining to macro pos deployment? whats next?
|
Verys
The Black Ops
Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 01:22:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Verys on 23/02/2009 01:22:49
Originally by: Matrixcvd
so we can go from macro mining to macro pos deployment? whats next?
I take it you have you have never deployed an entire pos?
The waiting to manually have to give all the commands to the pos is a very dull process. Queuing would help greatly as you can at least go and do something else in eve in the mean time while not having to take your pos by the hand to tell it explicitly what to do like it has some kind of short attention span.
Allow me to give you a small example of it currently is:
You: Yes hello I have plans to anchor and online a corporate hangar.
POS: Well I think I could anchor it for you but onlining it right after that? Well I don't know, ask me after I anchored it.
12 minutes later (you didn't want to stare at the screen all the time so you went to make a cup of coffee etc.).
You: Have you started onlining my corporate hangar array yet?
POS: Well no you didn't ask me to do it so I have been staring at that piece of space which seems just a little more black than the other pieces of space.
You: Well ok online the corporate hangar array for me then and make it snappy.
POS: Sure wait another 10 minutes and then give me a new order for a new structure.
You: Can't I just tell you where to anchor and online stuff and be done with it?
POS: No your going to have to do this a million times more because I just cant remember more than one thing.
And how I feel it should be.
You: I have plans to setup 4 silos and a reactor could you anchor and online them for me if you show me where I want to put them?
POS: Sure!
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 01:36:00 -
[6]
Regardless of the supports.. it will never fly.
There are too many holes in your idea that could be abused.
I suggest scrapping the idea and starting over.
Right idea... wrong implementation.
some of the holes: Stacking jobs would make dropping POS's very easy to do in 0.0 which cause pos seige warfare a total hell.
Thats just the tip of the iceberg.
===============
CEO of Clan Shadow Cadre
www.shadowcadre.com
===============
|
Verys
The Black Ops
Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 12:13:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Regardless of the supports.. it will never fly.
There are too many holes in your idea that could be abused.
I suggest scrapping the idea and starting over.
Right idea... wrong implementation.
some of the holes: Stacking jobs would make dropping POS's very easy to do in 0.0 which cause pos seige warfare a total hell.
Thats just the tip of the iceberg.
I feel this would change almost nothing other than make it more practical for people operating/deploying posses. If i really want to spam posses I just fly around a system and anchor 4 posses at the same time now. Its no like I got not time for that
But I also think that there should of course be a maximum time limit on the que or a maximum amount of jobs you can stack to not make it completely automatic.
And who says you cant kill these unmanned posses last time I heard they only had 50% shield when they were deployed 
|
Aargh
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 12:37:00 -
[8]
I recently put up a POS for the first time.
I swear the process was designed by Jack Thompson. As a gaming experience it was like buying what you think is System Shock II, only to find there's a copy of Daikatana in the box.
Anything that would allow you to configure the POS, then set it to online, would be welcome. I appreciate the need to make the process lengthy, to allow a period of vulnerability. I don't appreciate having to sit and watch a clock for several hours, not to mention wait several minutes if I make a mistake.
|
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 19:04:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Vuk Lau on 23/02/2009 19:05:14
Originally by: Verys
Edited by: Verys on 23/02/2009 12:08:54
I had the idea of adding the possibility of having a que for deploying posses making it possible to stack onlining jobs in the control tower so you don't have to wait for every structure to go online and manually online the next one after 10 minutes. Could also be used for anchoring of course.
A photoshop example:
Show your support at this thread and or leave constructive critism and i will get back to answer you question as soon as possible.
Anyone who has ever deployed a few posses will support this I bet
If we put aside that SOV claiming needs to be detached from POSes and moons, this is the thing I would like to see implemented ASAP. Anyone who was puting up Cynojammer or Jump Bridge tower, or even plain deathstar knows how painfull POS anchor/online mechanics is. It is one of the biggest timesinks in Eve.
Anyway I will raise this issue for the next CSM meeting.
|
Cpt Iwan
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 20:06:00 -
[10]
|
Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 21:18:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Baun on 23/02/2009 21:18:31
POS onlining is MADDENINGLY boring. The only reason that this mechanic has any place in the game is to add some time for countermeasures in the POS for sov role. As such, if SOV is changed away from moons then we should just remove POS timers or AT LEAST do this.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Dzon Vejn
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 21:22:00 -
[12]
|
ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 21:42:00 -
[13]
|
PyroChemist
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:17:00 -
[14]
|
Athanasia Athena
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:28:00 -
[15]
|
Aerek Naus
Knights Of Divinity
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:29:00 -
[16]
|
Arjen1705
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:30:00 -
[17]
|
sahtila
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:36:00 -
[18]
|
Oh Takashawa
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:38:00 -
[19]
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 00:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
so we can go from macro mining to macro pos deployment? whats next?
The only difference between a "macro" and how it is now is that some poor, unlucky sap has to sit at the POS for hours and anchor/online each module. Have you ever setup a deathstar by yourself let alone 5 in one sitting? I doubt it. You should go do it before you comment on things you know nothing about.
If you think MM would have any more POS than they do now with this mechanic in, you are mistaken. Fuel is what keeps POS spam in check, the anchoring mechanic is a useless/mindless time sink.
This is a major reason why POS is  . Full support.
Originally by: CCP Whisper
So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Treelox
Amarr
Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 00:53:00 -
[21]
I suggest two things to balance out your idea.
First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.
Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.
With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.
TL:DR
No for now, balance it better
--
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 00:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Treelox
I suggest two things to balance out your idea.
First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.
Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.
With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.
TL:DR
No for now, balance it better
THIS
+1 for Treelox
===============
CEO of Clan Shadow Cadre
www.shadowcadre.com
===============
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 01:14:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Ignition SemperFi on 24/02/2009 01:14:05
i support this fully. especially now that you can only anchor 5 towers per alliance, to prevent towah spam
----
People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Quote:
They already did introduce a counter to missiles, it's called Quantum Rise
|
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 03:16:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Treelox
I suggest two things to balance out your idea.
First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.
Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.
With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.
TL:DR
No for now, balance it better
what he said ^^
add in those changes and I'm happy to say yes to this.
----------------------
My Blog |
Yaay
Reikoku
KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 04:08:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Yaay on 24/02/2009 04:11:40
The point of POS anchoring is to be a heavy demand. Full setup, a Tower takes 4-6 hours of time. But, you can currently manage 5 at a time in 1 system, meaning 1 person can do the work of 5 if he rotates onlining at towers. That alone is enough.
I refuse to support anything that encourages more tower spamming.
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Originally by: Treelox
I suggest two things to balance out your idea.
First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.
Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.
With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.
TL:DR
No for now, balance it better
what he said ^^
add in those changes and I'm happy to say yes to this.
While the balance is better in that version, It's still not great. Lets see what changes this patch brings to POS (apparently there are some things in store), then worry about it more. If queing ever were added, the person needs to be limited to modules onlining in system, not per tower, i mean ffs, that'd just be easy street.
It's the Economy Stupid |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 05:34:00 -
[26]
The current system seems to be attempting to create game balance through player pain. It's like saying "I don't want you spamming towers, so if you really want to, you have to treat it as a full-time job". I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended that way, but it seems to be how it's worked out, and it's unspeakably horrible game design. If tower spamming is too easy, make it harder to support - more expense being the most likely option, but I'm sure there are others - but don't make a player click one button every ten minutes for a day and call it a game. Nobody wants to pay $15/month for a boring, unrewarding, dead-end job, and yet that's what some players are saddled with now because of this system.
The details may need some work, but the meat of the proposal is entirely necessary.
|
psykiller
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 07:14:00 -
[27]
===============================================
Strenght and Honour. Heart of one, strenght of many. Glory and Honour in death.
Proud to be RAWR |
Dariah Stardweller
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 11:50:00 -
[28]
Supporting teh cause!1!
|
Hell Commander
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 12:25:00 -
[29]
|
Axel Vindislaga
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 04:25:00 -
[30]
Original poster is too stupid to correctly spell queue so therefore should no be allowed an opinion.
|
Ms Fitsimmons
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 11:39:00 -
[31]
Anchoring / onlining time reduced by 10% per level of Anchoring skill (minimum need) and 1 additional module to the queue (would be nice)
Level 5 anchoring means 5 minutes to anchor or online a module.
This or something similar would get my thumbs up. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 12:34:00 -
[32]
Oh please yes
|
Sett AtOn
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 15:26:00 -
[33]
Only POS crews know the pain.
I support this, so they can have more time to enjoy the game.
|
Verys
The Black Ops
Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 16:25:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Treelox
I suggest two things to balance out your idea.
First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.
Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.
With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.
TL:DR
No for now, balance it better
I agree that some boundaries should be put into place.
I think a limit of the queue up to a maximum amount of time should be in place and instead of making it skill wise have it so that this counts alliance wide something in the way of:
"You can not start a secondary queue on a starbase structure in this system as your alliance is too busy doing the essential paperwork for another starbase structure."
If this was to replace the current game mechanics it would limit an alliance of setting up more than one pos in a system at a time also bringing down pos spam.
I believe that could keep it in balance with my current idea and still keep sovereignty applied to pos/moons
Originally by: Axel Vindislaga
Original poster is too stupid to correctly spell queue so therefore should no be allowed an opinion.
Yes because maybe the op's first language ain't English... noooo that can't be can it?
|
Maja Lorane
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 02:36:00 -
[35]
|
Root Canal
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 10:18:00 -
[36]
Useless timesink. Surely something can be done about this without opening dangerous doors...
/signed
|
sir gankalot
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 14:18:00 -
[37]
This is relevant to my interests!
|
Pelin42
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 15:35:00 -
[38]
|
Jainia Soltella
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 17:18:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Jainia Soltella on 26/02/2009 17:19:06
Having setup several POSes recently, I agree fully with a limited queue and possibly time reduction for Anchoring/Onlining per skill.
I can also see the queue being useful for people who run complex reactions and have to offline, empty/fill, then re-online lots of silos every couple of days.
|
Velanth
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 20:34:00 -
[40]
I approve |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:03:00 -
[41]
Supported
|
Kusum Fawn
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:24:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Kusum Fawn on 27/02/2009 20:27:20
I approve, how about auto setup requires you to sit there but does each step auto? so you can do the tower and then have the rest just come up when its ready to come up, you still will have people spam towers (dont you already?) but it will require a toon to supervise and one character cant do 5 at once on auto,but it will take the mind numbingness out of the setup, drop an orca at a moon and have it run auto after telling it where to place the modules, then move to the next toon and do that again, doesnt make it an all day job for you but does for the toon, start process come back later , not every 10 minutes,
still can spam towers, but needs more people to do it, (a least more characters online)
less micromanagement makes me happy,
|
Anopheli
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:12:00 -
[43]
Approved.
Having once had the experience setting up a ~20 industrial POS chain, I feel your pain. While balancing is an issue, particularly in relating to avoiding 0.0 POS spamming, I think the idea itself has a great deal of merit. |
Agent Unknown
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 07:54:00 -
[44]
Like the idea if you can only use the queue for one POS at a time.
-----------------------------------
"What can go wrong, will go wrong." |
Drakona Malchon
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 15:35:00 -
[45]
for everyone who has ever setup a pos, this is totally understandable.
thumbs up from me.
Combat Op Director
Free-Space-Ranger
Corporate Homepage
onlinegaming since 1998
|
ShadowandLight
Hammer Of Light
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 18:35:00 -
[46]
|
SketS47
Alpha Intellectual Military Solutions
E.Y
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 15:22:00 -
[47]
please! change something with the way u put pos;s up!
Only idiots quote themselves
-SketS47- |
Reynolds
Third Return Inc.
Blue Sun Trust
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 16:25:00 -
[48]
|
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 04:51:00 -
[49]
raised it for next CSM meeting, but due to the timing it won't be discussed with CCP (should it make it through the CSM) until the 3rd meeting with them (May 10)
----------------------
My Blog |
jimmybeech
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 11:21:00 -
[50]
|
Random Womble
Minmatar
Master Miners
Electric Monkey Overlords
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 21:16:00 -
[51]
I would much rather see the anchoring skill to allow the onlining/anchoring/unachoring of multiple modules at once per person (with the number of modules being dependant on the level of the anchoring skill (1 per level) for onlining modules you might need to have the ability to online one from the start. This would include the ability for multiple people to online/anchor thins with no limit
However at the same time because of the ability to online/anchor/unachor multiple things at once i believe doubling the timers (for silos/harvesters/reactors ect which are allready 20 minutes fo unachoring, not sure about anchoring, any increase would probably need to be smaller as 40 minutes is extreemly excessive and people cant allways be on that long) for most such actions would balance things out a bit (so at level 2 you could online/anchor/uachor twice as much but with double, in most cases, time so you would end up the same as now and only at Lv3 would you save time over now while Lv 5 will only make a big diffrnce on POSs that take 5-6+ hours right now.
|
DaiTengu
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 21:26:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Yaay
I refuse to support anything that encourages more tower spamming.
u mad?
|
EdFromLogistics
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 21:26:00 -
[53]
Supporting the **** out of this
|
gnshadowninja
Baptism oF Fire
Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 21:47:00 -
[54]
Fully supported, love the idea
Just spent 4/5 hours unanchoring a POS and spent 4/5 hours last night anchoring one.
And that was only a small!!
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 10:02:00 -
[55]
Issue was raised by CSM and voted for.
|
bp920091
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 02:37:00 -
[56]
|
Betonela
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 10:23:00 -
[57]
/signed
Make it based on the Anchoring lvl. Ex lvl1 allow you to have 1 structure in the queue, lvl5 -> 5 structures into queue. Only one queue per pos so who start it have to finish/empty it before someone else can start a new one.
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 14:22:00 -
[58]
Simple solution to a perennial problem.
---------------------------------
Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Leon Mustapha
Blink Dominion
|
Posted - 2009.05.16 10:37:00 -
[59]
Perhaps only allow a queue for anchoring the modules and not for onlining them.
|
0racle
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 09:01:00 -
[60]
|
Foulque
Divine Retribution
Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 23:52:00 -
[61]
If the queue has no effect at all in the speed of towers to setup, or the number manageable in a system then yeah it's a nice addition. There's no reason to take up that many hours of someone's time for something as mundane as this.
That said, POS' in general are just terrible and even worse when you get into POS warfare and sov mechanics. I'd rather see a broad overhaul of the entire system, but as long as it doesn't take the place of a solution this would be a nice interim improvement.
________
|
Bloody Rabbit
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 01:17:00 -
[62]
So long as there was a limit of only one POS per alliance or Corp using this system.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |