Originally by: BeanBagKing

---

Bump from page 3

Originally by: CCP Incognito

---

Originally by: BeanBagKing

---

stuff about talking on IRC

---

TBH mostly chatted in main channel, didn't really talk in depth about this.

---

Ah, sorry, I'll try to stop making assumptions.

Also, if this is now beeing CCP supported?, or perhaps I should just say looked at? ummm... Incognito seems to be interested in? (trying not to make assumptions) perhaps we can get this stickied so people will notice it. I still see a lot of people flogging the old dead horse, and not that I have problems with more ideas being contributed, people don't even seem to know that changes have occurred when they are flogging it.

---

Originally by: sg3s

---

Originally by: Max Hardcase

---

Problem is that turrets currently calculate range and tracking from POS tower.
Thats really usefull for AC and Blasters....not!

---

If this is true then that point would have to be changed to the respective weapons platform they're mounted on, obviously.

It is an interesting issue since I thought about how currently you are able to place guns at any range, however I am unsure if it has any real effect to have things at different ranges. I didn't think it would be a big enough issue if weapons platforms would be introduced, since currently all you see on POSes are large groups of guns anyway (in case of a deathstar).

---

Originally by: Kokura Nin

---

Edited by: Kokura Nin on 10/11/2009 20:35:52
Edited by: Kokura Nin on 10/11/2009 20:35:37
It is an issue when you look up some of the short range weapon ranges and the shield radius which logically is the min distance any target can be from the tower.

Look at the small/medium blaster POS turrets and their ranges...and prepare to

---

Originally by: Syberbolt8

---

I Agree this isnt an issue IMO, sure some things like pos gun balancing will have to be done , but its not the biggest issue in the world.

---

Originally by: Dacryphile

---

Originally by: Syberbolt8

---

CCP doesn't want to do this for the same reason they dont want to allow us to destroy outposts. It would require to much work in the DB every time one of these was destroyed, because you can dock in it like a station.

---

Ummm... The whole reason the resurrection thread was created was that CCP displayed interest in the original dead horse thread and wanted a condensed version of the ideas for presentation.

tl'dr: This thread was created at request of a dev for proper presentation to the rest of the team.

---

Originally by: sg3s

---

Originally by: Ozone71

---

I like the idea, but I think you are overcomplicating it.

---

So oversimplifying it is the way to go?... Just making it 1 possible look for any given tower is how this is gonna work?... Hmmm k you don't have much imagination do you? Even as a troll your message would fail.

No. One structure would even remove much of the functionality current POSs have, like tha ability to see how it is fitted from the outside for one... We also didn't advocate for full docking. Yes you also suggest functions should be limited to w/e is made possible by the owned, but it would be very unlike a station, please don't start to compare it to one.

Originally by: Syberbolt8

---

CCP doesn't want to do this for the same reason they dont want to allow us to destroy outposts. It would require to much work in the DB every time one of these was destroyed, because you can dock in it like a station.

---

Snip- ran out of text :(

---

Originally by: Hruhd

---

Edited by: Hruhd on 07/12/2009 03:03:51
This type of structure already exists, they just need to implement this like a POS.
Cheack this:

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0912/deadhorse.jpg

---

Originally by: CCP Incognito

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

A dev account with a name like "Incognito" posting support doesn't exactly feel very supportive ("Nozh" is another one people speculate about as the account seems to be the repeated bearer of bad news). I am increasingly wishing there was a page with the picture/name of the actual dev connected to their forum/posting persona. I fear both posting accounts would have a nice instead of a face and a name like "Anonymous". But, anonymous support is better than no support.

---

Come to fan fest next year, I will buy you a beer.

Oops maybe there will be imposer Bagehi coming for beer.

---

Originally by: sg3s

---

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow

---

I proposed my own spin on the POS redesign in one of the other threads a couple of months ago...

Quote:

---

I personally would implement the redesign by making the tower a central module with struts that extend in all 6 directions to the radius of the pos shield.

Modules inside the shield just slot onto the struts (with the ranges rejiggered so if you're close to the tower core, you can open any module and move stuff around, no more playing pinball with a freighter because the modules are scattered around).

At the shield's edge, the strut expands to a circular or polygonal scaffold where the guns and so on can go. Special modules like jump bridges might extend out from the center of the scaffold.

The size of these features can be set so that there's always enough slots to fit any possible configuration.

When they're implemented, existing POS structures can be converted by a simple algorithm that slots them in at the closest possible new location.


while (modules_to_move) {
for each module that needs moving, compute distance to closest valid slot
move the module that is closest to its closest valid slot
}

---

The nice thing about the kind of revamps suggested in this thread (from a dev's POV) is that they are mostly cosmetic changes.

* Change the tower graphic to implement the struts (be they 2, 4 or 6 of them), and the module graphics so they attach to/wrap around the struts.

* Change the anchoring code so that modules can only go in strut positions. And permit people with the right roles to freely move modules without offlining them, for aesthetic reasons -- which also deals with the issue of the automated conversion giving suboptimal results.

* Change the access mechanics for most of the modules so that if you are within, say, 1km or 2.5km of a strut and inside the shield, you can interact with the modules (obvious exceptions might be ship hangers). So you could be 20km away from a corp hanger and still move stuff around -- this would get done by the Flying POS Monkeys moving stuff through the struts.

* Extra bonus idea: add a new "personal hanger" module that has a small ship bay (say, 2-3m) and cargo bay (100k?), so that individual players can have a place in the pos to stash their stuff. No more cans floating around inside the shield, no more dozens of ships in the ship hanger. For extra LOLs, have a "premium personal hanger" that is the only type that can be attached to the upscale "south side" of the POS.

---

It's really not THAT simple.... but it can be done, which is the important part eh :)

---

Originally by: Sollunux

---

How'd we get to page 5...

---

Originally by: Lashindra Mirn

---

bam! to the top!

Great ideas, love it! make it happen CCP!!

---

Originally by: Athar Mu

---

On the whole I would love to see POS's upgraded and them having a more user friendly UI and setup.

But you have to think about how the guns work. At the moment, if you clump all your guns at the top or the bottom then they are easy to take out. Also if they are short range then the ones at the bottom don't hit things at the top very well and if they are long range then all you have to do is sit next to them and orbit and they won't hit very well due to tracking. With the current POS's you can set up the POS to make the most of the tracking and range. If they are forced to be in certain places (ie top or bottom) this will reduce the ability of a POS to survive an attack. Also having limited hardpoints for guns will also affect the way they are set up and reduce their ability to survive an attack as you wouldn't be able set up a good deathstar.

Maybe changing the way modules that sit in the force field relate to each other but keeping the guns separate and on the outside would be a way to keep POS's from being too vulnerable to attack.

One thing I would like to see is having a queue so modules can be onlined one after another without the person having to wait to anchor the next. Keep the same onlining time etc but letting you put them into position and then add it too the queue.

Further to this, having templates (like ship setups) where as long as you have all the modules in say the corp hanger or in space next to the control tower, you could load a template and let it move and online for you. This would open up a whole new market for people to go into, as if you have an effective POS setup you could sell it for isk. I see this as being like a BPC, where you have to copy a template and it gives a certain number of times it can be used, that way it couldn't be sold on once its been used. Any POS setup using a template cannot produce another template, so templates cant be reproduced without the skill and knowledge that it took to set up the original. Only a POS setup manually can produce templates. Like BPC's can't be copied or ships reverse engineered to provide blueprints.

---

Originally by: Gecko O'Bac

---

Interesting thread with interesting ideas, most of which I support. I don't like very much the docking idea, since consolidating all the structures into a single control point would resolve most of the issues.

---

Quote:

---

The mooring idea is quite interesting though

---

Quote:

---

What I find strange though

---

Quote:

---

If we remove the force field then we can just proceed to attacking directly the station and the modules (like you can with an outpost). The force field functionality would have to be moved elsewhere, for example boosting the structure's shield hp by the right amount and transfering the reinforced functionality to the structure itself. Having the "moored" ships sit physically inside the station (IE: a corporate hangar like carriers) would help eliminating the force field, though It'd probably cause the same db issues that were cited before (though if you can pop a carrier with ships inside its corporate hangar, then I don't know how much different this would be).

---

Originally by: Rumplefink

---

Epic Necro.

Dead Horses Tell No Tales

---

Originally by: Khaymann Draven

---

Come on ccp cant you see that this is important to your players

---