EVE Search - Resurrecting the Dead Horse

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Resurrecting the Dead Horse

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:00:00 - [31] 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 Yeah... Well my proposal to that would be to make short range weapons absolutely deadly... As in a few of them at short range can decimate a capital fleet. This forces the attackers to attack from outside that range, however you could possibly just approach the POS from the other side... Unless they fit the same there, and then still there will be locations with 'gaps' in the range... it won't be bad IMO. Forces people to diversify in weaponary on the POS as well as ships...
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.14 21:24:00 - [32] Originally by: sg3s however you could possibly just approach the POS from the other side... Unless they fit the same there, and then still there will be locations with 'gaps' in the range... Pos gun ranges are currently calculated from the tower, not the gun. ===============
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.17 10:20:00 - [33] Originally by: Kenpachi Viktor Originally by: sg3s however you could possibly just approach the POS from the other side... Unless they fit the same there, and then still there will be locations with 'gaps' in the range... Pos gun ranges are currently calculated from the tower, not the gun. Quoting out of context... I was saying how it could work with the new system. I'll forgive you though, since I got to bump the thread \o/
Syberbolt8 Gallente Gen Tec Freedom of Elbas	Posted - 2009.11.17 16:09:00 - [34] 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 I think someone missed something... 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. I agree it would be an issue if they didnt balance the guns, but that would have to be something that came with the package. SO IMO its "not" and issue. Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Allahs Warrior Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.11.17 17:08:00 - [35] addition: a POS starts with a vertical and horizontal ring emitting the shield, and the rings have hardpoints for turrets. Say, 6 on each. You must install additional rings in order to had more hardpoints, and different sized rings have different sized hardpoints, and the hardpoints are at set points, so no more 20 guns all bunched up in a corner, nor german third reich symbols.
RS Murphy League of Gentlemen Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.17 17:11:00 - [36] I'm confused as to how the OP's idea is different from an outpost. Can I get the TL;DR comparision from someone?
Gerard Deneth Caldari Pavlov Labs GmBH Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2009.11.17 18:50:00 - [37] Originally by: RS Murphy I'm confused as to how the OP's idea is different from an outpost. Can I get the TL;DR comparision from someone? Essentially, the main drive is to turn the POS from a tower surrounded by a bunch of floating deployables into something that looks like an actual station. Basically moving everything so that it all looks like it's part of one station instead of a bunch of individual separate mini-stations. Think about what a pirate base looks like in a mission with elevators and other things linking it all together ---------------------------- The Game's always changing under your feet; don't start moaning when you get a toe caught in the gears.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.17 19:55:00 - [38] Originally by: RS Murphy I'm confused as to how the OP's idea is different from an outpost. Can I get the TL;DR comparision from someone? It's not intended to be an 'outpost' not as you define it anyway... It is a suggestion as to how to make POSs look more like a singular coherent structure that is believable, and not the pile of assorted rubble floating freely in space as it is now... Differences tl;dr: An Outpost is, once you have it, infinite... infinite storage, and safety, while docked, market, and other services which you only benefit and can make money from for NO costs whatsoever for direct-upkeep (fuel for instance). However only one can be build in any system one has sovereignty to... A POS is a 'base', a tower that can be anchored at any moon and then outfitted with equipment that serve functions to benefit the player, however the POS uses fuel the more equipment is added to it and can be destroyed. Both also require player protection (in lawless space anyway), outposts are however significantly easier to protect than outposts, since all you have to do for that is protect the system sovereignty. I hope that cleared things up for you.
TH3R31SN0SP00N	Posted - 2009.11.25 21:24:00 - [39] Great idea, needs more coverage.
K'Talas Marta	Posted - 2009.11.27 04:08:00 - [40] this is a great idea, keep it fresh guys :)
Ozone71 Caldari Kamikaze Fleet Command	Posted - 2009.11.27 08:29:00 - [41] I like the idea, but I think you are overcomplicating it. The towers as they are just need to be replaced by a bigger looking structure, that looks like smaller versions of existing structures. I agree that all the floating bits in space look horrible, so would be happy to see them integrated into the station proper. Floating guns are not a problem, as they would be just the same as the existing starbase guns. Rather than a glowing ball shield, just doc at the starbase. It has its own shield/armour/structure and docking puts you "inside" the shield. Once inside you have access to any of the functions that have been made available. The number of ships that can be docked, the number of labs, corp hangers ... everything... would be as per a normal station, but limited by whatever the POS owner has made available. It lets you re-use interfaces and graphics and there is no need to "re-learn" how to operate. Of course there would be one extra button for the POS owners to manage fuel, control guns and which parts of the system were online. There really is no need to re-invent the wheel, just make a POS a mini-starbase that functions in a very similar way. "Ozone is blue and smells faintly of geraniums." (Qi, BBC TV)
Syberbolt8 Gallente Why U Viloence Me	Posted - 2009.11.27 18:20:00 - [42] 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. Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Dacryphile	Posted - 2009.11.27 20:14:00 - [43] 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: Doc Robertson ...take a good look at this pic and tell us which one is you.
Gerard Deneth Caldari Pavlov Labs GmBH Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2009.11.27 22:55:00 - [44] Was talking with local EVE-Meet people and they agree that this idea is both good, and would be much welcomed to improve the feel and operation of player POSs ---------------------------- The Game's always changing under your feet; don't start moaning when you get a toe caught in the gears.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.28 02:46:00 - [45] 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. I want to ignore this, assuming it is just a bumb... But just for ****s n giggles, why would it be more load on the server than with destroying a normal POS like we have right now?.... This also goes to Ozone71, since he involved 'server load' into it too, are you both experienced programmers? Do you have any idea how the systems work currently? If not please just leave it out... Over the years (god saying this makes me sad) discussions about this idea have gone pretty far and while mostly silent we can use what little information there is given out by CCP to determine what parts could be too stressfull for the 'server' even if thats not something an idea is about. Obviously, with the many discussions about fully destructible Outposts we determined that one of the bigger reasons that would not be possible for a structure you dock at is because it has a lot of static data attached to it, stuff that needs to be added at downtimes. Biggest reason of that is the whole market system, which is very tightly woven into the core of eve. That is mainly why I now think market should never ever be available in POSs, just not worth is, and that full docking capabilities are probably also too much. Although having your ship stored in the ship maint. array and having the starbase as camera middle point could be a nice compromise... In the end I am also against that even... But I do not determine general opinion alone eh ;) Everything else is surprisingly possible and the 'modular' form of POSs could possibly even help towards server performance, since you will of course merge some common blocks and thus end up with less objects... And the modular system is already been proven to be possible in ships (T3). A stationary system is just a few steps away in my eyes (technically that is, art wise it might still be a huge hike).
Syberbolt8 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.28 15:29:00 - [46] Edited by: Syberbolt8 on 28/11/2009 15:34:40 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. I know why the thread was made, if you will look at the dead horse pos thread, I was one of the posters CCP Incognito was talking to... I was simply letting the guy above the post your quoting, know that docking isn't current an option for ccp. That is at least until the design code that will allow us to destroy outposts without a huge amount of effort on CCP's side during downtime. 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 :( Lol, I never said it was a server load issue, however, if you can find and checkout the hiveship thread, you will see where they say, there is a reason you cant destroy outpost, its some how DB related and that's why when you setup an outpost you have to wait for DT for the outpost to be finished. Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Xantec Caldari The dark fourth Dimension	Posted - 2009.12.02 07:49:00 - [47] /signed and supported :)
Jenna Sol	Posted - 2009.12.02 11:31:00 - [48] If my signature helps get it implemented, I'll sign.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.12.02 13:13:00 - [49] I love the idea, ever since it was first proposed - one thing I find myself wondering about is how the transition would occur (and apologies if this was discussed to death in the other very long thread). It seems unreasonable to suggest that some poor CCP dev has to go through and manually adjust all the existing POS structures, so that leaves some automated process whereby the DB entries that read something like 'POS Research Lab at Moon A, System B, coords X,Y,Z' becomes 'POS Research Lab tethered to POS Tower at modular position X,Y' and hopefully it all works out. However, two corner cases come to mind - cases where existing POS arrangements might not fit so well into whatever modular system results, and cases where the automated result either looks or performs horribly, for whatever reason. I do shudder a bit at the potential complexity and chance for error - e.g. it's sounding like weapons structures would have to be arranged with a little thought. Perhaps all that would be needed is similar changes as to what occurred in Dominion - a grace period during which operators get a chance to fix up the automated changes to make a bit more sense to their personal needs. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
TigerXtrm The Scope	Posted - 2009.12.02 13:21:00 - [50] I need to have posted here. Make it happen CCP! Please make it happen! Cute puppy eyes
Ariotales	Posted - 2009.12.02 16:53:00 - [51] /signed I like the idea of not bumping and flying around between tons of metal
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.02 20:33:00 - [52] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth I love the idea, ever since it was first proposed - one thing I find myself wondering about is how the transition would occur (and apologies if this was discussed to death in the other very long thread). It seems unreasonable to suggest that some poor CCP dev has to go through and manually adjust all the existing POS structures, so that leaves some automated process whereby the DB entries that read something like 'POS Research Lab at Moon A, System B, coords X,Y,Z' becomes 'POS Research Lab tethered to POS Tower at modular position X,Y' and hopefully it all works out. However, two corner cases come to mind - cases where existing POS arrangements might not fit so well into whatever modular system results, and cases where the automated result either looks or performs horribly, for whatever reason. I do shudder a bit at the potential complexity and chance for error - e.g. it's sounding like weapons structures would have to be arranged with a little thought. Perhaps all that would be needed is similar changes as to what occurred in Dominion - a grace period during which operators get a chance to fix up the automated changes to make a bit more sense to their personal needs. There is two possibilities that are feasible. First is simply introducing this next to the old system phasing out the new system, or as a T2 version of some sorts. This is the easy (and in my eyes the *******) way out. The second is a bit more complicated. An algorithm could written that simply takes all the modules on a POS and orders them into positions that would work, obviously this wouldn't work if theres gonna be extra rules that could limit the current expandability... After the dominion patch, I do believe that a grace period to let people change their setups themselves would work (since there should be a lot less POSs). The problem however is that there would STILL be a lot of POSs and the larger ones would take up to a day to change up... So in the end maybe it would be better to allow people some time to change their own setups, and after that time POSs that haven't changed to the new system will be rearranged according to a script and anything that doesn't work gets dumped inside the POS or something :-/
Parmala Udoni	Posted - 2009.12.02 22:50:00 - [53] This is addressed to the current sub-topic, what to do with old-style POS's. First, I don't think there's any reason to believe that anything needs to be "done" with them, in much the same way that we didn't burn all the buggies and turn all the horses into Elmer's Glue-All when the automobile was invented. More topically, I might observe that most of us still fly around in single-piece ships even though the very wealthy and patient among us can now have modular T3 ships. Basically we would end up with two types of POS: the old bizzarro, scattered steampunk variety, and the shiny (at least for the Amarr version) new modular variety. All the old POS's could remain where they are and continue to function until replaced at the discretion (and expense) of their owners with new, modular stations. And speaking of painfully interminable ordeals such as root canals, tax audits and Kevin Costner movies, taking apart old POS's is the only thing more obnoxious than putting together new ones (on account of being much less satisfying because all you end up with is an empty patch of space), and so, in addition to supporting any and all parts of this idea that CCP might choose to implement, I heartily endorse the idea of a station service queue so I can set everything to offline and un-anchor all by it's own little onesies while I watch Star Trek 2009 for the umpteenth time, listening with half an ear for the telltale beep-beep-beep of a target lock.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.12.03 11:34:00 - [54] The downside of keeping existing POSes as they are is that CCP have to maintain both systems, probably for a very long time, and either the modular system has to be superior to the existing POSes, or the existing POSes are 'legacy' and can't be built any more (i.e. you either seed a whole load of new blueprints and equipment in addition to existing, in which case there has to be a reason why you'd use the new ones beyond mere aesthetics, or you replace the production system and let nature do the rest, and maybe in five years the old style will be gone). There have been a few things that come up now and again in this forum where CCP have stated the problem is that the existing POS code doesn't allow X, and a clean replacement is more likely to enable a more flexible system going forward. For example, the CSM was pressing quite hard for public research slots on POSes instead of seeding more NPC slots, but it can't currently be done... I don't want to drag the topic off-topic with this - I'm just pointing out that there are opportunities in a POS redesign beyond simply the look & feel. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Syberbolt8 Gallente Terminal Impact Kairakau	Posted - 2009.12.05 16:22:00 - [55] Support the This thread in the assembly hall The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
Hruhd Minmatar	Posted - 2009.12.07 03:03:00 - [56] 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
Syberbolt8 Gallente Terminal Impact Kairakau	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:52:00 - [57] 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 Yeah I know, kind of makes ya sick dont it lol.. The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
JuniorD	Posted - 2009.12.09 05:48:00 - [58] I think that in some way these buildings should be connected- perhaps via small hallways thru space - devs... maybe you should allow people to walk around their pos's in incarna?
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.12.12 19:43:00 - [59] 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. Fix Local
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.12 23:41:00 - [60] 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. I get what you're saying but it's sort of a tricky problem since the devs got their privacy and it also shouldn't be too easy to find devs by their real name but also to find dev play characters with their real name... It shouldn't be a secret to you that these characters would instantly become a target once it's out that they are controlled by someone working on the game etc... it would effect the neutrality of the devs while they're actually playing the game... (hackers ofcourse also target these and blackmailing just one pile of ****) At any rate, Incognito is a real dev don't worry, the name has a face behind it... Or ccp goes to extreme lengths for no apparent reason... (?)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.