EVE Search - Resurrecting the Dead Horse

Check My IP Information

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)
Evelgrivion Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance	Posted - 2009.11.04 13:47:00 - [1] For the past three years, there has been a tremendous show of support for the old ôFlogging the Dead Horseö post regarding a proposed re-design of the Player Owned Structure system. The two biggest reasons for support are that players hate what they look like û a bunch of scrap floating in space, and they hate the interfaces that are used to interact with them on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. Aesthetically, people want to see an end to the era of junk floating inside and in the immediate vicinity of force field bubbles. A series of geometrically interconnected structures, such as squares or hexagons, make up the design of the proposed replacement system. The abilities of the facility are enhanced with each newly attached component. Weapons would be placed on extensions to the top and bottom or even the sides of the tower, emerging from the force field. These weapons systems would remain vulnerable to attack like they are today. Strategically, it would be possible to force players to pick and choose between the placement of weapons systems and jump bridges, as the number of available attachment points is limited. Whether or not the design is implemented this way is up to game design, but it is an intriguing possibility. Mechanically, the basic uses of Player Owned Structures donÆt change; they will still serve as industrial complexes and staging areas. However, the management of these facilities is in dramatic need of improvement. The amount of time required to set up a Starbase is obnoxious and unnecessary, and make up a considerable portion of ideas provided in addendum to the original modular starbase concept. The solution to this thorny issue is to introduce an onlining queue, and to allow the anchoring and onlining of more than one module at a time. Either one of these options would be appreciated by those who operate facilities in space. Players desire the ability to freely swap out control towers to upgrade their operations without having to dismantle the entire facility one structure at a time. The ability to freely swap one tower for another has been repeatedly requested by the community. If different sizes of towers remain in use, these features should be implemented. In-situ facility upgrades have also been proposed. To upgrade the starbase, raw materials and blueprints would allow operators to initiate construction of new facilities and operational capabilities directly onto the structure, rather than hauling a complete module from their points of distribution to null-security space. A single, unified interface is desired for the structure. If a docking facility is provided, players would have access to the entire starbasesÆ configuration and settings (based on permissions of course) when inside the base. From this in-structure interface they would organize production chains and initiate manufacturing jobs. Standings would be configured, and other basic functions such as loading ammunition into the weapons systems could be handled from this interface, without making your way to each module and interacting with their separate interfaces. Docking at these facilities would not replenish shields or capacitor, as they are not equipped to do so. If so desired, on site repairs could just as easily remain un-obtainable. However, with the right modules in place, the starbase could serve as a ship storage facility, and could serve as a location for refitting your ship. A Super Capital Mooring Point should be introduced as an optional attachment for the starbase as well. These would allow players to secure their super capital ships within the starbase without making them vulnerable to corporate thieves, but simultaneously leave them vulnerable to capture or destruction by marauding fleets that lay siege to the tower.
Evelgrivion Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance	Posted - 2009.11.04 13:53:00 - [2] Collective storage within the starbase would work similarly to how it does now. A limited volume would be available for the placement of possessions, such as modules and ships. Ideally, players would only be able to keep a few ships in storage, to prevent starbases from upstaging outposts. Additional ideas are available in the original modular starbases thread, "Flogging the Dead Horse", though not all of them were deemed relevant, unique, or of value to the basic concept. But if youÆre looking for additional material, you know where to look! An additional recap (courtesy Syberbolt8) is also available here.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:06:00 - [3] Out with the olde! In with the new (please)!
Syberbolt8 Gallente Knights of Kador Freedom of Elbas	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:14:00 - [4] Nice post, very much what we are looking for. keep up the good work mate :) Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:17:00 - [5] We need some new concept art for this, I can't really visualise it.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:39:00 - [6] I support this idea. "junk floating in space freely" is somewhat, what I dislike too. Flying from lab to lab because you're out of range is plain stupid, I would prefer one docking spot and one interface to the entire POS.
Trafficist	Posted - 2009.11.04 15:09:00 - [7] At Fanfest Torfi said something like this ''Players will be able to walk in stations, and maybe even pos's'' If you would use the sexy looking model Evelgrivion has supported you with, that would be easily possible and would be tons 'o' fun. Just my 2'cents...
BeanBagKing The Keepers of JewGold Gypsy Nation	Posted - 2009.11.04 17:03:00 - [8] /signed and supported
Esiel Renegade Serenity	Posted - 2009.11.05 00:21:00 - [9] The only thing I would suggest would be that you only allow 1 vessel to dock (must be a dockable ship - I would say no caps except freighters but that might be harder to code, I don't know) at a time unless you decided to add a module like the ship maintenence bay added. If you want to have multiple ships docked then you have to have the module. An add me as a supporter to a new better POS. ... Beat the dead horse
Cadde Gallente 221st Century Warfare	Posted - 2009.11.05 00:21:00 - [10] I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them. My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!

BeanBagKing The Keepers of JewGold Gypsy Nation	Posted - 2009.11.05 08:00:00 - [11] Incognito has been on IRC talkign to Evelgrivion, who we all know is the original author and has a better idea that probably anyone whats going on. His opinions may not exactly match everyones on what should and shouldn't happen, but as the champion and starter of the Dead Horse Thread I'll trust him to make the right decisions. Besides, we can't -all- be happy, but we can make the toothpick much, much better. Anyway, my point was that Incognito has been talking to him live, so I'm sure there have been details discussed that weren't mentioned here, that's fine with me because, again, I trust Evelgrivion.

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.11.05 08:12:00 - [12] Originally by: Cadde I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them. I am not a big fan of the Hex layout, but that is just personal opinion. I would like to see something more 3D, but that is me personally. I like the original idea of a set # of sockets that you can plug modules into. A Module takes space and may or may not have more sockets. So you could have a tower with single hanger, or a set of extensions that are nothing but more sockets. One thing the Hex plan does cover is that it is aligned with the moon, so you could limit moon miners to the moon facing side, while docks and such can be on the space facing side. This is defiantly a step in the right direction overall.


CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.11.05 08:12:00 - [13] Originally by: BeanBagKing Incognito has been on IRC talkign to Evelgrivion, who we all know is the original author and has a better idea that probably anyone whats going on. His opinions may not exactly match everyones on what should and shouldn't happen, but as the champion and starter of the Dead Horse Thread I'll trust him to make the right decisions. Besides, we can't -all- be happy, but we can make the toothpick much, much better. Anyway, my point was that Incognito has been talking to him live, so I'm sure there have been details discussed that weren't mentioned here, that's fine with me because, again, I trust Evelgrivion. TBH mostly chatted in main channel, didn't really talk in depth about this.

Cadde Gallente 221st Century Warfare	Posted - 2009.11.05 09:28:00 - [14] Edited by: Cadde on 05/11/2009 09:34:25 Originally by: CCP Incognito I am not a big fan of the Hex layout, but that is just personal opinion. I would like to see something more 3D, but that is me personally. I agree with you, but the hex thing looks like a fitting window to me and it might be more pleasing to the designers if putting the pos together was more simple both in code and for the user. I myself would absolutely love it if we had to tow the modules to the pos and actually align them and dock them manually... Unfortunately this is eve and not a space sim. So, basically in the new system you have certain sockets where you can place the modules. Clicking a button that says "next available slot" would work too. All I'm saying is that some people might not be able to understand the new system if they actually have to position the correct module over the correct socket. Quote: Anyway, my point was that Incognito has been talking to him live, so I'm sure there have been details discussed that weren't mentioned here, that's fine with me because, again, I trust Evelgrivion. Yes but Incognito asked for a consensus and to get that those details have to be shared here for all to nitpick at. Once enough players can agree on a design concept i think CCP will have to give in to the pressure or lots of people are gonna call them on their "we value your feedback" motto. My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.05 12:47:00 - [15] Edited by: sg3s on 05/11/2009 12:47:22 Originally by: CCP Incognito I am not a big fan of the Hex layout, but that is just personal opinion. Ok some clarifications for the Hex layout I guess... First of the whole idea revolves arround that it isn't a 'simple' geometry shape with little imagination, but a bit more complex. Naturally I just found hexagons logical (power of 3 is powerfull, uuuh they fit nicely together, octagons would be bit too much). It made perfect sense in my head, and thats where the problems started because I don't really have a way of translating it completely as I want onto paper/into an image. It was pretty troublesome making the image 'work' as I wanted it but I believe that what I came up with is pretty accurate. Note that the enclosed hexagons don't have to literally look like that, I just lack the artistic capabilities to 'round the corners' and make it look more pwetty so to say... Platforms could also be made so they 'translate' the structures that come after it into a square again, adding more variation to the overall look, for instance. And the images DO make a lot of sense as a fitting interface... But I did mention 'multiple layers' with that intention that larger modules/structures might take up space in multile layers. Giving it that extra dimension (height) that is missing from the original in my perspective, but holding on to strict limitations as to where everything ends up in the POS. That would make it less fit as a fitting interface (something 3d might work better). I made the images to resemble a large tower btw, for smaller towers you might have less layers to build on for instance. I just dislike making balancing decisions as that tends to deviate into whether or not that would be the correct way have it, details suck.
High Star	Posted - 2009.11.05 14:17:00 - [16] The one thing that still bothers me with design is the changing out of towers. Would it not be more sensible to have a standard tower (one for each race) and have location points to have 2 power and 2 cpu modules too allow you to increase the infer structures. This would make thing easier for POS owners to upgrade their POS'es the power and cpu modules could be priced so they are the same as towers today.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.05 14:19:00 - [17] Originally by: High Star The one thing that still bothers me with design is the changing out of towers. Would it not be more sensible to have a standard tower (one for each race) and have location points to have 2 power and 2 cpu modules too allow you to increase the infer structures. This would make thing easier for POS owners to upgrade their POS'es the power and cpu modules could be priced so they are the same as towers today. Read the OP mate, that is one of the reasons/ideas behind the whole concept.
BeanBagKing The Keepers of JewGold Gypsy Nation	Posted - 2009.11.06 01:12:00 - [18] 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.
Syberbolt8 Gallente Knights of Kador Freedom of Elbas	Posted - 2009.11.06 01:44:00 - [19] 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. I still believe the old horse thread needs to be bumped, it can die when CCP say ok, lets do it. To much history to let it drop off the map. Plus all this attention from CCP Incognito might just be a trick to let the old horse die! /tinfoil hat Oh and please, oh please lets not ever quote anything said in that channel, nothing talked about in there is official in any way shape or form. And quoting or stating facts about devs is a good way to get them to run away and hide. Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Thorsyrrian	Posted - 2009.11.06 02:32:00 - [20] I agree, the POS in its current form is lacking... The management of the POS is too tedious and complex and yet, lacks the functionality that many consider important. The issue also ties in with the whole corporation roles, corporation hangars, and permissions, being overly complex and limited in functionality. I believe the entire roles, permissions and hangar systems needs a major overhaul. Why are we limited to just 7 hangar divisions? and Why are these hangar divisions (and the non-sensical permissions) the same at each station, each POS and in each container? The current system makes micro management extremely tedious, very inflexible, and essentially does not meet the needs of the average corp Manager. Access permissions, divison labelling and logs need upgrading and greater flexibility and independence between the different locations. I would like to see the flexibility to have more than 7 divisions, to have different names and access permission setups for the divisions at different locations (at different stations, at a POS and in containers). Another issue with POS's is with research... Managing corp owned and player owned blueprints in a corp hangar for researching remotely at a POS is extremely insecure, and combersome when it comes to removing and moving blueprints around. Not to mention, stopping those who you do give access to the hangar, from taking everyone else's blueprints. Perhaps you could permit corp members to research their blueprints remotely at the corp (or alliance) POS from the safety of their own personal hangars, and not even need to use the corp hangar? I would also like to have divisions setup in personal hangars, so I can separate and organize my items the same way I can in the corp hangar. Some of these suggestions should be very easy to implement and will solve many of the micromanagement issues that plague management in every corp.

sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.06 19:01:00 - [21] 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. I believe CCP has been interested in the idea since, or even before, the beginning of the old thread... But it is a big change and complicated to 'get it right'. This thread is really a summary of all the really good ideas raised in the old thread, in condensed form. Incognito mentioned he wanted to have it to be able to bring it up once again at CCP. This doesn't mean they will be making this though, don't get you're hopes up until it is on SiSi. And yes... don't let the dead horse die!!! :D
Dacryphile	Posted - 2009.11.06 19:51:00 - [22] Edited by: Dacryphile on 06/11/2009 19:56:36 Originally by: Cadde I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them. I think the modular design is far superior to a hex layout. Evelgrivion's POS ideas are win, I'm happy that CCP is finally picking it up and hopefully making something out of it. Originally by: Doc Robertson ...take a good look at this pic and tell us which one is you.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:09:00 - [23] Originally by: Dacryphile Edited by: Dacryphile on 06/11/2009 19:56:36 Originally by: Cadde I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them. I think the modular design is far superior to a hex layout. Evelgrivion's POS ideas are win, I'm happy that CCP is finally picking it up and hopefully making something out of it. The Hex POS idea is not about it being hexagons D:< It's to signify that it doesn't have to be 'squared' just that it should be of modular design... Guess I'll be pressing that issue until everyone understands it
Dacryphile	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:12:00 - [24] Originally by: sg3s The Hex POS idea is not about it being hexagons D:< It's to signify that it doesn't have to be 'squared' just that it should be of modular design... Guess I'll be pressing that issue until everyone understands it So still 3 dimensional then? Where as the Dead Horse would be a cube, you are saying put more sides on it like gaming dice? Just trying to clarify. Originally by: Doc Robertson ...take a good look at this pic and tell us which one is you.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:06:00 - [25] Originally by: Dacryphile Originally by: sg3s The Hex POS idea is not about it being hexagons D:< It's to signify that it doesn't have to be 'squared' just that it should be of modular design... Guess I'll be pressing that issue until everyone understands it So still 3 dimensional then? Where as the Dead Horse would be a cube, you are saying put more sides on it like gaming dice? Just trying to clarify. Almost, but not quite. They don't have to be geometrically correct to anything... hmmm you can build several tiers of odd shaped blocks that connect differently upon the previous tier. In the end there are natural restrictions for modules to be connected to other modules (silos near moonminers? cha near labs? dunno), you could use these limits to make blocks that look cool no matter how you configure them in the POS. It's largely to give art/design a broader spectrum to work in rather than constricting them to square blocks as you said. I how that makes sense now :p
Seiver D'amross Subach-Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:09:00 - [26] all i have to say is this is a beautiful idea, its long over due. i have been playing seance before POSs and they were sexy at the time, but now its old and overdue. _____________________________________________________ I shal stand tall and shake the heavens with my power
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:52:00 - [27] Problem is that turrets currently calculate range and tracking from POS tower. Thats really usefull for AC and Blasters....not!
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:11:00 - [28] 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).
Syberbolt8 Gallente Gen Tec Freedom of Elbas	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:47:00 - [29] 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). 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. Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:33:00 - [30] 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

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... (?)


CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.12.15 14:48:00 - [61] 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. ----- I am a programmer, not a designer, all design comments are just speculation and have no grounding in fact!

Syberbolt8 Gallente Terminal Impact Kairakau	Posted - 2009.12.15 23:27:00 - [62] 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. Confirming that should he not show up at Fanfest I will gladly take his beer home to him..., really... The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
Taladool	Posted - 2009.12.17 19:08:00 - [63] Great thread, would read again, CCP DO THIS!!
Syberbolt8 Gallente No Limit Soldiers Looney Toons.	Posted - 2009.12.20 19:10:00 - [64] Saved from page 7, more support for the Assembly hall would be welcome. The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
Syberbolt8 Gallente No Limit Soldiers Looney Toons.	Posted - 2009.12.24 06:40:00 - [65] Just because this is going with the CSM to Iceland, and CCP Incognito is trying to batt for us, doesn't mean we get to lay off putting up pressure for this idea. save from page x, best idea F&I has ever seen. The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
Praetor Novak Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.12.24 06:47:00 - [66] OP - Didn't Graalum originally propose this "Modular" idea, a very long time ago? Anyway whomever originated this I support it, it's about time for CCP to update POSs.
Trebor Daehdoow Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.12.24 13:19:00 - [67] 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. World Domination - It's fun for the entire family! EViE - The iPhone / iPod Touch Skill Training Monitor
Lacolo Basema Kotar Engineering	Posted - 2009.12.25 02:54:00 - [68] Posting to confirm that CCP Incognito is indeed a very real and manly dev/person.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.27 03:10:00 - [69] 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 :)
Syberbolt8 Gallente No Limit Soldiers Looney Toons.	Posted - 2009.12.28 17:09:00 - [70] 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 :) From what we have been told, artwork is the hardest part of the project, and would be a lot of work, there is more to art work in a game then just your model and your textures, but saying that, This is looking alot more promising then it has for the last 4 years, so who knows, it might happen sooner then we think. :) The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall

Taladool	Posted - 2009.12.30 18:50:00 - [71] saved from page 8, supporting the dead horse pos thread, and its resurrection
Taladool	Posted - 2010.01.02 11:23:00 - [72] recovered from page 6, any chance you have made any headway CCP Incognito? And I know you don't to have my babys, but can I have yours?
Sollunux Gallente Dawn's Requiem	Posted - 2010.01.05 06:23:00 - [73] How'd we get to page 5...
Syberbolt8 Gallente Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.01.12 22:50:00 - [74] Originally by: Sollunux How'd we get to page 5... Same way we got to page 11 i would assume.. lol The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
mundus123	Posted - 2010.01.13 04:17:00 - [75] Bumped and signed.
Amras Arnatuile	Posted - 2010.01.19 01:35:00 - [76] Sounds cool. Def for the idea
Rigel 17th	Posted - 2010.01.19 02:22:00 - [77] Has the idea of a taking a Titan and making it so that it can be converted into a station? My concept would be that a Titan could park anywhere in a system as long as it was off grid of stations and gates. When the conversion process is started the titan will open in the middle and a station egg will emerge form the middle and expand. The size of the Titan station will determined by the Pilots level. The Titan Station will be able to hanger ships, store up to 100,000 m3 of gear in the corp hangar, 2 mil m3 in the hangar or more based on pilot rating, and be able to have a clone and medical bay on hand. The additional feature is that the Titan Station would be able to defend itself. Also once erected a POS type bubble will be established. The Titan Station will allow a pilot to leave it once errected and the pilot can do whatever as long as he knows that when he is not in the station it cannnot defend itself. When the station is deconstrcuted all ships and equipment that does not fit in their respective modules will be jettisoned. The time for a Titan Station to reconfigure back to a station would be 2 hours. Fuel would be the same as a tower with limitations.
Lashindra Mirn Minmatar Helios Incorporated The Babylon Consortium	Posted - 2010.01.20 10:57:00 - [78] bam! to the top! Great ideas, love it! make it happen CCP!!
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2010.01.20 15:12:00 - [79] Originally by: Rigel 17th Has the idea of a taking a Titan and making it so that it can be converted into a station? My concept would be that a Titan could park anywhere in a system as long as it was off grid of stations and gates. When the conversion process is started the titan will open in the middle and a station egg will emerge form the middle and expand. The size of the Titan station will determined by the Pilots level. The Titan Station will be able to hanger ships, store up to 100,000 m3 of gear in the corp hangar, 2 mil m3 in the hangar or more based on pilot rating, and be able to have a clone and medical bay on hand. The additional feature is that the Titan Station would be able to defend itself. Also once erected a POS type bubble will be established. The Titan Station will allow a pilot to leave it once errected and the pilot can do whatever as long as he knows that when he is not in the station it cannnot defend itself. When the station is deconstrcuted all ships and equipment that does not fit in their respective modules will be jettisoned. The time for a Titan Station to reconfigure back to a station would be 2 hours. Fuel would be the same as a tower with limitations. Paragraphs mate, use em... and uuuh, has been covered, not the same topic as the one we're discussing in here, did you even read?...
Syberbolt8 Gallente Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.01.23 00:53:00 - [80] Originally by: Lashindra Mirn bam! to the top! Great ideas, love it! make it happen CCP!! I love it too :) saved from page 6 The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall

mundus123	Posted - 2010.01.25 06:33:00 - [81] Nom Nom Nom this will never die!
kveldulfson The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.25 12:34:00 - [82] For once an idea I like Therefore I support this update suggestion from the OP
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2010.01.25 12:57:00 - [83] I support this idea aswell! :)
Arawn Caledonia	Posted - 2010.01.26 02:38:00 - [84] This is more along the lines of what I'd expect from an outpost. Just extrapolating a bit, do you really need 15 places to dock per system? If only one new Starbase could be anchored per corp, per system, and they were to receive a massive HP/PG/CPU boost, our existing POS hardware could be integrated and potentially remotely controlled and refueled by the new Starbase. The hub of your corporations network, so to speak. The old "starbases", having their ability to anchor CHA/SMAs removed, would become extensions in your network. Should the HUB be destroyed, they could still be configured and refueled manually. It would also be nice if the new structures were moved from moons to planets but I'm not sure how that would affect your planning for the next expansion.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2010.01.26 03:39:00 - [85] Originally by: Arawn Caledonia This is more along the lines of what I'd expect from an outpost. Just extrapolating a bit, do you really need 15 places to dock per system? If only one new Starbase could be anchored per corp, per system, and they were to receive a massive HP/PG/CPU boost, our existing POS hardware could be integrated and potentially remotely controlled and refueled by the new Starbase. The hub of your corporations network, so to speak. The old "starbases", having their ability to anchor CHA/SMAs removed, would become extensions in your network. Should the HUB be destroyed, they could still be configured and refueled manually. It would also be nice if the new structures were moved from moons to planets but I'm not sure how that would affect your planning for the next expansion. It is nice to see that people really focus their bashing on the core issues here... The main part we're suggestion here is really the look and feel of a POS... If you haven't seen or used one a lot then this might indeed not sound sensible and you will be distracted by the optional suggestions that came up in the original thread (mind this is a summary with most of the popular ideas). The only real reason 'docking' is suggested here is because loads others have asked/suggested this... Personally I am also against that, it is still just a POS and it shouldn't be taking over tasks from outposts... HOWEVER the 'Mooring' suggestion is slightly different in this regard... It's an idea to let super capitals dock, something that is currently not in the game, and in a way that they're still not 100% safe for 100% of the time... On the issue of stuff @ planets... They can't really do that as that might make it impossible to place an outpost somewhere... or at least annoying, the whole thing has issues, too tired to iterate on that
Arawn Caledonia	Posted - 2010.01.26 04:23:00 - [86] Originally by: sg3s Originally by: Arawn Caledonia This is more along the lines of what I'd expect from an outpost. Just extrapolating a bit, do you really need 15 places to dock per system? If only one new Starbase could be anchored per corp, per system, and they were to receive a massive HP/PG/CPU boost, our existing POS hardware could be integrated and potentially remotely controlled and refueled by the new Starbase. The hub of your corporations network, so to speak. The old "starbases", having their ability to anchor CHA/SMAs removed, would become extensions in your network. Should the HUB be destroyed, they could still be configured and refueled manually. It would also be nice if the new structures were moved from moons to planets but I'm not sure how that would affect your planning for the next expansion. It is nice to see that people really focus their bashing on the core issues here... The main part we're suggestion here is really the look and feel of a POS... If you haven't seen or used one a lot then this might indeed not sound sensible and you will be distracted by the optional suggestions that came up in the original thread (mind this is a summary with most of the popular ideas). The only real reason 'docking' is suggested here is because loads others have asked/suggested this... Personally I am also against that, it is still just a POS and it shouldn't be taking over tasks from outposts... HOWEVER the 'Mooring' suggestion is slightly different in this regard... It's an idea to let super capitals dock, something that is currently not in the game, and in a way that they're still not 100% safe for 100% of the time... On the issue of stuff @ planets... They can't really do that as that might make it impossible to place an outpost somewhere... or at least annoying, the whole thing has issues, too tired to iterate on that Definitely agreeing with the CAP docking bit, which is needed just to end slavery to supercapitals I'm also not overtly against docking and understand the current system has some...ahem, aesthetic issues. The post above was meant to point out certain practicality issues with allowing docking at 2, 10, 100? different moons in a single system, in which the system would definitely benefit by being centralized
Athar Mu Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.01.26 04:24:00 - [87] 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.
Syberbolt8 Gallente Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.28 22:40:00 - [88] 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. As far as gun placements go, this is just a concept, changes for reasons such as that would have to come about. The queue is something that like the dead horse pos thread itself, I have wanted for ages. Instead of sitting there anchoring and putting everything online for 11 hrs straight just set it the way you want it and go join in the fleet ops. This would be a very nice addition to pos's as a whole. I'm not sure about the savable and sell able bpc's but its an interesting concept. The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
Gecko O'Bac Achmed-Terrorist IUS PRIMAE N0CTIS	Posted - 2010.01.29 01:17:00 - [89] 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. The mooring idea is quite interesting though, and I'd say that it should be extended to all the ships moored at a pos, not only super capitals. Many poses are used as a staging point, so mooring ships at one and having only certain people with some corp rights able to fly those ships is quite a good idea imho. It could be quite hard to implement though since having them outside of the station means they're attackable as soon as shields are down (which is fine) but means also that it'd be hard to "link" them to the station for the mooring to be effective (though if it works with the current pos modules I suppose it'd work with ships too, in some way.) What I find strange though, but it may be my inexperience with managing poses, is that nobody suggested that, since we're consolidating all the modules in one superstructure, we can be done with the giant bubble shield (which I personally dislike quite a lot) and the non sense (graphically at least) of the weapons staying out of the shields (It'd also help the aesthetic effect of the station itself, since all those struts and arms aren't all that good looking). 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).
Syberbolt8 Gallente Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.29 03:30:00 - [90] 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. The Idea to dock was just a thought that a lot of people liked over the last 4 years of the original thread. It is after all a summery of the most talked about and supported idea's Quote: The mooring idea is quite interesting though The mooring was for super capitals to keep them safer while in the pos. Normal ships can be held in the SMA's like always, and while a super capital could be put into a capital SMA its not very feasible because of the cpu and grid requirements. Also, just as an extra bit of info, the pos bubble doesn't fail till the pos is destroyed so there would be no attacking of moored ships. Quote: What I find strange though Removing the Giant bubble would effectively reduce or almost completely remove the ability to use a pos as a safe staging point, even if we did allow people to dock, or ships moored to be invulnerable or unable to be targeted, it wouldn't work as well as the current "bubble" does. As far as the guns go, I would personalty rather they stay disconnected from the pos like they are now, but pulled the ammo form the pos itself, in an ammo hanger of some sort. 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). When you attack the force field you are attacking the station itself, and while attacking modules might be an ok way to **** off your enemys, you can get the same effect simply reinforcing the tower as anything needing cpu will shutdown. Interesting Idea's though, as always the more input for ccp the better :) The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall

Woobly shnufflepops	Posted - 2010.02.14 13:00:00 - [91] Yeah, I don't think this post is ever going to go away until it's implemented into the actual system.
Avalon Ranger Exitus Acta Probat manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.02.14 15:11:00 - [92] Edited by: Avalon Ranger on 14/02/2010 15:13:04 There is a large amount of information to get through and everyone has their own ideas on what needs changing. I personally agree that the current method is a touch dated and a little user unfriendly. I agree that the idea of interconnecting modules (Much like those seen in Missions) should be implemented. It would require a massive graphical overhaul but that's a good thing in my opinion as it means the latest advanced and knowledge can be applied to their design. My only concern is that the current suggested design is very 2D. There are a lot of variable, problems and design issues to overcome before this would be anywhere near ready to be put into practise but it's a large step forward. Four way, grid like, interconnectivity is a great idea. I like how the central structure remains a tower but I'd like to see it with a few more layers even if only one more. Currently there is a lot of room in a POS field and some people use that both strategically and logistically. I believe POS weapons should remain free-standing. The centre structure should be a little more expansive and not so clumped together and I think that having moon mining arrays only available on a single side of the POS would be a bonus too. It would not take away anything that the POS system offers now but I think it would mean that people could make the POS more suitable for the area and need. I'd like to see a lot more images and demonstrations of this idea as well to give a better understanding of how it would work. A little more Dev involvement wouldn't be a bad thing either. The community could do with feeling like they're being listened to once in a while. Feed back is very important on both sides.
Woobly shnufflepops	Posted - 2010.02.15 19:25:00 - [93] I think we need more dev's talking in here ;)
Syberbolt8 Gallente	Posted - 2010.02.22 15:48:00 - [94] Saved from page 12, Keep in mind guys, this is just the concept, and summery of the original dead horse pos thread, that is linked in the op. The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2010.02.24 22:43:00 - [95] Originally by: Syberbolt8 Saved from page 12, Keep in mind guys, this is just the concept, and summery of the original dead horse pos thread, that is linked in the op. ohy Syberbolt, sup?
GavinGoodrich Ungrouped Guns	Posted - 2010.02.25 02:59:00 - [96] +1 for that "mooring points" idea early in the thread. I'm sure cap/supercap pilots would LOVE LOVE LOVE that Enter the parking lot POS...business opportunity \o
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2010.02.25 05:25:00 - [97] Originally by: GavinGoodrich +1 for that "mooring points" idea early in the thread. I'm sure cap/supercap pilots would LOVE LOVE LOVE that Enter the parking lot POS...business opportunity I agree.... while working on a summary of the old thread I went over most of the posts, and this just popped up... Now the idea is pretty basic all I've done since I got it is describe it as accurately as I can make it without images... There hasn't been anyone who was completely opposed to it after hearing what it would involve as of yet... Original post: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=391410&page=22#638
Qujulome Amarr	Posted - 2010.02.27 13:42:00 - [98] still want this before Incarna
Psyentific	Posted - 2010.02.28 21:26:00 - [99] I support this thread.
Zedic Amarr Universalis Imperium	Posted - 2010.02.28 23:16:00 - [100] I love, love this design. I hate the way POS's look and function right now. I completely, totally agree - switching towers is obnoxious. Please for the love of all that is holy, give us this!

Titus Balls Minmatar Balls Independent Traders	Posted - 2010.03.17 15:30:00 - [101] +1 for this thread. I'd love to get into running a POS but, apart from the lack of high-sec standings to moor one, I've been put off by the whole complexity up until now. A lot of these suggestions just seem to make sense in making things a little easier for people to manage.
KAELA MENSHA	Posted - 2010.03.17 16:12:00 - [102] The CSM asked about plans to redo starbases. CCP does not have any immediate plans to do so. However, revisiting older features will come more into focus once planetary interaction and Incarna are fully implemented. Looks like CSM did its usual fine job.
Lord FunkyMunky	Posted - 2010.03.17 16:54:00 - [103] modular starbases sound f*cking awesome!
Jmarr Hyrgund The Bastards	Posted - 2010.03.18 13:10:00 - [104] I hereby bump this to prevent it from vanishing into the depths once again. This needs seriously looked into and and as much as possible implemented. Lets keep this horse undead till CCP has to do something about smply because of the smell. Pirate - Blogger - Rifter Pilot
Quacka Minmatar Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.28 17:51:00 - [105] Je signed et supported
Syberbolt8 Gallente	Posted - 2010.04.01 04:05:00 - [106] To the first page with you. The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
Kougy	Posted - 2010.04.01 06:45:00 - [107] I have to say that this idea came to me even before ever seeing this or the original thread. It seems so intuitive that we should be able to have unique, customizable star base instead of a generic, boring tower. I remember being sadly disappointed upon seeing my first POS years ago.
riverini Gallente Reliables Inc Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.04.01 06:56:00 - [108] /signed
greymouse Minmatar Black Eclipse Corp	Posted - 2010.04.21 15:28:00 - [109] /signed and /supported Cry Havoc!! Release the Mice of Menace!!!
Syberbolt8 Gallente Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.28 15:37:00 - [110] Saved form page 5 Supporting the dead horse since 2006 The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall

Marquis Zenas I.X Research	Posted - 2010.05.19 09:44:00 - [111] ARISE! To the top with you! -------------------------- Sigless
Rumplefink	Posted - 2010.06.04 19:58:00 - [112] Epic Necro. Dead Horses Tell No Tales
Syberbolt8 Gallente The Sacred Order of the Space Weasels Industrial Spearhead Alliance	Posted - 2010.06.04 21:06:00 - [113] Originally by: Rumplefink Epic Necro. Dead Horses Tell No Tales Its not even been a month, thats not a necro.. The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
xXApophisXx Minmatar Interplanetary Trade Commission	Posted - 2010.06.13 21:21:00 - [114] Need this done!
Mithfindel Aseyakone	Posted - 2010.06.14 07:48:00 - [115] A note on planar construction: If too much stuff is in a single plane, the POS might become quite difficult to navigate around. If guns are to become attacked to the POS by a visible (and collidable) connector, it'll need to be thin enough to maneuver around. The rest of the modules ideally should connect directly or almost directly to the POS itself, perhaps in several levels to reduce the amount of stuff in a single level. For example, let the POS be aligned so that there's a "moon" side and a "space" side. Two struts connect the POS to a structure that houses weapons and other modules outside of the shield. Technically, this would also allow recycling some art from the ships and make POS turrets look like ship turrets. The rest of the modules connect either directly to the POS (moon miners, silos and reactors on the "moon" side, hangars, ship maintenance arrays and factories on the "space" side) whereas other modules (shield hardeners, laboratories) connect to the struts.
Panic Merchant	Posted - 2010.06.14 08:05:00 - [116] +1 with extensible support structures so that POS weapons can still be strategically placed more or less how they are placed today.
Parleion	Posted - 2010.06.15 00:40:00 - [117] Love the concept for the most part. I don't like the way it limits weapon positioning, and think that mobile weapon platforms outside of the base itself are plenty believable and would still look aesthetically pleasing. This is a vast improvement on what exists today.
Khaymann Draven Minmatar	Posted - 2010.06.16 00:56:00 - [118] Come on ccp cant you see that this is important to your players
Syberbolt8 Gallente The Sacred Order of the Space Weasels Industrial Spearhead Alliance	Posted - 2010.06.26 05:18:00 - [119] Originally by: Khaymann Draven Come on ccp cant you see that this is important to your players Im gonna go with a no on this one, don't get me wrong, im sure they care, but upgrading POS's doesn't seem to be on the agenda. Don't worry CCP, we will keep reminding you of this till you do it, and Ill do my best to make sure every CSM I can get to bring it up will in fact bring it up. The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall
Party Scout	Posted - 2010.06.26 14:05:00 - [120] Come on CCP! have some mercy on the poor horse :S Damn good idea, and looks awesome.

Simeon Tor	Posted - 2010.06.27 15:39:00 - [121] Back up from page 4.. again.
Ulviirala Vauryndar Gallente Vauryndar Dalharil	Posted - 2010.06.28 03:39:00 - [122] Originally by: Evelgrivion A limited volume would be available for the placement of possessions, such as modules and ships. Ideally, players would only be able to keep a few ships in storage, to prevent starbases from upstaging outposts. "A limited volume" should mean like 1,400,000m¦ per storage module for items, similar to the corporate hangar arrays we have now, in my veldspar'd opinion. I can not be happy without enough stOREage! :P
TestCharPleaseIgnore	Posted - 2010.07.18 21:01:00 - [123] Do it, this is a superb idea, and i especially like the hexagonal system
Taladool	Posted - 2010.07.30 22:53:00 - [124] WoW! page 20, geez. Come on people, best Idea in F&I. Hosting websites, pay in isk, cheap prices, fast service. check us out
Seth Ruin Minmatar Ominous Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.09.29 19:07:00 - [125] Maybe one day, when CCP finally decides to reiterate on old, broken features...
Neros D	Posted - 2010.10.13 13:03:00 - [126] /bump This is the most important update needed to EVE. POS in their current state is ****. Please start taking ideas and add this CCP! And do it like... yesterday.. or the day before yesterday - at the latest NOW!!
Qujulome Amarr	Posted - 2010.10.25 14:20:00 - [127] 18 months
Alias 6322A	Posted - 2010.12.06 03:59:00 - [128] I think part of the problem is players can't agree on what they want and because of this CCP has no idea which way to develop...I mean it IS their job to take a rough idea from us (the players who don't do this for a living) and transform it into an incredible game mechanic (You know, like everything else in EVE?). I support getting POS changes, but maybe CCP devs ought to make their own thread of their own ideas (I recall this being done for something else, but I forget right now) for players to pick and choose from to focus on. CCP ought to step up to the plate and tell us what is doable, instead of players firing wildly in the dark for the perfect POS.
rematotusen Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.12.21 15:47:00 - [129] i vote yes, this would be awesome, id love to be able to dock at a POS, even with just a few ships at at time. I would never not own a pos then lol.
Admiral Leviathan	Posted - 2011.01.24 21:43:00 - [130] Love this idea, implement this CCP!

Zhou Wuwang Federal Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.24 21:46:00 - [131] /signed.
Boonaki Caldari Focused Annihilation Detrimental Imperative	Posted - 2011.01.24 21:55:00 - [132] love your ideas, well thought out and explained to great detail. I would like to see an industry expansion even though I am not industry specialized. A complete revamp of mining as well as Evelgrivion ideas would make a fantastic expansion.
betoli	Posted - 2011.01.25 02:51:00 - [133] Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 02:53:45 Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: Cadde I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them. I am not a big fan of the Hex layout, but that is just personal opinion. I would like to see something more 3D, but that is me personally. There is a bit of a shortage of regular 3D shapes that tessellate nicely - aren't you basically left with a lattice (cubes as the basic primitive) which is a bit boring too?! One other thought is a ring system, where to add a module you enlarge the ring and insert the extra module into the circumference, up to a maximum allowable size, after that you need to move to multiple rings that intersect at two poles. The 'tower' runs between the poles, so a single ring; 4 modules (horizonatal line is the 'tower') .._ _/_\_ .\_/ 8 modules ..._ ../.\ .\|...\| ------- .\|...\| ..\_/ (ignore the dots) to get a second ring clone the above and rotate it 90 degrees on the tower axis. That preserves the large/medium/small type breakdown, (now single, double, and triple rings). The module models need to be designed with connectors that can vary at angles depending on how many things are in the ring. You could bolt on additional single link modules to the outside surface of the ring without risking them 'overlapping' with another one. ... or google image search "benzene rings" for some interesting topologies :-)
Flette	Posted - 2011.01.25 03:30:00 - [134] I think this is a great idea. As far as the geometry goes, a reasonably good example of fairly simple 3d construction can be seen in the xbox game chromehounds. Something like that would preserve a nice 3d character and yet be simple. Anyway, any geometry is better than a jumble of disconnected parts.
Diarok Breascar	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:46:00 - [135] This should be no different than the change to PI Command Center to be upgraded without having to tear the PI apart and re-create. This has been needed for some time now.
Aidan Patrick Aldebaran Securities Tauri Federation	Posted - 2011.04.27 11:07:00 - [136] Just throwing my seal of approval for this.. will also do the same in the Assembly Hall. It's GREAT to see both a CSM and CCP post in this thread! - Aidan Patrick
Crazy KSK	Posted - 2011.04.27 15:21:00 - [137] id also like poses to be placeable for yourself whether you are in a corp or not also placing them anywhere in space would be nice (except on grids with stations planets belts etc)
Virtue Maulerant	Posted - 2011.04.27 15:34:00 - [138] Originally by: Admiral Leviathan Love this idea, implement this CCP! Agreed,/signed.
Cindy Steel	Posted - 2011.04.27 19:15:00 - [139] After reading through almost the entire of this topic it made me realise that how the POS's works and looks in the game at present is not appealing at all(this goes for most of the UI aswell) so i fully support this feature, and I would see it revamped sooner rather then later, not prioritized higher then Incarna, but it's pretty high on my list. I APPROVE THIS FEATURE/REMAKE!
Hieronimus Rex Minmatar Infinitus Sapientia	Posted - 2011.05.07 20:33:00 - [140] Is making POSes relatively difficult to assemble and use (having to fly around to 8 different labs to pick up copies) a deliberate game design choice to maintain player preference for stations?

Marchocias Snatch Victory	Posted - 2011.05.08 13:47:00 - [141] In response to the problems of docking: This can be achieved without any problems related to destruction of POS whilst docked, simply by automatically undocking anyone who logs/disconnects, and leave them floating within the sheild, like POSes currently do. ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it).
Lord Dragon28	Posted - 2011.05.09 02:34:00 - [142] up
Xyzibit Caldari New-Roots	Posted - 2011.07.06 10:04:00 - [143] up to the top ... bumping an epic and great idea!
Crain Fraggs	Posted - 2011.07.09 13:09:00 - [144] Are there bumping rules for this sub-forum? Anyway, great ideas to the top! greetings, Crain
Ciar Meara Amarr Virtus Vindice	Posted - 2011.07.27 11:28:00 - [145] This needs to be up top with the old horse thread. POS 2.0, Now that soundwave has confirmed the fact that greyscale has an idea for a modular pos we should all be getting excited! - Hilmar getur ekki tala= vi= ¦ig n·na, hann er a= fara ß japanska Tfskuverslun.
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2011.07.27 13:17:00 - [146] From what i saw from crowdsourcing, pos's and station's are 2 heavily saught after fixes, honestly do this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO THIS! Though i'd go further i'd say POS's should be able to be developed into 'mini stations' basically Corp-Stations, since stations are alliance and blue friendly, corps should be able to have POS's as there corp hangout and offices. Perhaps even small private markets for internal corporation sales.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one 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.