Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Mittani
|
Posted - 2011.04.18 23:23:00 -
[1]
In May, we'll be discussing POS Misery with CCP. Starbases are awful in myriad ways, from the Green Box Of Hate to the widespread desire to see Fuel Pellets implemented.
Sound off in this thread with the things that you hate about POSes; while suggested tweaks are fine, we're more interested in macro level problems like "The UI for towers is terrible" or "Give us a better security scheme than passwords" than a micro tweak like "Change the Gallente tower bonus from X to Y".
The Mittani for CSM6 Sins of a Solar Spymaster
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:06:00 -
[2]
Craptastic UI, annoying anchoring timers, more specific roles for security, permit cans in the arrays and let us remotely check if ammo is loaded in the guns.
|
Lord Zim
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:10:00 -
[3]
Ability to sort POS processes, ability to queue anchor/off/online commands.
|
Mr DurkaDur
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:48:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Mr DurkaDur on 19/04/2011 00:48:58 "Flogging of the dead horse" thread, found here. Also a POS GUI to simplify everything would be nice, just saying.
|
Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos Word of Chaos Undivided
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:52:00 -
[5]
POSes need to be more like small modular stations and less like campsites that cost fuel.
~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~
Tiericide |
Axemaster
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:55:00 -
[6]
Would be nice to be able to make a queue for anchoring and onlining structures, same with offlining and unanchoring. Honestly, having to spend hours checking every 15 minutes to start the next operation is just MADDENING.
And along with fixing the POS UI, can you please get them to fix the CORP UI? It's so damn bad, it's just...
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 01:29:00 -
[7]
is it just me that i find it ridiculous a small anchorable audit logged secure cargo container can have an access log of all the changes made to it in something weighing 10 tonnes, yet a full large POS weighing in at 1,000 tonnes cant even manage to log changes to important security aspects of a POS's operation by who and when?
i find that absolutely absurd and it needs to change! CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Ya Huei
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 08:10:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Ya Huei on 19/04/2011 08:11:01 Fix Security:
Allow granular control over who can access what object (and which tab in that object)
Introduce the tab structure in ship maintenance arrays too, people can jettison/steal each others T3 ships.. that is just stupid.
auto hide everything (tabs) a pilot has no access to.
More tabs per object !
|
Crimzin
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 08:48:00 -
[9]
Drop anchoring time PLS
I would not mind the anchor time if it was actually doing something, like some sort of transformers robot unfolding into awesomeness in front of my eyes, but its does FA except show a ****ty timer for what? so it can be destroyed before it gets anchored LAME
Safe Space Not So Safe |
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 08:59:00 -
[10]
It might be a much shorter list if we were to sound off on what we do like about POS's don't you think? lol
|
|
BlankStare
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 10:53:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mr DurkaDur Edited by: Mr DurkaDur on 19/04/2011 00:59:05 Edited by: Mr DurkaDur on 19/04/2011 00:48:58 "Flogging of the dead horse" thread, found here. Also a new POS GUI, alert management, overall new features to the POS interface.
This. Ressurrect the dead horse. One of the many faces of Mandrill @Mandrill - Website email |
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 11:06:00 -
[12]
One thing I would love to see is bigger fuel bays (not for stront ofc). Or a new module that 'connects' to the pos fuel bay that has a bigger bay. 20days worth of fuel in a large pos is very annoying and is just a weird artificial limitation.
That said, The reduction in anchoring timers would be nice (not sure about online, that would probably screw with active sieges if they can come online faster then you can kill them). Anchoring queue would be awesome too.
Lets not talk about the UI
The flogging the dead horse thread is pretty good.
|
Valator Uel
Caldari Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 11:06:00 -
[13]
Oh for the love of god please let us queue anchoring/onlining of modules.
Content: - Taking care of POS's shouldn't become a second job. What I hate the most about POS is setting them up and taking them down. POS Artists have my utmost respect. - The security UI is lacking in intuitiveness (esp for new POS owners), clarity and granularity. - As you mentioned, the Green Box of Hate needs to be changed and Fuel pellets would help immensely. - Weapon platforms should be balanced in their own racial regard.
------------------ empty sig |
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 11:21:00 -
[14]
Just for reference, here is the crowdsourced Possible Practical POS Performance Proposal from CSM5.
|
Papa Boats
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 12:11:00 -
[15]
I am glad I am a simple grunt and do not have to deal with POS again. The problems I see with POS is the same things mentioned above. The que idea to online/offline/unanchor would make things much better as I could I don't know maybe play the game instead of being stuck in a stupid tower.
Also is there anyway that the process of linking stuff could be made so much simpler. The current way it is makes me want to get a root canal. I have to have them all off line nothing onlining or offlineing then open drop menu 1 drag and drop then submit. Hope it takes it and start on the next step and so on and so on and so on depending on how complex an item i am making. It really puts people off of staying in the POS game after they get out of the job for 5 mins. PB http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1337810 |
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 12:51:00 -
[16]
Not looking like this is also a major issue.
|
De'Veldrin
Carebears on Fire
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 13:27:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Craptastic UI, annoying anchoring timers, more specific roles for security, permit cans in the arrays and let us remotely check if ammo is loaded in the guns.
All of this, all of it a thousand times.
The entire POS interface needs to be reworked, and for the love of all that's Holy, give us the ability to name ALL the POS structures. --Vel
Originally by: Blacksquirrel
This is EVE. PVE can happen anywhere at anytime. Be prepared.
|
Lallante
Reikoku Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 13:41:00 -
[18]
I think the single worst thing about them is force-field access.
The whole concept of typing in a PW to your ship is ******ed. There should be granular standings-based controls.
I should also be able to allow roles by standings, particularly gunner role (ridiculous that gunners must be in corp and given specific role)
Lall - THE Vocal Minority - Reikoku
|
Drazi1
Minmatar The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 13:47:00 -
[19]
make it alot easier to lock targets when manning the pos guns, the current system sucks big time. Make it so when you reset password it does not bounce any friendlies out of the Forcefield.
|
Recursa Recursion
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 19:03:00 -
[20]
Couple of things from both Empire and null-sec experiences with POS setup / tear down:
- Role management for POS' is terrible and offers far too coarse of roles. Jobs should be able to be queued by the individual not just by the corp.
- Standings-based POS access rather than password-based POS access. Password is really only good for supercap handovers.
- Public labs would be awesome
- Queues for POS modules, queues for POS modules, please, please, please :)
- Easier / more intuitive loading of weapons for POS weapons
- Better explanation of what the POS settings (aggression / etc.) mean in the game
- Bigger bays for refining and / or better yields on POS refineries
- Ability to process one item type at a time for non-ore items or a new item reprocessing module
- E-mail or other information mechanism for out of game comms (POS under attack, POS low on fuel, etc.) rather than external tools
|
|
Spazz21
Angha
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 19:12:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Recursa Recursion Couple of things from both Empire and null-sec experiences with POS setup / tear down:
- Role management for POS' is terrible and offers far too coarse of roles. Jobs should be able to be queued by the individual not just by the corp.
- Standings-based POS access rather than password-based POS access. Password is really only good for supercap handovers.
- Public labs would be awesome
- Queues for POS modules, queues for POS modules, please, please, please :)
- Easier / more intuitive loading of weapons for POS weapons
- Better explanation of what the POS settings (aggression / etc.) mean in the game
- Bigger bays for refining and / or better yields on POS refineries
- Ability to process one item type at a time for non-ore items or a new item reprocessing module
- E-mail or other information mechanism for out of game comms (POS under attack, POS low on fuel, etc.) rather than external tools
I like.
I also would like to be able for POS Managers to assign specific tabs of a module to specific members. Such as having 2 Corp Hangar arrays, You can assign a tab(or even make up your own tab) to a particular member without giving them rights to that tab at all POSes.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 19:48:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Just for reference, here is the crowdsourced Possible Practical POS Performance Proposal from CSM5.
This.
Originally by: Mr DurkaDur "Flogging of the dead horse" thread, found here. Also a new POS GUI, alert management, overall new features to the POS interface.
And this.
Also, I could understand the need for slowing down onlining a POS back when they were used to establish sov. However, they aren't anymore... so why do we still have all this lengthy timers?
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Cthulhu F'taghn
SniggWaffe FREE KARTTOON NOW
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 21:22:00 -
[23]
Nerf teh jump bridge pos module imo
|
Hesperius
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 21:55:00 -
[24]
I want to pre-plan my pos layout from my corp office in a station and then manufacture an android that will construct my layout/design in space so I don't have to sit there and anchor junk. Deploy it in one package, or maybe several that voltron into one POS.
|
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 22:00:00 -
[25]
I want to be able to hack an offline POS to unanchor it. If you cant be bothered to fuel it its mine now. wwwcom
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 22:11:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Hesperius I want to pre-plan my pos layout from my corp office in a station and then manufacture an android that will construct my layout/design in space so I don't have to sit there and anchor junk. Deploy it in one package, or maybe several that voltron into one POS.
+1. Also, POS Fuel pellets.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Manfred Hideous
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 22:24:00 -
[27]
I personally would like to see standings based access to fitting services and arrays. Set it up something like fleet where it's Corp/Alliance only and then based on standings.
Maybe also set up a reaction for POS fuel that allows pellets that are 25-50% smaller for the same burn time but the reactions to make them from PI materials also requires moon minerals in the R8/16 range. I don't know it the prices have adjusted yet but after PI was introduced some of the moons became immediately unprofitable (on a small scale at least).
|
Rika Jones
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 22:25:00 -
[28]
My corporation should not automatically own any PoS I purchase and bring online.
I should not have to have starbase config roles in order to online a PoS in NPC-controlled systems. If I want to set up a research station for myself in highsec, lowsec, or npc nullsec, I should be able to do so as an individual.
I understand the need for allowing a corporation or alliance control what is deployed in their sovreign space. I don't want to change that.
|
BattleSister Oryx
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 22:58:00 -
[29]
Edited by: BattleSister Oryx on 19/04/2011 22:59:01 while this may sound dumb to some people, but id like to see a larger variety of poses available, rather than just large medium small, but more specialized ones (research, moon mining, asteroid belt support?! (probably not), hostile deployment). Allowing some to be anchored anywhere in system including safespots would be cool too. It would be nice for the average player to be able to set up and manage a small pos for themselves say in a non-station system without the need for too much logistical strain.
edit: this could also add in to the "farms and fields" thingo, having smaller poses that can be destroyed relatively easy, but then theres the whole issue of not being able to defend them if you arent awake, reinforcement, blah blah blah. Could maybe work something out?
|
Ogre tech II
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 00:29:00 -
[30]
how about more important things that need to be delt with mr CSM ?
i would type something but i'd be here awhile..
forget pos sheet and sort something people voted for u to do
|
|
SaiRenth
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 00:35:00 -
[31]
The fact that the timers for anchor and unanchor are so long is simply ridiculous.
I mean i can see having it take a while to set up, but when it takes 2 hours to set up POS (And having to sit there with it the vast majority of the time), and almost 4 hours to take the damn thing down its just silly.
POS are worth a good bit and the fact that for most people it is more cost effective to just leave them behind in my opinion shows that something is wrong. (see abandoned towers in wormholes or else where)
|
Lord Zim
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 03:27:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Lord Zim Ability to sort POS processes, ability to queue anchor/off/online commands.
Actually, scratch these instructions. The macro instructions I would want to give to CCP would be "make POSes less eyestabbingly painful".
All they should have to do is basically just run through setting up 10 deathstars and 10 complex reactions with 4 inputs and 1 output, and coupling arrays for each input/output. After that they should maintain those reaction towers for 2 weeks with at least 2 changes in reactions.
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 04:00:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Tsubutai on 20/04/2011 04:02:08 We need queues for anchoring and unanchoring modules. The timers are annoying, but I can see the general idea behind their existence. However, I cannot fathom what game design/balance purpose is served by forcing me to spend those hours clicking a couple of buttons, then waiting for ten minutes doing nothing, then clicking another button and waiting another ten minutes, etc. etc. As someone else said, it should be possible to draw up a plan for a POS layout, dump the requisite bits and pieces in space, and click "assemble" and then have it build itself over a suitably long period of time. The same goes for the teardown process - I should be able to access the tower management interface, select whichever mods I want unanchored, hit the red button, and then walk away and come back in a few hours' time rather than having to do each one individually.
POS labs and manufacturing arrays need to be able to access materials from a common source rather than each having their own cargo bays. I don't care whether this is achieved by introducing a new storage module or by having the existing modules pool their storage facilities once anchored, but it's absolutely infuriating to drop off a bunch of materials in the labs and start queueing jobs only to have to go back and reshuffle your materials around because you miscalculated and accidentally put too many datacores in lab 1 and not enough in lab 2 or whatever.
More options for allowing people to access specific parts of a POS' functionality without having to grant them roles that allow them to do whatever they want or even join your corp. If my buddy's POS comes under attack and I have a couple of POS gunners in an altcorp, why shouldn't I be allowed to have them man the guns for him? Why is it basically impossible for me to offer full access to my labs and other facilities to my corpmates without also allowing them to take everything I have?
edit:
Originally by: "Lord Zim" All they should have to do is basically just run through setting up 10 deathstars and 10 complex reactions with 4 inputs and 1 output, and coupling arrays for each input/output. After that they should maintain those reaction towers for 2 weeks with at least 2 changes in reactions.
Thissssssssss, only they should be obliged to tear the POS down and restore all mods and towers to their hangars at the end of the exercise as well.
|
Sephiroth CloneVII
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 04:35:00 -
[34]
Give pos's slots, like ships for the modularity (bigger pos more fittings). And have everything connected directly to the tower, maybe save guns if it makes sense to have them outside (though I think it might look cooler to have them more like turrets on hard points on the pos itself, turning to hit enemy's, utilizing those fancy new turrets coming out). Allow to be able to deploy Pos's for self, corp, and alliance. In addition to the whole deploying floating mods being a lengthy mess, the role thing is even more so forcing it to be a corp asset, getting roles in corp full of paranoid people can take like months.
So basically lot of the ideas here.
|
Amarr Priest
Legion of Darkness.
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 01:28:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Val'Dore POSes need to be more like small modular stations and less like campsites that cost fuel.
I would love to see this rather than a big bubble + many of the other suggestions would be great to.
|
Psihius
Caldari Anarchist Dawn U N K N O W N
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 13:49:00 -
[36]
- Ability to name POS structures as we please. Having 4 corp hangars and trying to find something in them is pain in the ass
- Ability to name tabs in corp hangars as we like individually for every hangar. Ability to make as much tabs as we need would be good too (maybe have a reasonable limit, say 20-30 tabs tops)
- Access management, not only for POS itself, but hangars and ship bays. Giving roles to people isn't an option when you have 3 POSes with 6 corp hangars and need to give him access to only one. Roles help, but they are limited.
[*]If above is implemented, I wana be able to give/revoke access within "Edit member" menu
--------------------------------------------------
Originally by: Blacksquirrel This is EVE. PVE can happen anywhere at anytime. Be prepared.
|
EdwardNardella
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 20:19:00 -
[37]
Make it possible to enter a password during character selection. CCRES is recruiting pilots who want to live in WSpace/Wormholes. Fill out an application here! |
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 21:51:00 -
[38]
POSes have always been awful and the CCP made them worse.
- UI needs a SERIOUS overhaul and some form of in game central tracker would very useful - POS Fuel, its too bulky and too fiddly. The old proposal of Fuel rods was brilliant but reduce the volume, doing multiple runs is not my idea of fun. - Moon Goo needs some form of overhaul scrap this naff idea of 'racial' distribution, that being said there needs to be a high value goo that makes a decent amount of isk to help support alliances - POSes need some form of supercap defence, currently supercaps are essentially immune to POS defences. Mods also need to be far more resistant to fighter bombers - Building/Pulling down towers takes a lifetime and is so boring I would rather chop my own balls of with a dull rusty spoon - Building towers is a HUGE pain, the building UI needs updating, I would suggest talking to the ancient Egyptians about a more recent design - Forcefield access needs an overhaul, passwords are a pain and the system should have an option to allow blue entities to enter - POSes need some mods that allow personal item/ship storage. OFC theres the huge problem of how you empty it to remove mod (director?) - More 'in-forcefield' mods need to be nameable (silo, SMA, CHA etc) - Stront timers need more control (like the station timers) but still require stront to run, possibly allow remote modifications. Reduce stront (the item) volume!
Thats all I can think of right now.
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 05:31:00 -
[39]
Originally by: The Mittani
Sound off in this thread with the things that you hate about POSes
So I set up a nice fully armed death star style pos one day, and I'm wondering if you knew a good lawyer that could sue to get the 10 HOURS OF MY LIFE BACK.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 20:51:00 -
[40]
I like the way that they seem to annoy a whole lot of people -------------- Fix the game's last broken weapon system - support if you care!
|
|
Cyprus Black
Perkone
|
Posted - 2011.04.24 23:48:00 -
[41]
Tabs and varying levels of restricted access to POS ship maintenance arrays. Seems kinda strange that I can stash stuff securely in corporate hanger arrays yet everyone has equal access to all the ships in the ship maintenance array.
An easier way to anchor structures in specific locations. The current system is painful.
Need the ability to refit T3 ships.
Better looking towers and arrays. The towers look artistically horrible.
Better UI.
Drastically reduce or remove the penalties for refining ore.
Streamline the production and extraction process with moon mining and reactions. Having to link multiple silos in various ways is tedious.
Redesign POS's and arrays so they're easier to live out of (especially so in wormholes). Most 0.0 systems don't have stations which means we need to live out of and depend entirely on POS's.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 13:41:00 -
[42]
Edited by: xttz on 25/04/2011 13:42:00 I am writing the final POS misery proposal document for the CSM based on various inputs, including this thread.
One idea I'm developing is a way to 'specialise' towers, in a similar fashion to the way T3 ship sub-systems or i-hub upgrades work. The idea is that inserting a certain upgrade into a tower unlocks new abilities or precludes others. We could also weave in the new AI developed for sleepers to make those weapons more effective when automated. For example, one upgrade may perform better against supercapitals (or automatically focus on their fight-bombers) but becomes more vulnerable to battleships. Another may increase moon mining yield at the cost of shield hitpoints.
The end goal of this is to make towers more interesting and varied, as well as giving more opportunities to use a wider variety of fleets ingame. Here are a few examples of ideas I've had so far:
Siege Tower Only large guns can be onlined (no smalls or meds). Massive damage increase, huge tracking penalty and a sig radius bonus to all external modules. Energy neutralizers gain a RoF bonus, ECM modules become effective vs supercaps, and warp scramblers can tackle them. Stasis webs cannot be onlined on a tower with this upgrade. Makes the tower deadly vs capitals and super-capitals, but very vulnerable to battleships.
Logistics Tower Only small and med guns can be onlined (no larges). Reduction in CPU/grid use of Cyno Beacon and Jump Bridge modules. Removes random locking delay for modules and grants them a scan resolution bonus. Any modules on this tower become incapacitated upon recieving armour damage. Makes the tower deadly against small ships, such as bombers and other gankers. However it becomes much easier to disable by a heavier force such as RR BS or lone capitals.
Industry Tower Reduces CPU cost of industry modules like reactors and labs, at the cost of shield hitpoints. Shield hardeners cannot be onlined on a tower with this upgrade.
Support Tower Increases the capacity of CHAs and SMAs, along with their access range. Medium guns use less grid and recieve a slight range bonus. The tower loses any inbuilt shield resistances and shield hardeners cost triple CPU to online.
I'm open to suggestions on what other specialised purposes towers could have. Also what limitations should there be on these specialisations, if any? E.g. should the upgrades be disallowed in high-sec, or even low-sec?
|
MrCaptAwsm
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:11:00 -
[43]
Some sort of change to the mechanics to allow easier management/configuration/setup of personal POSs.
As it stands, single users are unable to set up their own personal POSs without receiving corp roles that give them access to every POS; if this was changed to allow corps micromanagement of which users were allowed to config specific poses (e.g. a trusted group that was allowed to config all POSs, a logistics group that manages, say, JB POSs but not supercap staging POSs, and also managing POSs specifically: allowing eveguy x to access y POS in z system that he rats in), this would be much more practical.
From a corp viewpoint, they could manage POS security far easier, while allowing more users to help with logistics, but not in a way that potentially compromises them in the case of a spy. From the corp/alliance member's viewpoint (the "little guy"), this means they would be able to set up their own personal POS (to safe up while ratting, for example), with much less hassle.
On a slightly unrelated note, making the entering of POS passwords (and by extension, jump bridge passwords) persistent would be great: having to enter a password 10 times going up and down the z0rtal is somewhat irritating. If the password was persistent, this would be much more pleasant.
|
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:31:00 -
[44]
Originally by: xttz Edited by: xttz on 25/04/2011 13:42:00 I am writing the final POS misery proposal document for the CSM based on various inputs, including this thread.
One idea I'm developing is a way to 'specialise' towers, in a similar fashion to the way T3 ship sub-systems or i-hub upgrades work. The idea is that inserting a certain upgrade into a tower unlocks new abilities or precludes others. We could also weave in the new AI developed for sleepers to make those weapons more effective when automated. For example, one upgrade may perform better against supercapitals (or automatically focus on their fight-bombers) but becomes more vulnerable to battleships. Another may increase moon mining yield at the cost of shield hitpoints.
The end goal of this is to make towers more interesting and varied, as well as giving more opportunities to use a wider variety of fleets ingame. Here are a few examples of ideas I've had so far:
Siege Tower Only large guns can be onlined (no smalls or meds). Massive damage increase, huge tracking penalty and a sig radius bonus to all external modules. Energy neutralizers gain a RoF bonus, ECM modules become effective vs supercaps, and warp scramblers can tackle them. Stasis webs cannot be onlined on a tower with this upgrade. Makes the tower deadly vs capitals and super-capitals, but very vulnerable to battleships.
Logistics Tower Only small and med guns can be onlined (no larges). Reduction in CPU/grid use of Cyno Beacon and Jump Bridge modules. Removes random locking delay for modules and grants them a scan resolution bonus. Any modules on this tower become incapacitated upon recieving armour damage. Makes the tower deadly against small ships, such as bombers and other gankers. However it becomes much easier to disable by a heavier force such as RR BS or lone capitals.
Industry Tower Reduces CPU cost of industry modules like reactors and labs, at the cost of shield hitpoints. Shield hardeners cannot be onlined on a tower with this upgrade.
Support Tower Increases the capacity of CHAs and SMAs, along with their access range. Medium guns use less grid and recieve a slight range bonus. The tower loses any inbuilt shield resistances and shield hardeners cost triple CPU to online.
I'm open to suggestions on what other specialised purposes towers could have. Also what limitations should there be on these specialisations, if any? E.g. should the upgrades be disallowed in high-sec, or even low-sec?
Raiding Tower Reduced HP Slightly reduced CPU & PG Slightly reduced fuel cost No reinforcement Massively reduced anchor & un-anchor time Slightly reduced build cost
|
JitaCitizen 4756
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 15:56:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Kenpachi Viktor
Raiding Tower Reduced HP Slightly reduced CPU & PG Slightly reduced fuel cost No reinforcement Massively reduced anchor & un-anchor time Slightly reduced build cost
Congratulations. You just invented the small tower!
|
Raid'En
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 18:48:00 -
[46]
do something to reduce the active time needed for anchoring / unanchoring. you did the skills queue, so think about the anchoring queue.
|
Iniquita
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 03:50:00 -
[47]
Here are a few of my ideas for improving pos mechanics:
User level pos roles would be a grand thing.
Player A can online modules and fuel pos A Player B can offline silos on Pos A and B but not C Player C can has full control over pos C but cannot do anything with A and B.
Improved notifications showing time left not just amounts. And I wouldnt mind Audit logs on pos structures so you can see who took what out and when.
Make anchoring levels do something to reduce the time it takes to anchor a module, increase a queue, or allow for multiple things to be anchored simultaneously.
A better anchoring interface that allows for some sort of templating of where mods are anchored in a pos for more uniform configurations or corp standards.
Make starbase defense management useful for something besides gunning. My idea would be something like marketing skills. Level 1 allows for remote management within the same solar system, Level 2 extends that range to systems within 5 jumps, and each subsequent level then doubles it. Level 5 allows for remote management anywhere within current region.
The ability to unanchor guns with ammo in them. I dont care if it gets eaten in the process. Some sort of notification of low/no ammo in pos guns.
Allow regular or capital tractor beams to pull unanchored mods towards you as if they were cans.
Personally Id like to be able to build a tower kit in the station complete with some sort of fitting to say how I would like the modules deployed and a few hrs of fuel. Said kit is then brought out and anchored and I come back in a couple hours to find everything in its place and then I begin onlining. But that is probably wishful thinking.
|
Nymblar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 07:13:00 -
[48]
The API is shockingly lacking when it comes to POS:
- I can't tell what the fuel consumption for LO/HW is via the API. This could probably be fixed with fuel pellets. - I can't tell which container is at which POS via the API. CCP stated in a roundtable that XYZ coordinates (not planet-moon) would be "not that hard, wait you're saying they're not in there already?" to implement. - I can't see POS configuration (anchored/online/Reaction configuration) via the API.
Also: - It's not possible to filter modules by status (online/anchored/incapped) on the overview.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 07:43:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Just for reference, here is the crowdsourced Possible Practical POS Performance Proposal from CSM5.
+1
Originally by: Mr DurkaDur "Flogging of the dead horse" thread, found here. Also a new POS GUI, alert management, overall new features to the POS interface.
+1
Visual indication (either in 3D overlays orr 2D overview) of connections between connectable things: moon harvesters and silos, silos and reactors. Along with that, visual indicators of cycle time/progress.
Being able to connect silo to reactor by simply anchoring one to the other would be nice.
For me, right now, the most important issues are more fine grained roles/permissions, allowing the public to rent research slots (if there is a station or outpost in system), and making POS refineries respond to skills and implants.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Kidzukurenai Datael
Imperial Collective Celestial Shadows
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:10:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Kidzukurenai Datael on 27/04/2011 08:14:36 My biggest problem with the POS setup is the distinct lack of usable security features. It all works great until you want multiple members of multiple access levels accessing the same POS (which is pretty much all we use our POSes for; we are a WH corp)
The majority of the security problems would be solved quite simply by making an Items and a Ships module for the POS. What I mean by this is instead of forcing everyone to use the Corp Hangar, it would go a long way to security issues if we had a personal hangar and personal items space just like one would in a station; a separate POS module that provides these services to members.
That's the only part that I feel is disabling about living in a POS -- you can't keep your stuff safe! And when I want to keep all my shinies with me in a POS I don't want it so that anyone in corp can walk off with it!
The ONLY problem I can see is when it comes to removing items from the POS when a member who has items stored is offline. That could mean that it's not possible to move anything. If it was possible to remove stuff from the module without the owner's permission it would probably leave us back at square 1, but maybe members will just have to trust their directors and CEO..?
Edit: Adding this: The other possibility would be to have a permissions system per POS module like for chat rooms or mailing lists -- only the listed people are allowed to access this module.
|
|
Nischara
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 10:44:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Nischara on 27/04/2011 10:47:37 Edited by: Nischara on 27/04/2011 10:45:45
Originally by: Kidzukurenai Datael Edited by: Kidzukurenai Datael on 27/04/2011 08:14:36 My biggest problem with the POS setup is the distinct lack of usable security features. It all works great until you want multiple members of multiple access levels accessing the same POS (which is pretty much all we use our POSes for; we are a WH corp)
The majority of the security problems would be solved quite simply by making an Items and a Ships module for the POS. What I mean by this is instead of forcing everyone to use the Corp Hangar, it would go a long way to security issues if we had a personal hangar and personal items space just like one would in a station; a separate POS module that provides these services to members.
That's the only part that I feel is disabling about living in a POS -- you can't keep your stuff safe! And when I want to keep all my shinies with me in a POS I don't want it so that anyone in corp can walk off with it!
The ONLY problem I can see is when it comes to removing items from the POS when a member who has items stored is offline. That could mean that it's not possible to move anything. If it was possible to remove stuff from the module without the owner's permission it would probably leave us back at square 1, but maybe members will just have to trust their directors and CEO..?
Edit: Adding this: The other possibility would be to have a permissions system per POS module like for chat rooms or mailing lists -- only the listed people are allowed to access this module.
this! or a variation of this please anything to make poses livable in make any or all of the folowing: - tabs in ship array - personal tabs in hangar/ship array (noone can acces anyone elses personal tab, maybe only CEO can purge a users personal tab to save space, destroying anything inside) - creation of infinite number of tabs with as many permissions to setup a tab per corp member, or infinite tabs with passwords - a new personal items and ships module as sugested by Kidzukurenai - anchoring GSC inside shields (special larger pos containers for this purpose)
in short any sollution so that members can have their own personal stuff without fear of theft, and the other way around, solution so that a corp can have (new) members they dont trust with valuable corp assets
please make poses possible to live in for a corp with more than 5 members
- also opening GSC (and other cans) from a hangar without having to switch to a indy and move it into cargo to open the thing
|
Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Securities Tauri Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 10:51:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Mr DurkaDur Edited by: Mr DurkaDur on 19/04/2011 00:59:05 Edited by: Mr DurkaDur on 19/04/2011 00:48:58 "Flogging of the dead horse" thread, found here. Also a new POS GUI, alert management, overall new features to the POS interface.
^ This ^
Also, I would like to see them able to be docked at, thus providing private ship and item hangars for corporation members that use it. This should utilize a system of "shared storage space" where the POS is upgraded to store Xm3 of items, and Ym3 of ships. Security Officer role would allow an individual to pull out of a persons personal ships & items hangar at that POS for cases where someone goes inactive, or is taking up to much space.
AND OMFG PLEASE IMPLEMENT THIS PART ASAP! We need to be able to "Based At" a player in the roles system to a POS!!!! This would alleviate a *TON* of the woes of the roles setup for POS access!!! - Aidan Patrick |
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 14:50:00 -
[53]
Why don't you discus the things they sit on and push for the Tech Nerf.
You know the thing that you expressed interest in doing pre election.
|
Kwashi
Adhocracy Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 14:01:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Kwashi on 29/04/2011 14:03:00 Edited by: Kwashi on 29/04/2011 14:02:49 POS permissions are pretty unworkable if more than one player is using the same POS as a base. Theft is a huge problem from POSes, lacking some manner of keeping track of the items in the hangars. T3 pilots cannot refit fully at POSes. Shield-tanked ships have to wait a long time when attempting to sortie from a POS.
EDIT also, tearing down a POS tends to run into bugs regarding ammunition getting stuck inside the guns, making the tower impossible to recover without GM input.
|
Commander Imran
|
Posted - 2011.04.29 16:35:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Val'Dore POSes need to be more like small modular stations and less like campsites that cost fuel.
|
ehon
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:27:00 -
[56]
id like to be able to add much more to a pos then currently and the cpu and power grid would just follow in fuel used also labs suck since i have to click threw each one to find the lowest qued slot, make them just one long list that can made longer or shorter based on how many upgrades the unit has.
|
Asuri Kinnes
Caldari Adhocracy Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:21:00 -
[57]
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud is it just me that i find it ridiculous a small anchorable audit logged secure cargo container can have an access log of all the changes made to it in something weighing 10 tonnes, yet a full large POS weighing in at 1,000 tonnes cant even manage to log changes to important security aspects of a POS's operation by who and when?
i find that absolutely absurd and it needs to change!
No its not you alone.
log in and out, changes in status, who made changes & when, inventory control, inventory limits (for those who have to store shuttles by the ****ing dozens!) inventory management... the list is endless...
POS Gunners get a drop down: Availiable turrets to control... Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
NO! |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:59:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Axemaster Would be nice to be able to make a queue for anchoring and onlining structures, same with offlining and unanchoring. Honestly, having to spend hours checking every 15 minutes to start the next operation is just MADDENING.
And along with fixing the POS UI, can you please get them to fix the CORP UI? It's so damn bad, it's just...
While I agree with your first point, I don't feel the same about the second. The only thing that would make the Corp Security potential better, is if Station Container's could actually be locked in a Hangar, rather than pulled from Corp Hangar to players, re-passworded, looted, and returned.
Back to the OP.
Positioning POS Structures is absolute crap. Zooming out, zooming in, changing view from ship to POS, back to ship after moving a little, back to POS so you can move your ship to a better vantage point, back to ship so you can see the F'n structure. Bluntly, it sucks.
The alternative: just dropping the modules any old where, then anchoring them in a long, (we're talking hours and hours over days), dull, repetative process. Guy I quoted. His idea is good, if we have to have anchoring, onlining timers and such. Could be built into a new UI too, with plenty of other improvements.
Waiting 2 minutes, to do a repetition of what I mentioned above, and again another few minutes after that, or even six: That will drive a man absolutely mad, and make him lose all reason. Doing it for hours, on hours, on hours, will make him want to hunt down and kill/torture whoever made him do it, in a bad way. j/k but sorta not.
..and people wonder why PvP is so popular among the Nullsec crowd and Wormholer's, Lowsec peoples..
They just want to kill something any time they have anything to do with POS maintanence
It's really, really bad. Please fix it.
|
Mars Theran
Caldari EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 02:37:00 -
[59]
It's Trauma. My last experience with setting up a POS, was testing Moon Mining on SISI. I never got to the testing stage.
Modules all have distances at which they can be from another, based on the size of their model and bounding box. This sucks.
Every time you get a new POS modules that has to work with other POS modules, you have to experiment and find out which models to place first, so you can have everything within the right distance to allow for reactions and all the rest. A Moon Harvester cannot be placed first, to allow the placement of a Silo or Complex Reactor.
Incidently, I found out the Silo can be placed anywhere, possibly even the other side of the POS. Somebody obviously tried to alleviate the pain at some point, by just making it completely free-roaming in that one instance.
No matter which way you set up a POS, with all it's structures, there are at least ten people who will want it changed, with exception to the guns. Why the guns? Because you can't bounce off them on warp in, and they don't generally get in your way, flying about the POS.
Guns is kind of a catch all for defensive modules in this case, with exception to shield hardeners.
Ammo. How I hate putting ammunition in all the guns. Freaking unbelievable how much of a drag this is. In practice, you get an Industrial with an MWD or AB and bookmark all the turret points for warp in, then bounce off moons to save time. It still takes forever, and you have do double and triple check the turrets to see if you missed one.
With the Industrials agility, you're still drifting like a log in a lake. Ideally, you have a Covert Op's transport for this, to make things even easier. Try it in a Badger II.
POS modules and guns take space, lots of it. No easy fix for that one.
Onlining and offlining defenses and Reactors/Alternative Structures. Like it isn't bad enough the first time, now every time a threat becomes viable, you have to offline Assembly Arrays and Research Lab's to online what is really only half of a reasonable defense for the POS. You can't have both. It's either Labs, Reactors and other similar facilities, or Defensive modules to give your POS a half decent combat advantage.
This is why reinforcement timers exist.
Yes, it takes forever to kill a POS, but once the guns are gone who cares.
There is so much wrong with these things: Fuel Storage and requirements, PG and CPU limitations, Structure placement, Ammunition, etc...
Speaking of ammunition. Placing guns and defensive modules outside the shields: You can't be so far away, and yet you can't be so close. I think the margin for effective placement is between 5-6 km from the shields, more or less, and you get a message that you can't place themodule there. Then, you have to wait for the delay timer to continue with what you were doing.
Last but not least: Size. How exactly do you fit a Moros in a Ship Maintanence Array anyhow? Stations are bad enough, but these things are almost smaller than a Tengu.
|
Herring
Pimpology Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 05:07:00 -
[60]
Honestly fuel pellets are imo another waste of my already limited time. Fuel for a pos should be a backup only incase your anchorable solar collector unit gets destroyed.
I mean really. We're in space, usually in close proximity to a sun. Is there a reason for not utilizing that, other than another f***ing isk sink?
That and what the others above me have said about existing problems other than fuel. And also, if I want a deathstar station, I should be able to get a focused fire cpu module for it for extra iskies/more grid and cpu. And fix the pw for shields to be optional (utilized if wanted, but defaults to positive standing set by the owner corp to allow access).
It really is a system with a lot of potential, if it could be worked on.
|
|
killerco
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 07:51:00 -
[61]
Edited by: killerco on 30/04/2011 07:53:06
Originally by: RedSplat I want to be able to hack an offline POS to unanchor it. If you cant be bothered to fuel it its mine now.
i support this!
Remove all Jump bridge Modules and cyno jammer Modules !
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 13:37:00 -
[62]
Originally by: killerco Edited by: killerco on 30/04/2011 07:53:06
Originally by: RedSplat I want to be able to hack an offline POS to unanchor it. If you cant be bothered to fuel it its mine now.
i support this!
Security upgrades, UI & Anchoring fixes and hacking offline pos's.
What wouldn't be to love from this? Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
NO! |
Tub Chil
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 16:30:00 -
[63]
anchoring and onlining queue? is it really hard to do?
|
rootimus maximus
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 18:26:00 -
[64]
I'd really like to be able to re-package items in the hanger array, and be able to access containers stored within. Also, I agree with everything else posted here, providing the role-specific tower idea includes keeping the current vanilla version.
|
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 23:41:00 -
[65]
I want to be able to make custom roles and asign single labs/individual slots to single people. For example: Person 'Willy' has access to lab 2's research slots and nothing else, while person B 'Tinkle' has access to lab 3's invention slots and nothing else.
Also I want POS slots to be "rentable" to the public. I assign 3 lab ME slots to public and they appear in the public station list.
Said it before but; bigger fuel bay :(.
|
Flammard
Caldari The New Era C0NVICTED
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 01:53:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Riley Moore
I want to be able to make custom roles and asign single labs/individual slots to single people. For example: Person 'Willy' has access to lab 2's research slots and nothing else, while person B 'Tinkle' has access to lab 3's invention slots and nothing else.
Following on from this, It would be nice if research towers could use blueprints in your personal hangar. Unless you trust everyone in your corp who has roles, researching high value BPOs in a tower isn't really an option. This is because anyone can cancel it and take the BPO from the corp hangar.
|
Stralow
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:36:00 -
[67]
Why i have to move around stuff inside the POS?
We have for example one POS in our WH with 8 Equipment Assembly Arrays. In addition one Component Assembly Array. When i log into eve the first time of the day I'm first have to locate in which of the Equipment AA all the materials and BPCs are located, move them around, start jobs and move them around one more. If somethin is missing i have to take an industrial anf fly things from Hangars or the Component AA and store them in the Equipment AA. Thats a pain in the ass, its only costs time and produce server load. Its a big Space Station, it should be able to handle such things by itself.
So what i would do: Arrays and labs have no more storage space, you just can install jobs. Your minerals, BPCs, BPOs, Moonmaterial etc. is located in a Corporate Hangar Array. From here you can select the BPC, BPO and install jobs into labs, Arrays whatever you have anchored. After installing the mats the job are required disappear and after the job is done the endproduct appears in you Hangar Array. It would be nice if this would go hand nd hand with the change that you can open Containers inside the Corporate Hangar array to sort your things.
|
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 15:14:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Kwashi POS permissions are pretty unworkable if more than one player is using the same POS as a base.
The permissions/roles system in general is terribly broken and borderline unusable, but particularly so when it comes to POS management.
As a CEO, I should be able to create an arbitrary number of roles. Those roles should be able to provide very granular permissions on a per-POS basis. It is mind-boggling that anyone thought it was a good idea that any permission applies to ALL towers.
POS structures are too communal. There's no personal storage.
I'm okay with the fuel being the way it is. You know how much you need, you buy it or PI it, you transport it, you're done. Changing to Fuel Pellets won't really change anything. It might even make things worse; instead of one player making fuels A and B, and another making C and D, now they need to get together an add yet another step in the process to make the pellets. Suddenly fuel is even more expensive - as if the never-ending rise in robotics et al. isn't bad enough. No thank you.
Want fuel to be more convenient? Set up the tower to automatically draw fuel from the corp hangar array as needed, then use the fuel inside of the tower itself when the hangar array is empty. You can dump 6 months of fuel in there one time then not worry about it.
Some POS defenses are laughable. Blasters are near useless. A stealth bomber can tank torp batteries. There's no reason to use a tower other than Minmatar unless you desperately need the CPU for labs or the extra silo space. Speaking of... Why are Gallente towers so under-tanked compared to the others?
I'm fine with manual anchoring and onlining systems. Being able to queue anchoring and onlining means that someone can enter a system and drop a dozen essentially self-assembling towers with minimal effort. This makes space invasion too easy. The timers also ensure that he structure is vulnerable until someone puts in the time to make it defensible. You want a tower? Then put in the time necessary to set it up.
And, what's the deal with containers? Being able to rent POS facilities to the public would be very cool. Not just research slots, but production, storage, etc.
- "When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed." - CCP Big Dumb Object |
Mars Theran
Caldari EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.08 00:03:00 -
[69]
Bump for a good topic.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.05.08 09:07:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Andrea Griffin Why are Gallente towers so under-tanked compared to the others?
Because everything Gallente is supposed to be ****. Why should towers be any different?
/bitter
|
|
Cheekything
Gallente Cutting Edge Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.05.11 08:53:00 -
[71]
Firstly Pos Mods
Remove that horrible drag system give us a grid based on the towers that shows valid locations and let us click anchor.
Silos, miners, reaction arrays etc etc need to be combined together into set objects which have bays for each areas, there is no need for 6 mods when there is no flexibility.
Fuel needs a work over in general make different mods require different bits rather than having only 2 that change, I'm pretty sure LO and heavy water do not make my guns fire, where as mechanical parts and enriched uranium probably do.
Pos Mails need to just say what is the problem i.e. "I need Liquid Ozone", "I need Oxygen Isotopes".
Pos Statuses should be viewable from the corporate tab including HP and fuel amounts, if we can get mails why can't we get a nice UI about it too.
Shield Resists need to be more even with a 0%, a 12.5% a 25% and a 37.5% depending on race.
POS weapons should not require ammo but should instead use up fuel reserves and preferably should reflect the drones that each race uses and not use the standard normal ammo.
POS EWAR, they should have bit in racial electronic warfare to reflect the recon ships of each race, I mean why would you build a object with a shield and no weapons to defend itself.
|
Elderstealth
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 00:00:00 -
[72]
As a lowly corp members in nullsec storage is the problem.
We need storage space in corp hangers; most corps allow members access to 1 shared tab.
All this allows us to do is put cans in there that we name to know who owns what. We have to remove them to open them. this limits us to cans that hold 3'900 m3 of space. at least change it so we can open cans in Corp Hangers again at POSs. This would atleast allow access to station containers.
A private member tab on corp hangers would be great but just been able to open containers in POS corp hangers would solve issues short term.
|
Drone Rogue
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 13:24:00 -
[73]
a) Let alliance members with Starbase Defence use POS guns. b) Let alliance members actually access and use assembly arrays and hangars. c) Let alliance members do something OTHER than ME and PE research at a lab (copying, invention, reverse engineering etc.) d) Base corp standing for anchoring in hi/lo sec on CEO/Director average rather than the whole corp.
To be honest the first three have the permission mechanics in place at the moment, you just need to actually allow use of a POS hangar when specified in the dropdown menu.
|
Athelas Loraiel
Amarr StarFleet Enterprises -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 19:19:00 -
[74]
IT all needs to be remade. awful, torturing, buggy, slow, neffective in many ways, prevents from cooperation within alliance, etc...Why anchor only at moons?
why not everywhere?
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 20:38:00 -
[75]
* Increase the capacity of the Ammunition Assembly Array. It is useless for building bombs. * Add advanced assembly arrays with no material penalty, and no manufacturing time bonus.
|
Cheekyhoe
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 20:41:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Athelas Loraiel IT all needs to be remade. awful, torturing, buggy, slow, neffective in many ways, prevents from cooperation within alliance, etc...Why anchor only at moons?
why not everywhere?
Death stars on stargates... and outside stations?
|
Meta2
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 04:48:00 -
[77]
Why don't we discuss the topic of the stupidity of multi-billion ISK ships without locks on them? Frankly I have recently become less involved in wormhole space... every new corporation you go to seems to have a theft problem and things coming up missing then they start blaming everyone in a revenge quest.
No legitimate spacefaring corporation with assets to protect would allow a starship to be boarded without access controls hell even the Starship Reliant had a console security code! OK wow it makes it neat that people can steal items but it certainly doesn't make the game more playable. If anything starships should have locks on them... and if you want "theft playability" then have the Hacking skill allow a small increasing with skill level chance to break the access code.
|
Chuc Morris
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 11:04:00 -
[78]
Moar powaa
Moar cpu
Increase distance for anchor stuff linked to POS
UI- menus/sub menus moar intuative, set char/corp/alliance standings should be simple and a friend that reps you while you're attacked should not be burned by your pos...
POS visual: make it look like a real station, at each added module change looking Right now looks stinky
|
Visione
Amarr VM Labs Quo Vadis.
|
Posted - 2011.05.15 19:04:00 -
[79]
i have to be hounest i did not read all the reactions.
but if it's not already said, if CCP would only make it possible to offline/online/unachor/achor modules at the same time, or online 50 modules in 1 go (like copieing 50 pictures in windows?) it would make POS'es allot beter, i think that's the only option i would like to change on POS'es right now tbh. we fly in spaceships and shoot stations orbiting around planets up the air but our towers computer can't handle more then 1 task at a time? give us a brake, sitting 8 hours streight in a WH just to online a tower for your corp is a bit... well... redicilous. Just another EVE player... |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 15:43:00 -
[80]
They need to be able to be stolen. There is a lot of "Trash" in wspace...anchored, offline towers, and modules that cannot be reclaimed by explorers or other less than savory individuals. Maybe expand the codebreaker module and let these modules and towers be able to be flipped ownership so they can be recovered.
The other POS issues are well documented. I like that link to the dead horse. ========================= Karash Amerius - Operative - Sutoka Fighting Broke - A Eve Online Blog ========================= |
|
savitri obin
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 08:29:00 -
[81]
1. more and varied pos roles 2. better pos gunning interface and allow alliance members to pos gun 3. some "add- ons " to poses to make them more varied in role , for example "siege - active mod that uses fuel and increases pos defence and offence by 50% " , "miner - adds 10% to moon yield , lowers defences by 30% " , " reactor - 50% to cpu " 4. faster anchoring |
Yun Kuai
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 17:16:00 -
[82]
There is this skill called anchoring which is a complete waste of time to train bc it does basically next to nothing.
There is an outcry from the eve population and myself included that poses need to be quicker to set up and taken down.
Hold on to your pants, they're about to drop
Change the anchoring skill to allow the anchoring of an additional module per lvl of the skill up to 3 (number of max mods can be changed from 5-2) and introduce a new skill that decreases the anchoring/unanchoring time by 5% per lvl.
-Ability to set pos specific roles -Ability to name pos modules -Ability to name individual corp hangar tabs -Introduction of ship main tabs -Simplified moon goo setup (combine harvester with silos and coupling arrays, etc) -Introduce the fuel pellet as a seeded bpo (non-researchable; makes it optional use) -Change fuel bays to last 1 month instead of 20days
|
Ned Black
|
Posted - 2011.05.27 13:55:00 -
[83]
I think my take on POSes are a bit diffrent than most... and I would assume the most unlikely thing to happen, but I will give it a go anyway.
I would like to see that people can dock at POSes.
POS owner can give docking permissions to whoever they like, and also assign personal space (ship/storage space) and permissions to those docked in the POS. That means that you can give permissions to anyone you like, regardless of corp, alliance or otherwise.
Everyone have their own hangar just like an outpost POS services like research, labs, guns and so on are all accessable from INSIDE of the pos.
Adding POS modules expand what you can do with the POS. For example adding a SMA extends the total amount of M3 that can dock, adding a CHA allows more stuff to be stored). Adding labs/refinerys/whatever allows you to perform that function. The only difference is really guns. Adding guns is also done from inside the POS, but can then be placed outside the POS shield. Accessing the guns will also give an outside view of the POS.
The POSes should still have all the restrictions they do now, so you may have to pick and choose which mods are active, but it is done from within.
|
Jaari Val'Dara
Caldari Deep Space Nomads Corp
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 08:05:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Ned Black I think my take on POSes are a bit diffrent than most... and I would assume the most unlikely thing to happen, but I will give it a go anyway.
I would like to see that people can dock at POSes.
POS owner can give docking permissions to whoever they like, and also assign personal space (ship/storage space) and permissions to those docked in the POS. That means that you can give permissions to anyone you like, regardless of corp, alliance or otherwise.
Everyone have their own hangar just like an outpost POS services like research, labs, guns and so on are all accessable from INSIDE of the pos.
Adding POS modules expand what you can do with the POS. For example adding a SMA extends the total amount of M3 that can dock, adding a CHA allows more stuff to be stored). Adding labs/refinerys/whatever allows you to perform that function. The only difference is really guns. Adding guns is also done from inside the POS, but can then be placed outside the POS shield. Accessing the guns will also give an outside view of the POS.
The POSes should still have all the restrictions they do now, so you may have to pick and choose which mods are active, but it is done from within.
I'd like it too, POS should have one difference from stations. Limited space for ships and stuff. And ceo or director could assign each member some space in the pos which he could use however he wants.
|
Legionos McGuiros
Caldari Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 14:09:00 -
[85]
Originally by: MrCaptAwsm Edited by: MrCaptAwsm on 25/04/2011 15:32:53 Some sort of change to the mechanics to allow easier management/configuration/setup of personal POSs.
Better management of POS roles As it stands, single users are unable to set up their own personal POSs without receiving corp roles that give them access to every POS; if this was changed to allow corps micromanagement of which users were allowed to config specific poses (e.g. a trusted group that was allowed to config all POSs, a logistics group that manages, say, JB POSs but not supercap staging POSs, and also managing POSs specifically: allowing eveguy x to access y POS in z system that he rats in), this would be much more practical.
From a corp viewpoint, they could manage POS security far easier, while allowing more users to help with logistics, but not in a way that potentially compromises them in the case of a spy. From the corp/alliance member's viewpoint (the "little guy"), this means they would be able to set up their own personal POS (to safe up while ratting, for example), with much less hassle. a.
Bad Idea
I do not want to wake up one morning to find some of my corp members have back-stabbed the corp by setting up a personal POS in my system which i dont have access to, so that they can begin to force me and everyone else out.
Sure they can back-stab by bringing a different corp into my system so they can set a tower up, but please lets not make it easier for them.
|
Echo Mande
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:21:00 -
[86]
In addition to many of the other things suggested here, many of which I support, I would like to propose halving the CPU used by all reactors and silos. This to bring down the entry level for reactions, to generally improve the sanity/quality of life of reaction POS keepers and to allow more reacting, the purpose of which is beyond the scope of this post.
|
Angst IronShard
Minmatar Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 10:55:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Angst IronShard on 15/06/2011 10:55:50 all above + personal habitation module (with a cargo bay as a GSC) and others new modules for Incarna uses like Casino, bar, trading module...
Think at those who are living in W-spaces
o7
. ____________________________________________ Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 11:12:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova on 15/06/2011 11:15:11
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Hesperius I want to pre-plan my pos layout from my corp office in a station and then manufacture an android that will construct my layout/design in space so I don't have to sit there and anchor junk. Deploy it in one package, or maybe several that voltron into one POS.
+1. Also, POS Fuel pellets.
-Liang
So "green"
EDIT: Support topic + ability to hack off line POS (lvl5 hack +lvl4 anchor?)
"Cancer killed thousands and keeps killing hundreds.Aids killed thousands and keeps killing hundreds. And human economics kill how many every day?" |
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari draketrain Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 14:58:00 -
[89]
Allow robbing and raiding POS production without destroying the tower. Force more production to POS's instead of stations.
Allow destroying and salvaging production facilities generally without having to shoot insane deathstar omgwtfbbqkill tower.
Wait did I post this already somewhere, dunno.
|
Fournone
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 15:07:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Fournone on 15/06/2011 15:07:34 Fix the UI. Fix role management. Add individual ownership. Make them ancohrable anywhere (anchoring at moon just allowed moon mining) More types of specialized towers. Alliance Hangars Allow Capital Mant Arrays to be anchored outside of sov space. (some of us want a nonstation place to fit/store carriers and dreads) POS Anchore/Online/Offline/Unahore queve.
Thats about it.
|
|
Soon Shin
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 19:51:00 -
[91]
Pretty much what has already posted, I want to add another thing:
Reduce the amount of times low fuel messages are sent to Pos managers. It becomes annoying when the pos begs to be fed 6 times in a day. It becomes even more annoying when you have multiple accounts with you mail flashing with a load of notifications.
|
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 02:57:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Soon Shin Pretty much what has already posted, I want to add another thing:
Reduce the amount of times low fuel messages are sent to Pos managers. It becomes annoying when the pos begs to be fed 6 times in a day. It becomes even more annoying when you have multiple accounts with you mail flashing with a load of notifications.
Adjustable warning timer. I'd love to get a mail when I only have 5 days fuel left, and one every other day after that. ---
Sentinum Research Store |
Malcorath Sacerdos
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 13:05:00 -
[93]
+1
loads of good ideas in here
so ill add what i would like to see
first . Moon harvesting in WH to get WH and pos specific stuff most notably of wich would be Ice for ice fuels .
secondly micro managable permissions .. i want to see individual permissions for each corp hangar. or un limited number of slots possible in a hangar array set with passwords ( one person charged with chief responsibility over said POS would have a master key to all tabs and all POS modules )
thirdly T3 ships shuld be able to fully fit/refit in a POS .
and lastly POS¦s shuld be able to be privatly owned even if your in a Corporation .
|
Xander Hunt
Minmatar Dead Rats Tell No Tales
|
Posted - 2011.06.23 15:56:00 -
[94]
Security: - CEO and Directors have full access to all functions at the POS.
- Corp members have access to a POS only if their "Based At" property is set to the location of where the POS is. If "Based At" is not assigned, access to all corp POSs is granted.
- Members are given a role based on what stations are at each POS. - - IE: If research stations are present, giving a role for "Research Access" would grant access to the research stations. This would grant all access to all functions at the research station. - - IE: If "Corp Hangar" role is granted, access to a public corp, and private hangar within the Corp Hangar would be granted. etc
- Any station which could store items would be private to that toon.
- CEO and Directors are the only ones that can have ANYTHING to do with a tower.
- Feed the POS via Corp Hangar or a fuel bay, or even a special type of silo. The tower itself would have its own fuel bay but filled "Optimally" by the external silo. This way if your fuel technician runs off with the fuel, the POS would still have fuel to function. Ability to set what percentage levels the tower should maintain would be great, and notification when the levels can't be maintained daily would be ideal.
- API to report what is available in the external fuel bays and include the location of the fuel bay.
- Each POS can only have one external fuel bay.
- Corp hangar would have a tab for public corp access, and another tab for private use. M3 shared amongst all users.
- Only CEO would have access to to all personal tabs to clear things out in case a user leaves the corp and forgets to remove items.
- In case of role removal while items are still present at the POS, the toon would be able to remove their property from their own hangars, but could not place anything in. Equivalent to a "TAKE ONLY" permission.
|
ihcn
|
Posted - 2011.06.23 17:17:00 -
[95]
something I would like to see is the removal of all science&industry in stations. in the same change, allow pos owners to make some of their installations public, and charge a fee (equipment assembly array, mobile laboratory, etc).
a change would be necessary to the way materials required for production are handled, you would have to be able to store the materials in station, as pos owners won't want people flying up to their arrays and putting **** in from there.
this change will make the hisec pos a much more important place than the "place to put personal labs" function it has now.
|
Old Nimrod
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 08:06:00 -
[96]
Dunnu if this is too old, but I would like to see centralized storage. Putting the right items in each factory is a time consuming PITA
|
Zen Jardo
Merkhan Industries Anarchy Unlimited
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 23:53:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Zen Jardo on 24/06/2011 23:53:50 Hangar divisions in SMAs. Simple change that goes a long way toward preventing ship theft in w-space.
More control over security. There is effectively only one role that can be used to give players extra access to modules at your POS above full corp access. This is the starbase fuel tech and it also allows access to your fuel bay which might not be what you want. Let's have some more roles that can be assigned to module security settings so directors have better control over who can do what.
Alliance dropbox. The CHA settings are horrid when it comes to setting up a space for sharing items at the alliance level. Last week I had to click a stupid warning dialog 50 times while dropping minerals from GSCs into my Orca into a CHA belonging to another corp in the alliance.
Repackaging at a POS. My Orca can hold nearly 50 GSCs. If I'm in a station I can just drag them all to the station hangar, repackage, and stack. At a POS I have to access each one at a time to get to the contents. Enough to drive me insane.
|
Imuran
Zentor Industries
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 00:10:00 -
[98]
Sort out alliance and public use of labs so science services can be offered to the general masses. Solve some of the station queues and expand the mini proffesion
|
ShadowandLight
Amarr Cryptonym Sleepers Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.07.05 11:49:00 -
[99]
OP Here - http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1545594
When looking to give corp mates the ability do manufacture in your corp, you have to give them a role called " Factory Manager".
Without this role, they cannot install jobs for the corp using corp materials inside hangers.
However, this role also will give them the ability to cancel any job installed by someone else in the corp. If that happens, the entire bill of material is lost forever. Someone could easily abuse this role, however there is no work around for allowing corps to let members produce items AND keep a good security system in place.
This is actually preventing myself and others from running a side "business" in EVE, because I cannot give someone the ability to cancel, at will, jobs installed by others worth billions of isk.
Please reference the eve wiki on station service pos roles. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Roles_and_access_rights#Station_Service_Role_Type ------- "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
Eve Online |
Apice
|
Posted - 2011.07.05 20:52:00 -
[100]
Why can't POS modules be part of a single structure and fitted similarly to a ship? Also centralized hardpoints for clusters of turrets or modules, again fitted similarly to the way a ship is fitted.
|
|
Ahaz Darkfall
|
Posted - 2011.07.05 21:16:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Ahaz Darkfall on 05/07/2011 21:20:22 A lot of amazing ideas here. But one thing I have been frustrated over fo some time is the issue with off line POSes.
I know a few have mentioned it already, there have been many threads about it in the past. the most recent one I read seemed like it was on the table to fix but never got done.
Off line POSes are getting to be a big problem. especially in high sec and wormhole space where you can not bring in dreads to pop them. Of line POSes lose the bubble but still have full shields? This makes no sense. If the tower has run out of fuel and has no power, then where is the power for the shield coming from. It makes no sense for an off line POS to take the same DPS and total damage to kill as a fully operational POS. I would be nice for off line POSes to degrade with each down time. Say after a week the shields are completely gone, another week later security goes off line to the point where someone with maxed hacking skills and possibly a new POS hacking skill with hacking 5 as prerequisite can hack into it and any anchored modules to steal any loot left behind. A week after that a hacker can unanchor it. A week later it unanchores itself. And a week later it degrades and self-destructs. Make it worthwhile for experienced players to hunt down off line POSes and make them much easier to kill for players that just want the spot. Currently you need the same fire power to take down an off line POS as you do to take down a fully functional but undefended POS.
I have wanted to put up a POS for some time, but all the area's I have checked have no open moons. Yet there are many offline POSes that are doing nothing but taking a spot where someone else could set up a POS. I currently run my own high sec corp. but even with all 4 of my accounts in battle ships it takes hours to kill a small off line tower. I would be fine with spending 4-6 hours to take down an active small tower, but to have an off line tower take the same amount of work just does not seem right. I might as well find a small online tower with good modules anchored and attack them. Same time investment but a chance of some good loot. even a advanced lab that I can scoop after popping the tower is worth a few hundred mil.
Off line POSes are generally one of three situations; 1. some one forgot to fuel it, or can't afford to fuel it yet. but will either take it down or refuel it soon. give them at least a week to do so. Other wise they never should have set it up. they were unprepared and deserve to lose it. 2. Players have abandoned them and do not consider the cost of the tower to be worth taking it down and selling or storing it. It is wasted space and there needs to be a way of eliminating them that does not require the same effort as taking down an active POS. 3. It is just a place holder POS. Some corps anchor POSes(ussually a small tower) with no intention of ever bringing them online. They do this just to keep others from being able to use that moon, or to claim the moon to sell to someone wantint to put a POS there. "Give me 500 mil and I will unanchor the tower for you." This should be considered an exploit. it would be tolerable if off line POSes were easy to kill, but as they have the same EHP as an online POS. E
Every high sec moon I have checked has at least a small off line tower anchored there. I can not do enough DPS with only 4 accounts to take down even a small tower. This should not be the case. Make off line POSes much easier to kill than online POSes. At the very least make them lose there shields. A small tower is managabel for 3-4 battle ships if it only has its armor and structure (about 1 mil HP each if I recall correctly) and not the huge shield buffer. Make them degrade slowly to give the owner a chance to get it back online within a resonable time. but if they do not, let it die.
If any work is going to be put into POSes then this needs to be addressed along with any of the updates that are equally needed.
|
David Fightmaster
The Black Legionnares Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2011.07.27 15:35:00 -
[102]
This is a long time problem CCP needs to address. I support this proposal. I like to see a queue for onlining, offlining, and unachoring POS modules. I also would like to see CCP fix the problem where I type in my POS password and not see my parked ships get launched 200-300k away. That really sucks. Why would I park my ships inside my Shields and see them get launched out when I type password to get back inside the shields? Doesn't make sense. At least give me the option to launch ships out my POS. I've had 3 orcas launched out my POS because of the game mechanic. I wanted to setup a POS seperate from my corp POS to protect my important capital ships from theft. With launching ships, I can't manage to do that.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2011.07.27 16:03:00 -
[103]
Reactors and siloses shouldn't require starbase config , it is just silly.
|
Eperor
|
Posted - 2011.08.08 10:59:00 -
[104]
yes it is silly as meny ader ting at POSes i dont know way wie still have separete all moddules there way they not module build still and ader tings.
|
PaulTheConvoluted
|
Posted - 2011.08.08 12:38:00 -
[105]
Living in W-space a few issues could use a bit of work:
- Private tabs in Corp Hangars - Private tabs in Ship Maintenance Arrays
While it is a group effort, everyone has some personal possessions, especially in W-space where you can't just go on the market to buy that one item your corp member borrowed without you knowing.
Also, there are some corp members I don't really trust with my ship (like taking on Sleepers and trying to perma-run 2 local and 2 remote reppers then wonder why he is back in a pod once the cap runs out ) so I rather they don't have access to it so easily. I don't object to them storing and retrieving their own vessels though.
Someone with the 'Security Officer' role (or some new role) would have access to it all in case someone leaves the corp or stops playing, so you can still offline and unanchor if you want to take down the POS.
While on the topic of tabs, I'd like to be able to make tabs inside a tab, much like a container but sharing the space available. Containers can work as well, but then I'd like for them to be usable without having to put them in my cargo hold first. Main reason for this is my OCD-like habbit of sorting stuff :P
- Ability to repackage at a POS
I don't know if it was the intention to have to fly every ship you have back to K-space one by one when you retreat from a wormhole, but bringing them there all at once in 1 industrial is no problem at all (well, BS won't fit, but you get the drift). See also my OCD above: I want it to be tidy It would also clear up some of the clutter in the corp hangars, having lots of cloaks and warp core stabs in there
|
Anika Tan
New Eden Research.
|
Posted - 2011.08.08 15:28:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Anika Tan on 08/08/2011 15:30:39
Allow public BPO copying.
Currently your corp can do ME/PE research via Alliance. Your BPO is then simply returned to your own Corp hangar at the end. There's no real legit reason the same cannot be done for delivering BPC's to your own Corp hangar.
EDIT: I'd rather see public manufactoring too. You know, make renting out POS slots a viable industry (not just for ME/PE research).
|
Jekyl Eraser
|
Posted - 2011.08.08 19:30:00 -
[107]
POS needs to have multiple purposes not just what you can queeze in limited by grid and cpu.
Docking, Repair, Reprocessing, Fitting, Medical, Recustomization, Insurance should come as default + 1 of each science and industry slots. More slots should require upgrades.
Is it too much to have allmost all services that npc stations have? It is quite hefty price you pay monthly + all the fuel effort afterall.
|
PaulTheConvoluted
|
Posted - 2011.08.09 14:02:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Jekyl Eraser
But you don't pay nearly as much as you do for an outpost ;)
Sure, I'd _like_ to see those options, but I think it's a bit much for 'just' a POS.
|
Cherry Nobyl
|
Posted - 2011.08.09 21:05:00 -
[109]
POS changes that would make life a hell of a lot easier:
1) being able to open a container in a corporate hangar. this is one of the worst offenders in a pos. having to swap from active ship, to industrial ship, then select and load container (such as a gsc) into the cargo, then open the container, get the stuff, replace container in corp hangar tab, swap ships. really? i can't just pop the lid on the container like a trunk in a garage? i have to put it in the back of truck and haul it out to the driveway first?
2)storing a ship with a container in it in the ship maint array is summarily rejected as causing the end of the universe. WTF? did i just break the 5th rule of thermodynamics? though shalt not store a black hole within a black hole?
3) make the creation of tabs in the SMA/Corp hangar possible and that each tab can be grantable to a particular character for their sole use. was the expectation, even after all this time, that every corp member was jesus and/or a disciple? you're own marketing speaks of treachery and deception, then hands us a slopbucket for everyone to store their shiny in...
4) if only it were still May...
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.08.09 23:40:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Jekyl Eraser POS needs to have multiple purposes not just what you can queeze in limited by grid and cpu.
Docking, Repair, Reprocessing, Fitting, Medical, Recustomization, Insurance should come as default + 1 of each science and industry slots. More slots should require upgrades.
Is it too much to have allmost all services that npc stations have? It is quite hefty price you pay monthly + all the fuel effort afterall.
Well, that would make it like a full blown space station, really. I wouldn't mind seeing that, actually: people being able to construct entire space stations, from building blocks like Docking, Repair, Reprocessing, Fitting, Medical, Recustomization, etc, all of which can themselves be built too). Would be awesome. You could then build entire industrial parks, for instance. But not all in a single POS, of course; and at heftier skills (at least Anchoring V required and such).
-- "All your monies AUR belong to us." -- CCP |
|
Eperor
|
Posted - 2011.08.10 10:10:00 -
[111]
Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Originally by: Jekyl Eraser
But you don't pay nearly as much as you do for an outpost ;)
Sure, I'd _like_ to see those options, but I think it's a bit much for 'just' a POS.
Actualy if you calculate you pay more then out post ;) outpost dont have fuel cost at all. POS have montly POS fuel costs. so evareage lab POS cost araund 1 bilj with all mods ammo stront etc. each month large tower eats araund in low sec like 320 milj, 0.0 if sov was if i rember corectly 270 milj per month. SO: 1. initial cost is 1 bilj. 2. my Poses usualuy survive long so about 2 years wuld be allready so it is each month 270x 24 = 6,480 bilj per 2 years. Plus montly fuel moving costs VIA JF, about 20 milj. plus efort to fuel it wie pay araund 30 milj per POS for its fueling. So 20x24=480 per moving fuel, 30x24= 720 milj. 6,480+1+0,720+0,480=8,68 bilj per 2 years araund 4 years and you have station ( inot mantioning that PSOes can be destrued but station no. So if your POS gets destreyed you wil pay more.
|
Eperor
|
Posted - 2011.08.10 10:17:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Jekyl Eraser POS needs to have multiple purposes not just what you can queeze in limited by grid and cpu.
Docking, Repair, Reprocessing, Fitting, Medical, Recustomization, Insurance should come as default + 1 of each science and industry slots. More slots should require upgrades.
Is it too much to have allmost all services that npc stations have? It is quite hefty price you pay monthly + all the fuel effort afterall.
Well, that would make it like a full blown space station, really. I wouldn't mind seeing that, actually: people being able to construct entire space stations, from building blocks like Docking, Repair, Reprocessing, Fitting, Medical, Recustomization, etc, all of which can themselves be built too). Would be awesome. You could then build entire industrial parks, for instance. But not all in a single POS, of course; and at heftier skills (at least Anchoring V required and such).
Way not in one curent towers can sureve as power cores for it you anchore one you get so much and so much pg and cpu. and its eat so much and so much fuel, and you get more HP in sheild not full 100% additional but like sticking for mods, (if aded one more tower you get 75% shields HP from second if add 3 then from tird like 50% or so. Yes i know some my say yeah more HP to shoot but than you will not lo towers araund a space you can find one and disturb all enemy industrty at once so there you need take your time to shot all that HP. Ader ting you culd ad mods to to the tower if tower have central corporate hangar you have 1,4 milj m3 if you ad lets say doene asambly array you have added 500k m3 to the corporate hangars space and noneed eny more move minerals frome one hangar to ader. Than if yuou ad soemting more with have space that counts to the corporate hangar all works can be done true that one to make beter and les time spending ting.
|
Charlie Jacobson
|
Posted - 2011.08.11 00:24:00 -
[113]
|
Marara Kovacs
|
Posted - 2011.08.11 15:59:00 -
[114]
1: Onlining timers, it isnt fun or interesting to online silos after filling/emptying, it adds nothing to the game except boredom and it isnt as if anyone can shoot me or anything so its pointless.
2: Fuel, how irritating to need 34982y349837 fuel types... Should be able to manufacture 'pos fuel cells' from the current pos fuels.
3: They look crap. They need to be more visually inspiring so that people actually like them.
4: Did I mention how boring pos's are to work with?
|
Jekyl Eraser
|
Posted - 2011.08.11 17:04:00 -
[115]
Player Owned Station :)
I don't think docking, repairing and reprocessing is so imbalanced/gamechanging, is it?
Medical, insurance and recustomization are just icing on the cake... well maybe insurance might be of some use at WH. Maybe not allow clone at POS tho? It would allow clone jumping and spawning to WH. Dunno... confused by assumptions, accustomization and logic.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari draketrain
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 05:10:00 -
[116]
pos loot is crap if someone bothers to check it once a day also you can just self destruct rest you cannot haul out
this is completely ridiculous and unrewarding
needs a change
if you spend 3 days watching and guarding and shooting deathstar you deserve more loot than just salvage from x amount of self destructed ships capitals which logoff dont even count as loot wtf... pos are carebearing and utter laziness at best but i dont see goon pet csm going to do anything about it
|
Krakaan Byzantia
Gallente Bolt Action Drive by The Imperial Senate
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 19:02:00 -
[117]
if it hasnt been stated, its a micro tweak but annoying nonetheless.. not being able to repackage items while in a pos -------------------------------------------------- This world is kill or be killed never forget it. |
Earl Comstock
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 19:53:00 -
[118]
Sounds good to me. POS have languished too long.
My top items: - Fix ACLs. Corp controls, alliance controls, etc. For everything. If you must make it as poor as the corp role interface so be it, something is better than nothing.
- Public lab rental. This was intended from the start.
- Everywhere-in-bubble hangar access. Flying around bumping into crap to refill silos and access hangars/labs is terrible.
|
Usurpine
GDC Holding
|
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:24:00 -
[119]
CCP please move some workers to the real content of eve. This is something we would like to improve badly ! |
Sor'Ral
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 01:06:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Angst IronShard Edited by: Angst IronShard on 15/06/2011 10:55:50 all above + personal habitation module (with a cargo bay as a GSC) and others new modules for Incarna uses like Casino, bar, trading module...
Think at those who are living in W-spaces
o7
And allow outsiders to "visit" the Bar, Casino, etc. to do trade, etc.?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |