Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation
Tauri Federation
55
   |
Posted - 2013.04.03 04:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
Personally I find the current announced implementation plan to be a bit underwhelming. However it is far, far better than nothing. However I hope you (CCP) read and consider my thoughts on the matter.
Kennesaw Breach wrote:I'm more concerned about persons taking other people's stuff or corporate stuff from CHAs, labs, arrays, etc, and deliberately placing it in their personal hangar as a denial-of-resource action. This is also a concern of mine and something I feel justifies at the minimum allowing a CEO access to the contents of private hangars. I can imagine a disgruntled member with fuel bay access or access to the corporate hangar arrays fuel reserves for the POS taking those reserves and slamming them into an untouchable personal hangar.
Unlike an NPC station where the Security Officer can only view the contents of the hangar (as the storage is provide by an entity other than the corporation, the Personal Storage Array is being provided by the corporation. It should be understood in my opinion that if an asset is stored in any facility at a POS it is corporate property.
However, with that said, CEO/Director should only ever be able to TAKE from personal hangars, never put. Simply put allowing them to give & take would enable exploitation of the array for infinite storage given sufficient characters to 'create' or 'initiate' their personal storage.
MarcelJust wrote: slap the personal hangars on the tower itself and be done with it. When personal ship hangars are added add those to the tower as well. I agree with this. Something tells me though that each individual POS structure is coded separately, which leads me to believe adding a new structure is a much easier solution for them than modifying an existing one.
If this theory of mine is correct, in addition to adding the new POS structure(s) I would like to see a new control tower class added. Honestly using ORE or the Sisters of EVE as the producer could legitimize only having one new tower added.
Call this tower an "Expeditionary Tower" and make it big, bulky, consume more fuel and likely be stronger. Maybe even have the perk of being able to use any of the four fuel types, or just one. It doesn't matter.
Where an Expeditionary Tower would stand out though is allowing a much much larger Personal Storage directly embedded within the tower. Something like 1,000,000 m3 per player, plus an appropriate personal ship hangar capable of storing at minimum a compliment of 1 exhumer/mining barge (whichever has the highest volume), 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, and 3 frigates.
This type of tower would be more advanced and an evolution to the system enabling players to actually store their personal gains from wormholes, remote mining operations, nullsec operations etc etc.
As I see it now, even a 50k m3 personal hangar allotment is going to prevent any real personal gain from PI, Mining, R&D, Manufacturing etc at a POS as 50k m3 is not a lot of space, especially for any serious miner or PI user.
However, it's better than nothing.
My biggest disappointment with this announcement is that not a shred of information was released in this dev blog in relation to the usability of Research & Manufacturing facilities at a POS.
When Odyssey was announced and POS changes were mentioned I was hoping the need for Factory Manager role would finally be addressed. I'm still holding out hope that it will be addressed and have a few ideas how to fix it (assuming I even have a grasp of how the code for roles [roles, not the POS module] are handled.)
As it stands, I personally feel that if CCP were to fix the overwhelmingly large issues with the Factory Manager requirement in EVE it would breathe a new life into the game the likes of EVE has never seen before.
Imagine a world where POS R&D and Manufacturing can be done in a corp with many members sharing the same labs and manufacturing facilities without fear that members that aren't part of the leadership can just cancel everything making everyone lose tons and tons of work?
Imagine... Null sec corps and alliances would be more open to pure industrialists who could use the wealth of their systems to keep themselves stocked locally without over-crowding their outpost slots.
People like me could actually fund a series of POS' and allow open member usage, creating an ease of accessibility for people who are interested in R&D or Manufacturing but simply don't have access to sufficient facilities. (Especially true with R&D).
Food for thought CCP.
Is there any hope of getting the ability to mark a player in the current roles system (assuming it isn't going to be revamped this expansion) as "Based At" a POS? The Personal Storage is a huge huge boon to POS security, but I really feel that being able to "Based At" a player to a POS would be significant.
As it stands now, POS hangar access is all or nothing. Further security requires fuel tech or config starbase equipment, which further complicates things with access levels.
Want secure storage beyond regular roles? Fuel Tech. Don't want that same person being able to manage POS fuel? Starbase Config. Crap, don't want that person unanchoring your tower? You're SOL. This often leaves the CEO/Director (in a smart, secure corp) in charge of maintaining their POS fuel bays and allows little room for delegation.
Ideally I'd like to be able to fully delegate maintenance of a specific POS to a specific member by having "Based At" hangar access enabled for said POS and then further fixing it by having separate POS Fuel Tech & Config Starbase roles under the Based at section.
If it's possible to do this and then further be able to specify in the existing POS menus whether it uses the based at or regular Fuel Tech/Config roles would immensely increase configuration with minimal effort.
It wont let me have an empty signature... |