EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 36 post(s)
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 11:32:00 - [1] - Quote Private Starbase Arrays -- make director access parallel current access to member hangars at stations with offices. That is allow directors to drop but not take items into private hangars. Not allowing drops into private hangars can however make distribution of secured corp items (e.g. ammo) to individual players unnecessarily difficult. The most likely workarounds are mandatory logon overlap between directors and each member to receive items. OR setup unsecured areas or cans where less privilege members are simply trusted to take their items only...which takes us back to where we are NOW in many ways. If you think fumbling items into private hangar space instead of corporate space is more likely at POS - then put a default popup warning which can be disabled by the user. Frankly I can see NO drawback to allowing directors to drop items into personal hangars. Any issue with undesired items and overflow can be solved on the private members next access where they can just jetcan the unwanted stuff ... or politely drop it back in shared corp hangar areas.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 12:08:00 - [2] - Quote Andre Coeurl wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL Problem solved. Same problem I envisioned myself, at least directors or the CEO should be given a way to move stuff to a new location. Hell, it would even be good enough to have a shinkwrapped item out of any personal hangar if need be, so nobody can use it but can only move it to the new location so the owner can unwrap it once he's back. but destroying all the stuff (presumably valuable stuff if it's in the personal hangar) if you need to relocate is plain dumb. I'd never put my personal stuff in a place where it gets blown up if the tower needs to be relocated for any reason, due to the constant danger and the shifting needs of WH life that's going to happen sooner or later. Shrinkwrap idea sounds like an acceptable compromise. Especially if you plan to allow corps to rent space in their POS to other non-hostile corps -- just as NPC stations do. :) Still kind of think term POS should be sufficient warning about theft by CEO or director though. Choose your corp wisely. Really this destroy on unanchor idea sounds more like a request from directors of big corps who do not want to be burdened with moving personal property. They want to say "sorry had to save structures and CCP does not allow me to waste hours moving your personal junk around. Its just gone sacrificed without a thought to support the corporate good."
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 12:56:00 - [3] - Quote Marcel Devereux wrote: Why create a new structure for the personal hangars? I know there is a balance to keep with fittings of each tower (which are horribly unbalanced at the moment ) but with the removal of variable fuel consumption this doesn't make much sense. Just 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 that PSH having infinite storage is sort of unrealistic. if you are going to do that with structures -- indeed just make it part of tower. Currently its sounds like a badly implemented WOW ag of infinite holding. A structure that services 1 member to all of largest corp in EVE sounds silly. An idea that sound driven by desire to keep UI code simple rather than code that feels realistic. PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users. Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space. I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:19:00 - [4] - Quote If the thrust of PSH is to simplify management of POS space... If directors are not going to help save personal property when a hangar must be moved on short notice -- then the best way to reduce their work is to remove the member from director role. If you do that he has tons more free time while everyone else retains their property. Agreed directors will not always have time to save everything, but they should make a best effort. But... (1) simply putting a fixed cap on user space pretty much solves all a director's normal management issues about storage at a POS. It then becomes the individual members problem. Allowing director to assign different sized fixed blocks of storage to each user until PSH total space is all allocated would be super nice (like old server disk space management). (2) Giving director button to eject everyone's stuff as shrinkwrap contents in jetcans prior to unanchor would be nice as any available body could then haul. I guess shrinkwrapped packages would need to limited to 10K m3 or jetcan as to fit into common industrial haulers. (3) Making the total space in single structure infinite is bad. If it does need to move under proposed not director access (not even shrinkwrap eject) you have to wait much longer for massive number of members to clear personal goods before unanchor (or lose toons more member stuff). By limiting numbers of users per PSH corps limit the number members who need to move their stuff before unanchor ...or limit losses if they cannot be contacted before move. Generally if divided some subgroup of personal storage users will reach move out goal more quickly than others.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:01:00 - [5] - Quote Fozzie is obvious a good manager and Software Engineer. But I am not sure if he is one of those who elicits clarification and help via making polarizing statements -- or if he is letting a lot of his personal opinion on how EVE should be played color his proposals. Taken at face value the PSH proposal would make it seem Fozzie detests the idea of personal property being stored at a Corp owned POS. Thus the PSH incinerate all personal items at POS in single move design. Not sure if the idea of using only Corp stuff at POS stems from totalitarian Communist or ultra company-slave style Capitalism as the two concepts are mirror-images in practice if not moral justification. I just know its an extreme twist on what is currently possible and practiced by most in EVE. Obviously some the extremism might be explained by allowing obsession with simplicity of coding to drive the game mechanic results - rather than having desirable game mechanics drive the necessary code. If so I applaud Fozzie for considering reduced software complexity at expense of some desired game mechanics frills. However there tradeoffs need to at least be proportionate and neither code complexity nor game mechanics suffer so much as to become unrecognizable. Balance. bottomline: Please leave it up to the individual corps as to the degree personal property is or is not allowed in POS. PSH as single stop incinerate is not necessary. Corps can have that effect by just not providing PSH at all or PSH access or only to certain individuals. So flexible PSH with director able to drop in and take provide maximum corp flexibility
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:06:00 - [6] - Quote DJ P0N-3 wrote: Proddy Scun wrote: PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users. Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space. I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations. 20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are. If you store it in Corp Hangar Arrays now - how is trading 1 CHA for each PSH more restrictive? Assume equal volume and 20 personal user rather than 7 tabs. Not more restrictive UNLESS you stick with Fozzies 1 PSH per POS. I am proposing Multiple PSH model. I only suggested 1.4M m3 volume and 20 users as a starting place that might be reasonable.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:15:00 - [7] - Quote DJ P0N-3 wrote: Proddy Scun wrote: PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users. Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space. I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations. 20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are. Can't be more restrictive than 7 tabs per CHA now. I bet you do not have 100 members in single CHA now. Probably not even in 5 CHA. Yes I agree we could EXPAND current POS abilities so that large corps could consolidate the need for say 3-5 POS into one POS. Pardon me but is suspect that is where most your enthusiasm comes from. And maybe to some degree you are correct. I am just saying a POS does not support storage for 1000 members today and it should not tomorrow. But yeah maybe CCP needs to look close at how many people each POS size should support for personal storage. IDK maybe 20 per PSH is high and maybe its low. I did not set that proposed number in stone. I just said storage for all of GOONSWARM at a single POS seems ridiculous especially in one cheap structure.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:24:00 - [8] - Quote If one of the primary goals of the new PSH is actually to help larger corps consolidate POS and save ISK... how many people should each size POS support (along with some upscaling of the number of available industrial facilities as well)? Small tower -->15-20? Medium tower --> 50+ ? Large tower ---> 100-150? I know Fozzie didn't originally say that. But it seems to be the thrust of a lot of support for his ideas. Jsut seems that is that is the reason may it needs a wee bit closer examination and then official acknowledgement.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:33:00 - [9] - Quote Sinzor Aumer wrote: Proddy Scun wrote: I just said storage for all of GOONSWARM at a single POS seems ridiculous especially in one cheap structure. GOONSWARM-SIZED LOOT PINATA!!! Agreed -- both a positive (ISK saved in construction) and NEGATIVE effect. And not sure that those are the intended dominate effects that they would become. Currently if you look in most C3+ wh you see 3-10 POS. I suspect a lot of that is due to storing personal user stuff 7 users per CHA (in additon to shared area CHA). True some of it is also just to prevent quick conquest by having fall back POS. In any case I would bet the number of POS in typical well developed C3+ wh systems would fall to much lower numbers maybe more like 1-3 for most wh's
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:41:00 - [10] - Quote heh or CCP could make things really easy on themselves. Just allow WH and single star system in unconquered constellation to have some sort of limited single system sovereignty structure so corps can build real outposts and stations instead. POS issues solved.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:54:00 - [11] - Quote Kennesaw Breach wrote: Proddy Scun wrote: Currently if you look in most C3+ wh you see 3-10 POS. I suspect a lot of that is due to storing personal user stuff 7 users per CHA (in additon to shared area CHA). True some of it is also just to prevent quick conquest by having fall back POS. In any case I would bet the number of POS in typical well developed C3+ wh systems would fall to much lower numbers maybe more like 1-3 for most wh's You might want to add Force Fields to your overview, mate. Not all POSes in wormholes are online, and some of those offline POSes are offline for good reason. Wormhole POSes are for defense, changing ships, and doing industrial work. Personal storage is best done in orcas. Your corp operation philosophy mate. Its only one of several ways. But yes I know some interior WH need extra industrial and storage due to not always having clear path to normal space. And some corp prima donnas (valuable senior players) just like to built extra POS as status symbols too (thus offline since they aren't actually needed) Sure Orca is safe place while pilot is logged off in case POS gets blown. Fairly limited space. And Orca is only safer place if you retain ownership of WH. Its pretty obvious why new owners often set up MWD and patrol location where old POS were destroyed for a month or two. Among other measures. But Orca is inventive for your own personal property. Was even nicer when you could suck combat ships into maintenance bays. Heard somewhere you can't do that anymore.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 13	Posted - 2013.04.03 15:29:00 - [12] - Quote silens vesica wrote: Infinion wrote: CCP Masterplan wrote: Stegas Tyrano wrote: Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be! They'll only be animated inside the server ;) Just out of curiosity, if you used an existing drone model and only animated it in such a way that it 1) moves between two points 2) passes through all objects and 3) appears/disappears within a certain distance from a structure which process would be too time-consuming to include with the feature? Dude. Burning needless and precious server-side CPU cycles. Completely needless, and counter-productive to what we want CCP to be doing - Putting cycles into things that matter. Agreed server is NOT involved with animation effects - just last position, expected position, system status (damage, modules on/off, ammo counts) and destruction...and that stuff directly related to those calculations. Your computer running client software provides 99.8% or more of CPU power needed by EVE game to support your EVE experience Client creates all animations based on simple current position-projected position and others status reported by server. the base assumption is that ships, missiles etc fly on smooth path between current and expected positions - unless the server updates status and position before arrival at old project position.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 13	Posted - 2013.04.03 16:37:00 - [13] - Quote DJ P0N-3 wrote: You're assuming a one user per tab model rather than using CHAs as corporate storage. Once your corp is big enough that your loot and corp stock of items (which gets very big very quickly if you're in w-space; see also the fuss kicked up when they imposed a limit on unstacked items in a CHA combined with the inability to repackage things) needs to be carefully sorted, indexed, and have tiered access levels, the one user per tab model leads to ridiculous fuel expenses. Personal storage tends to take place in a tab designated for cans, anchored secure containers, or the items being kept in ship cargo holds. The reason people clamored for personal arrays isn't just for security. It's because keeping everything stored and organized in a POS requires far too much work. The PHA is a step in the right direction, as is the ability to anchor CSMAs in wormholes, but limiting the number of people who can use a single PHA would make its utility even more limited. I do agree 7 user per hangar is too few for a PSH. In fact my main argument was merely that PSH should have a limited total size. I did not Say 20 per hangar was ideal. It was just easy to talk about. I was mainly arguing that a PSH should be aimed supporting a limited number of typical active wh users. Let us say 30 instead just to emphasis I am not fixed on 20. There is however some right compromise number less than 50 active users. Or better yet some total storage limit of less than 2M m3 per PSH (or other sized structure with cost of say 3.5M ISK per 1 M m3). Dividing PSH in multiple units will NOT Un-organize everything - because all PSH are automatically grouped together by type at each POS by the Universal Inventory. heck You could even name them like files to add your own additional ordering within type. So its sort of like arguing scrolls are better organized than books with securely bound pages. Or perhaps you speaking more to the esthetics of POS landscaping and locating particular structures -- fewer being considered more beautiful by some. There you have some point though really its easy enough to lay out numbered streets of labeled structures and use bookmarks for regularly visited structures. I suspect that the biggest reason for disagreement and the biggest issue for which large POS corps want a freebie is -- having online space for all those members who are never in the wh or only seldom visit and only briefly (typically 70-95% of corp). Personally I think that corp management who want to cut fuel costs just need to say NO to users who have not plans for making significant contributions in the wh economy or security. I have always suspected that is what all those offline POS in wh about...POS with storage for people who only show up in wh on special holidays. Its always easier to not manage people than to set and implement any given policy. I have over 5M m3 of personal stuff at our POS so I know about storage needs growing fast. Its not all online at once. There is at least that most corp shared stuff. I just disagrees with unlimited storage for free.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 13	Posted - 2013.04.03 16:54:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Thanks everyone for their feedback so far both on the proposed changes and on other changes we can make in the future. Want to remind people once again that we're not removing CHAs from the game with these changes, nor are we talking about limiting PHAs to one per starbase. You can online as many of both structures as your Starbase's fittings allow. Since CHAs are not being removed we are not removing any of the current functionality for miners storing collective ore, or for people wishing to share items within their corp. And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations. OK cool - sounds like PSH may have some limit in total size then. So that would be fair. It would also be cool if 420 member corp could divide up 1 PSH of hypothetically (just for speculation) 4M m3 between the 400 member who hardly ever contribute to wh ops (so 10K m3 each) and another PSH between the 20 WH active members (200K m3). My only issue was with infinite space and infinite members per PSH meaning it would be pointless to have own more than 1 PSH regardless of corp size or actually space used. I was picturing all the perfect death stars with 1 PSH and 1 PSA (ships) and everything else in guns -- assuming you did no in wh industry.
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 13	Posted - 2013.04.03 17:19:00 - [15] - Quote Athena Maldoran wrote: 40-10k m3? I guess we wont be dooing much PI.. Well that is the thing - its usually only a few members of a corp that do a lot of PI. So why give every corp member 10M m3 when most have never have been in wh after corp orientation? So it would be good to give those few that need lots of space - the space they need. Or at least fewer competitors for the limited total space in a given PSH. Sounds like Fozzie is on that in some crude manner but just has not decided total size of each PSH. Apparently also not decided whether each hangar user has a max space quota or if everyone with right to given PSH has a variable used size until no free space exists in that entire PSH. Sort of sounds like he favors latter as its what old CSH uses.

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