Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:12:00 -
[331] - 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.
Oh, I'd lump it in with the other eye candy, like the little ships at customs offices that make me think I'm getting ganked every time I see one flash onto my screen... those are great. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:13:00 -
[332] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Rand McKikas wrote:If it has to be put up as a corp item, (player item hangar ) then I think directors should have access to everything, if you don't trust your leadership you should find a different corp.... plus having to waste stuff because someone quits is just bad "Trusting your leadership" ended badly quite a few times in the past, I'll be damned before I trust anyone with anything when it comes to EVE. So you play solo, eh? Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Malcanis for CSM8 |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:21:00 -
[333] - Quote
CCP Fozzie 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. Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge. Oh, they'd do something, even if it wasn't anything you added. People would be clicking them like lunatics, trying to figure out what they really do - Like so many demented monkeys. Then, they would spawn many, many threadnaughts full of frustration and tears and conspiracy theories.
But maybe those are functions you might find less than desireable.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Malcanis for CSM8 |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:21:00 -
[334] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote:If, if a PHA does not become inaccessible when a tower is reinforced the same way a CHA does, I might feel a little more sympathetic to the "oh noes tough cookies" argument. You have a known window of time to extract your things. The reinforcement timer is not designed to let you un-anchor everything and dock up safely. It's to give you the time to assemble a fleet and strike back. Cannot win? Then you loose. And that loss actually hurts. Making thou thirst for revenge... sweeeet bloody holly revenge!!!!111oneone
I'm thinking from a perspective of if I want to keep any personal items or subsystems to swap (because hooray subsystem swapping!), I'd like to have them available in case of emergency. It doesn't sound like this will be the case, so the PHA isn't going to improve my life there. I'm not worried about someone saving my stuff from destruction -- if I get invaded, I'm throwing everything I have at the invaders. If I have anything left when the POS goes down, the victors take the spoils. That's life. But my personal stock of items won't be available to me if I don't log in before the tower is reinforced.
People evacuate their CHAs when they come under siege not just to save their things, but to keep the use of the items inside. Anything I put in a PHA I am not only writing off in the usual "anything that goes into w-space dies" kind of way, but in the "anything that goes in here will be inaccessible in an emergency". Thus, the important things will have to stay in the CHA. This seems completely backwards to me. Sure, I'll use the PHA for some random junk I have lying around or for quick swapping of items between ships, but I think people are too fixated on "but the carebears want to save their things!" and are forgetting that the defenders need access to their things in order to defend.
Seriously, my only complaint with this is that the PHA as it stands is being introduced without any competitors in utility to make it a real choice of risk and reward. "I may not be able to get those items when I really need them" should not be a necessary tradeoff of "basic quality of POS life improvement from an organizational perspective". If the argument being put forth for making it 100% private is "well you risk that for great reward" then there should be plans in the works for something equally useful for organization with different privacy settings. The unfun way that POSes currently work should not be built into the new system as a tradeoff.
Proddy Scun wrote: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.
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. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:29:00 -
[335] - 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.
|
Dring Dingle
Polaris Rising Gentlemen's Agreement
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:05:00 -
[336] - Quote
Haha... Fozzie past 5 k likes ! :D
.... directors/CEO access is a must! |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5075
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:11:00 -
[337] - Quote
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.
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:16:00 -
[338] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:
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.
Fair enough. however... Even that little bit, multiplied across whoever many players active at their POS'... Still a drain I'd rather see used elsewhere. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Malcanis for CSM8 |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:19:00 -
[339] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We may consider it for later iterations.
Please do. I think we've made our case as a community that 'no one but owner' is an undesireable condition. We can make-do until a change in a later iteration.
Carry on smartly with the good work!
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Malcanis for CSM8 |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:26:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
Please do!
Everything else announced is spot on. Good luck and happy coding! |
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:37:00 -
[341] - 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. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:43:00 -
[342] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:Proddy Scun wrote: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. And with sov comes supercaps and titans. And with that comes a lot of unsubscribing of wormhole players. Hence why he said "limited," ie, to not allow full sov and thus the supercaps. |
Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1559
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:53:00 -
[343] - Quote
1/3 of blog dedicated to cover your behinds |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:54:00 -
[344] - 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. |
Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1559
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:58:00 -
[345] - Quote
40-10k m3? I guess we wont be dooing much PI.. |
Backfyre
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:12:00 -
[346] - Quote
It's a start I guess.
Can we open containers in a CHA?
When are the permissions getting reworked? All the bundling of permissions is still one of the biggest headaches with POS.
As it stands, not sure my corp will be using the new hangar module. Not being able to remove an inactive player's gear is a non-starter. The space is also an issue. For people with multiple characters, the new module makes gear sharing a PITA.
I would rather have CCP fix the FUBAR permissions system than create new half-baked arrays. How about something simple like adding a password feature to a CHA tab in much the same way as secure containers? |
Pantson Head
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:16:00 -
[347] - Quote
Aidan Patrick wrote: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. If the disgruntled member with fuel bay access can do this it means that you can too. Take an alt, store enough of necessary item X to get by in your alt's section of the PHC and the problem is solved at the cost of some of your alt's storage space. If the changes happen as they are currently laid out, you'll also be protected from disgruntled director level people from attempting to deny resources. I understand yours and others concerns about not having control over everything in your pos, but I don't see this PHA as being for you. It's for all the shlubs with limited roles who just want a little personal space to put **** in without having to trust everyone in a game where you're taught very early to trust no one. The PHA is for CEOs and directors only insofar as it will make your corpies happy. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
384
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:17:00 -
[348] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Quote:Lots of questions about roles
the only role I really care about is the 'rent factory slot' one.
can you just get it to actually work, its been there for years and does nothing.
rent factory slot = rent/use corp build slot(but not cancel jobs) factory manager = above and the ability to cancel jobs.
is it really that hard to fix this one little thing after the many years of it not working? please say it isn't so OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:17:00 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The Personal Hangar does not have any limits to total storage, which significantly reduces the amount of management that needs to be done to keep it running smoothly. Isn't there an easier way to address it, that will benefit multiple groups of players at once? Rework the audit log containers (station containers included), add "Anchored" configuration flag. Container can be anchored in space or in corporation hangar. Only person knowing the configuration password may unanchor (and therefore move) the container. This will instantly simplify the hangar access roles configuration. The account that have anchored the container will have unlimited transparent access to it's content without the need to enter password. The access password may be used to let other people access container contents, and configuration password - to access container configuration (at all times, there should be no transparent access to container config). This way, if you trust your directors, you may let them know the password and they could unanchor and move your container, if need. To make it running smoothly, can we please have all nearby shared facilities visible in the inventory window?... This will also benefit people without POS - they may anchor some containers in their area of operation and share goods this way. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5078
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:18:00 -
[350] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote: OK cool - sounds like PSH may have some limit in total size then. So that would be fair.
The personal hangar has no limit on total size. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:19:00 -
[351] - 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. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
117
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:30:00 -
[352] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:I'm thinking from a perspective of if I want to keep any personal items or subsystems to swap (because hooray subsystem swapping!), I'd like to have them available in case of emergency. It doesn't sound like this will be the case, so the PHA isn't going to improve my life there. I'm not worried about someone saving my stuff from destruction -- if I get invaded, I'm throwing everything I have at the invaders. If I have anything left when the POS goes down, the victors take the spoils. That's life. But my personal stock of items won't be available to me if I don't log in before the tower is reinforced.
People evacuate their CHAs when they come under siege not just to save their things, but to keep the use of the items inside. Anything I put in a PHA I am not only writing off in the usual "anything that goes into w-space dies" kind of way, but in the "anything that goes in here will be inaccessible in an emergency". Thus, the important things will have to stay in the CHA. This seems completely backwards to me. Sure, I'll use the PHA for some random junk I have lying around or for quick swapping of items between ships, but I think people are too fixated on "but the carebears want to save their things!" and are forgetting that the defenders need access to their things in order to defend.
Seriously, my only complaint with this is that the PHA as it stands is being introduced without any competitors in utility to make it a real choice of risk and reward. "I may not be able to get those items when I really need them" should not be a necessary tradeoff of "basic quality of POS life improvement from an organizational perspective". If the argument being put forth for making it 100% private is "well you risk that for great reward" then there should be plans in the works for something equally useful for organization with different privacy settings. The unfun way that POSes currently work should not be built into the new system as a tradeoff. Alright, that is a concern I understand and agree with. Dont really know how it can be fixed in a civilized way (without logged off orcas and such). Maybe a separate POS module ("armory"), to hold only ammo, ship modules, rigs, etc. - that would not go offline when reinforced. May come in two flavors as well: corporate and private. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:30:00 -
[353] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Rather than 'within the shield' it will probably end as 'within 15/20/30 km of the tower', which is almost the same thing. But I'll know more for sure once I start working on it this/next week. The normal rules of what can/cannot be accessed when a tower is offline/reinforced will be unchanged.
For those asking about structures that have to be outside the shield, such as guns, those will probably still require you to be within range of the specific structure itself (but this depends on how it looks once I start diving in to it) Why not start from this instead, and remove the shield already?... Before adding more clutter to the system. You have the code to support it. It is the same code that run outposts. Make POS modules be "exposed services", adjust visuals and you'll get much more robust system. Then adding more hangar arrays will increase POS storage capabilities rather than fragment it. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:31:00 -
[354] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:This module is exactly what everyone who lives in a POS with any number of other people has been screaming at CCP to give us (i.e. wormholes). I will happily swallow the potential to lose some stuff during an emergency evac when balanced against increased security for things I want to keep secure. If I'm about to lose a POS who actually cares about the crap in it? We'll be too busy throwing ships at the invaders anyway. That's just a bunch of crap in spite of a moment. You didn't though your idea through even for a second. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:52:00 -
[355] - Quote
Athena Maldoran wrote:40-10k m3? I guess we wont be dooing much PI..
Enormous Freight Container, the old Hanger, etc.
It is hardly perfect, but ccp is looking at this new hanger as a method of immediate security of your cool bling bling modules, not a secure hold to put everything you get in there. If you are that low on the totem pole in your corporation, then you probably should not be bringing in THAT much crap into the corp anyway.
In addition, there are alternative ways of giving out space or locations for people to stow PI. A POS with 1 of the new hangers, and one of the old hangers. Old hanger for bulk volume (which would be hard to steal cause its so damn much), and the new one to hold your cool bling stuff.
People can make this work, but I think that it won't be easy, but definitely better than it is atm. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:06:00 -
[356] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
Please consider it or some other simplified storage mechanism with variable permission settings. If you someday combine easy sorting of things by person with improved industrial facilities and roles to use same, the world would be a beautiful place.
Proddy Scun wrote: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.
My objection stems from the fitting costs of POS modules. I don't want PHAs to turn into the new SMA problem, or to have a PHA lock active people out because someone went AFG with stuff in the PHA and no one can get their stuff out to dump it in k-space. People are still going to run extra towers because of finite limits on ship storage and fitting resources, and CHAs aren't going anywhere. I imagine there will be fewer anchored cans, not fewer CHAs.
Those random offline POSes at moons are there to keep invaders from plonking down a POS at that moon without first having to shoot the offline tower. If people aren't in the wormhole, there is no reason to store their things because SMA space is so valuable and storing things in k-space is so much simpler. If I had to leave w-space for an extended period of time, I wouldn't want my stuff in a place that I may or may not be able to access easily at any given time. Unless I was giving my ships away to the people still in the hole, they wouldn't want my stuff cluttering up the SMAs.
If 70-95% of a corp spends their time primarily living in k-space but have some POSes in w-space, I'm going to bet that the 5-30% that stay in w-space are isk-making alts and the corp does not consider itself a wormhole corp. Those people are not who I'm talking about at all. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:09:00 -
[357] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Alright, that is a concern I understand and agree with. Dont really know how it can be fixed in a civilized way (without logged off orcas and such). Maybe a separate POS module ("armory"), to hold only ammo, ship modules, rigs, etc. - that would not go offline when reinforced. May come in two flavors as well: corporate and private.
I like that idea a lot. I'd definitely use that kind of POS module. |
Infinion
My Little Pony - Friendship Force
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:15:00 -
[358] - Quote
I'm pretty sure the only reason they're doing the 10 - 40k m3 per member with unlimited total space is because it means they can re-purpose the customs office code for the personal corp hangar with little development time.
CCP, in the future you need to come back to this and make two major changes, make the total storage space finite and give POS managers the ability to allocate space. Current numbers are clearly not ideal for industry pilots and corporations of various sizes.
Allocating space should also mean that you can allocate more than is available. You either trust your members to understand that the extra space they use is everyone else's, or ask a director/ceo to find and talk to the people that don't. |
Bellanea Rajanir
Poseidaon
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:45:00 -
[359] - Quote
Paraphrasing - That's one small step for a community, one giant leap for CCP |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:50:00 -
[360] - Quote
Bellanea Rajanir wrote:Paraphrasing - That's one small step for a community, one giant leap for CCP In fact, they aren't doing ANYTHING to the problem that is POS. Just adding one new module to the existing mess. I'm not impressed. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |