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) |
Maude FreeLight
The Red Circle Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:19:00 -
[511] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:For all you players asking about the roles for cancelling jobs (and this applies to regular station jobs also) I'm going to have a look and see if there is something we can do about it. Take this with a hefty slice of Expectation Management Pie, but one simple possibility I'm thinking of is restricting the ability to cancel corp jobs to director roles only. With just the Factory-Manager role, you'd still be able to cancel your own corp jobs, but not those corp jobs belonging to your corpmates. What do you think about this idea? Be aware this is a very specific, focused fix to an problem that has come up a few times. Please don't feature-creep on me, or there's simply no scope for it happening!
Will this prevent someone from putting a structure offline while jobs are running? I'm not sure on the details but what I've been told is if a structure is offlined while jobs are running those jobs get cancelled. (Feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong) |
Frying Doom
2282
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:20:00 -
[512] - Quote
Two step wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made. Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable. Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions. The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is welcomed. Thanks for the update, that all sounds great. 50K m3 per person sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially because people can either anchor another PHA or just use a CHA. What they have finished so far has sounded great and the fact they they are continuing to work as people give them more ideas is awesome.
So once again thank you Two Step for making this happen and
Thank you CCP Fozzie and the rest of the CCP staff working on this. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
RangerSmurf
Pistols for Pandas
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 23:36:00 -
[513] - Quote
Can we please have some form of alliance module/item storage? Like the corp hangers that have the option to be allowed for alliance, but it does not function for them? |
Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
152
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 00:06:00 -
[514] - Quote
While I might like a bit more space 50K is doable.
One other thought for us wormhole dwellers. Most of us have alts, and while we don't want other people stealing our stuff we do want to be able to have our alts all pull from the same hangar (I have two characters in the hole that do PI, and they share a bin of "extra materials").
Today with a CHA they can share easily, but everyone else has access. While the PHA addresses that risk it removes the utility for alts. Will there either be a way for CHAs to have more granular permissions or for PHA owners to enable other characters (i.e. alts) to access them by positively adding access? In essence what I'm thinking of here is the POS equivalent of a station trade or pickup contract.
If this is too much for Odyssey I get it, but if so it'd be nice if some manner for wormhole in-POS transfer between alts existed. Thanks. Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planet Authority James Arget for CSM8! |
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 00:48:00 -
[515] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made. Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable. Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions. The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is welcomed.
Sounds good to me. Thanks for working to improve POSs.
I'm still hoping that you'll be able to add in director or CEO access to PHA's sometime this year. |
Frying Doom
2283
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 02:21:00 -
[516] - Quote
RangerSmurf wrote:Can we please have some form of alliance module/item storage? Like the corp hangers that have the option to be allowed for alliance, but it does not function for them? Im not to caring about that but alliance bookmarks would be nice. I know not really a POS thing, but helpful none the less. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
203
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 03:00:00 -
[517] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:RangerSmurf wrote:Can we please have some form of alliance module/item storage? Like the corp hangers that have the option to be allowed for alliance, but it does not function for them? Im not to caring about that but alliance bookmarks would be nice. I know not really a POS thing, but helpful none the less.
Agree, though the creation could be a bit of a pain. Generally the holding corps don't have that many people in them for obvious reasons.
Also, increasing the limit on corp bookmarks.
But now we're threadjacking again, and I'd think it would be better to get a response from CCP in a different thread about these issues.
I will say though, that there does seem to be an overwhelming consensus on how broken the industrial side of POS's are and I hope that if anything does get dropped from the initial release, it isn't things that address that. Artctura for CSM 2013 |
DoToo Foo
Foo Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 03:47:00 -
[518] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:For all you players asking about the roles for cancelling jobs ... restricting the ability to cancel corp jobs to director roles only. With just the Factory-Manager role, you'd still be able to cancel your own corp jobs, but not those corp jobs belonging to your corpmates. ...
Stabase fuel technician would be a better role for this than director. I might want to set up someone to trust with my POS, but not give them full director permissions to access everything (including other wallets).
A Stabase fuel technician can already stop everyones job simply by making the POS offline. If I trust them with that much permission, I could also trust them to stop someone's job; but I would not need to give them permisison on everything corp related.
|
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 06:17:00 -
[519] - Quote
Hi master plan and fozzie.
Now the production in post is really a nightmare.
Because you make the copy on advanced laboratory, you make the invention on the laboratory. and you build and different structure.
My idea would be to make a need module.
Industrial laboratory.
What is the particularity or this module, you add inside the upgrade.
Advanced laboratory upgrade (you add the same number of slot then now) Laboratory upgrade (you add the same number of slot then now) etc ...
Same far all module.
Now in you pos. You have only one structure for the prod. it's only the upgrade you put inside modify what you can make with them.
With the same hangar in your pos you can make copy, invention, production.
You see only one structure like station. |
Frying Doom
2284
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 06:51:00 -
[520] - Quote
As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
123
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 09:17:00 -
[521] - Quote
DoToo Foo wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:For all you players asking about the roles for cancelling jobs ... restricting the ability to cancel corp jobs to director roles only. With just the Factory-Manager role, you'd still be able to cancel your own corp jobs, but not those corp jobs belonging to your corpmates. ... Stabase fuel technician would be a better role for this than director. I might want to set up someone to trust with my POS, but not give them full director permissions to access everything (including other wallets). A Stabase fuel technician can already stop everyones job simply by making the POS offline. If I trust them with that much permission, I could also trust them to stop someone's job; but I would not need to give them permisison on everything corp related.
Again using hangar access as the fundamental feature seem so much easier.. and would resolve things in POS in a much more general way..
That way the fuel technician would be an overall access to the fuel bays everywhere. More local rights could be granted using existing features like "based at" etc.. This way you could create roles that had access to fuel depending on say region, or only in personal system (based at) .. even more details could be added as functionality later on. So ranges like constellation, regions, system, etc..
A lot more and a lot easier.
Also you might even want to consider adding some range to access fuel bays and tower from just outside the shields, thus differentiating between managing and gaining access to the actual assets inside.. This would be especially useful in regards to alliance access, and the concept mentioned of a storage that can be alliance based accessed. The towers could simply get a storage that worked like the fuel bays..
|
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
165
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 09:45:00 -
[522] - Quote
DoToo Foo wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:For all you players asking about the roles for cancelling jobs ... restricting the ability to cancel corp jobs to director roles only. With just the Factory-Manager role, you'd still be able to cancel your own corp jobs, but not those corp jobs belonging to your corpmates. ... Stabase fuel technician would be a better role for this than director. I might want to set up someone to trust with my POS, but not give them full director permissions to access everything (including other wallets). A Stabase fuel technician can already stop everyones job simply by making the POS offline. If I trust them with that much permission, I could also trust them to stop someone's job; but I would not need to give them permisison on everything corp related.
I disagree; a person may be given access to add fuel to a wormhole POS, but that doesn't mean they should as a result have access to cancel all the corp jobs in highsec NPC stations.
Whilst this has come up in a POS thread, it applies to all industry, not just POS jobs. (And personally I am more interested in preventing cancelling station-based corp jobs than POS ones, although the POS ones are important too).
Even in POS jobs, starbase fuel tech can't cancel jobs; taking the tower offline pauses the jobs, you need to unanchor or destroy the labs/arrays to actually cancel the jobs; so someone with Config Starbase Equipment can do that (as well as unanchoring and stealing your POS).
In the absence of a new "job canceller" role which is not going to happen, Director is the right choice. vote steve https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=7933451 |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
185
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 11:59:00 -
[523] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Good question. I'd imagine that delivering a finished corp job should still work for anyone with the FM role
All good then. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 15:32:00 -
[524] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
617
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 15:49:00 -
[525] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5.
This is the the thread that you're looking for. Bump it and let's get an easy itteration on refining into June's expansion! HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Frying Doom
2287
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 22:46:00 -
[526] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5. The reason I said 100% was due to the coding difficulty of tying in all the skills or for that matter just referencing the NPC stations refining function.
As I am hoping for something short and sweet, 100% or if necessary alter its anchoring requirements to include refining efficiency 4 or 5. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:53:00 -
[527] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5. The reason I said 100% was due to the coding difficulty of tying in all the skills or for that matter just referencing the NPC stations refining function. As I am hoping for something short and sweet, 100% or if necessary alter its anchoring requirements to include refining efficiency 4 or 5. Skills already have an effect on the POS refineries, they're just hard capped at 35% or 75%. The math is somewhere. |
Frying Doom
2290
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 00:01:00 -
[528] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5. The reason I said 100% was due to the coding difficulty of tying in all the skills or for that matter just referencing the NPC stations refining function. As I am hoping for something short and sweet, 100% or if necessary alter its anchoring requirements to include refining efficiency 4 or 5. Skills already have an effect on the POS refineries, they're just hard capped at 35% or 75%. The math is somewhere. Are they?
The text just says
"Refining yield efficiency does not apply to ice ores, which are always refined at the maximum efficiency the operator is capable of." And the refining yield multiplier says 0.75 x
So it has the ability to read the Ice processing skills but I am not sure I would say it has the ability already for ore processing skills.
If it does then great, set it to a base 50% same as NPC stations, if not set it to 100%.
Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
124
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:01:00 -
[529] - Quote
On the whole topic of refining and yields.. CCP should consider flipping the script and adding a time sink to refining.
If it took time to refine both at stations and POS, and POS had base 50% and thus max yield on max skills, then a whole player to player driven market would develop. The profession of refiner and recycler would make much more sense.
Public free markets and self sustainability without downside will promote p2p interaction that is not just shooting stuff.
NERF NPC...
|
T RAYRAY
Percussive Diplomacy Samurai Pizza Cats
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 01:34:00 -
[530] - Quote
i used to live in a WH and think the personal hangar space is a good add for player stufz security...
the cold-hearted side of me wonders how many long term corp theft operations just went into overdrive knowing the golden years of the loot pinata that is the CHA and 'joint storage' will soon be not-so-golden...hmmmmm
|
|
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
230
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 01:52:00 -
[531] - Quote
I'm still thinking they need a much more extensive overhaul than this. A viable design that I would call 'based on T3' if it didn't predate them by years,
These are all very nice patches of problems that have existed for years, and been ignored for years, but I say lets toss the whole thing out and take up the better of the two plans rather than waste time patching this thing, again.
I know there's a new version of it, but here's the thread from the old forum:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=391410
The Most Interesting Player In Eve. |
Frying Doom
2306
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 01:54:00 -
[532] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:I'm still thinking they need a much more extensive overhaul than this. A viable design that I would call 'based on T3' if it didn't predate them by years, These are all very nice patches of problems that have existed for years, and been ignored for years, but I say lets toss the whole thing out and take up the better of the two plans rather than waste time patching this thing, again. I say yes to modular POS. I know there's a new version of it, but here's the thread from the old forum: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=391410 So what do we do for the next 5 years until that is partially completed? Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
db Deckard
Loc-Nar Support Services Rura-Penthe
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:43:00 -
[533] - Quote
You have a small POS user community because of the poor POS functionality. Today POS authorizations are directly related to Corporation authorizations and roles. There are a few modules that when switched to alliance access that actually work, ship maint array. At the core of the problems is the linkage to auths.
Array use problems: Currently to register a job in a manufacture/research array you have to put a bpo/bpc in the array corp hanger at the POS with any materials, and you have to have either anchoring or pos fuel corp auths. This causes all kinds of problems and forces corp leadership to only grant access to the trusted few. For simple jobs requiring no additional materials one can put the job in an Local Station Corp Office hanger and register the job from there.
Recommended changes: 1) Break the relationship between corp auths and POS. Allow players with access rights to modify the POS configuration to grant access by player/corp/alliance. 2) Do not require Fuel Tech or Anchoring auths to register jobs 3) Allow jobs to be registered from authorized players local station personal hanger. Allow the selection of the completed job to be delivered to the origin hanger. Currently if I put a copy job in a local office hanger the BPO will return to the office hanger but the copy will be in the hanger at the array.
-db
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
435
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 13:42:00 -
[534] - Quote
db Deckard wrote:You have a small POS user community because of the poor POS functionality. Today POS authorizations are directly related to Corporation authorizations and roles. There are a few modules that when switched to alliance access that actually work, ship maint array. At the core of the problems is the linkage to auths.
Array use problems: Currently to register a job in a manufacture/research array you have to put a bpo/bpc in the array corp hanger at the POS with any materials, and you have to have either anchoring or pos fuel corp auths. This causes all kinds of problems and forces corp leadership to only grant access to the trusted few. For simple jobs requiring no additional materials one can put the job in an Local Station Corp Office hanger and register the job from there.
Recommended changes: 1) Break the relationship between corp auths and POS. Allow players with access rights to modify the POS configuration to grant access by player/corp/alliance. 2) Do not require Fuel Tech or Anchoring auths to register jobs 3) Allow jobs to be registered from authorized players local station personal hanger. Allow the selection of the completed job to be delivered to the origin hanger. Currently if I put a copy job in a local office hanger the BPO will return to the office hanger but the copy will be in the hanger at the array.
-db
Quoted for emphasis. I haven't used the more advanced aspects of a POS for 3+ years due to OpSec. Love my corp and not really interested in doing my own thing, so that's the way it must be in my case. There are many thousands of cases where players new to corps won't have a chance in hell in getting roles to do POS-related stuff, too.
It is the CCP-designed mechanic which has inherently suppressed POS use, not the will of EVE subscribers. +++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark GÇ£SeleeneGÇ¥ Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith. |
Jireel
I ain't got me ground legs yet
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:10:00 -
[535] - Quote
CCP PLS |
Sassums
Wormhole Exploration Crew R.E.P.O.
77
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 00:22:00 -
[536] - Quote
For such a large issue, and the huge voice from WH dwellers the lack of changes and upgrades to the POS's are disappointing. A few lousy changes?
This barely addresses anything many from WH space have asked for. POS and Corp permissions are a disaster and still are in need of updates to increase corp security. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 02:27:00 -
[537] - Quote
o/
I had a talk with some guys from my corp and there is one think we do not understand. This new hangar will remplace the old one? If yes, isn't 50k of space a bit low? |
Frying Doom
2313
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 03:13:00 -
[538] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:o/
I had a talk with some guys from my corp and there is one think we do not understand. This new hangar will remplace the old one? If yes, isn't 50k of space a bit low? No they already explained that the old one will still exist. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 12:17:00 -
[539] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:bloodknight2 wrote:o/
I had a talk with some guys from my corp and there is one think we do not understand. This new hangar will remplace the old one? If yes, isn't 50k of space a bit low? No they already explained that the old one will still exist.
Thank a lot o7 |
Charles Sandford
Mosquito Alley
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 15:10:00 -
[540] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. . I appreciate the increase but we can still use much more space.
Why do you need to limit personal storage to less then 4% of what we have today for each array.
Mining, PI, and a hauler spawn can generate large amounts of personal volume.
A 500,000 m3 limit creates a larger loot pinata to encourage conflict. At the same time it provides adequate storage for personal needs.
If you are trying to force us to use shared hangers and deal with corp theft, at least give us a tool to fight against corp theft like inventory logging.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
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 |