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) |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
136
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 15:33:00 -
[541] - Quote
A lot of agreements on the space issue it seems..
Again I would like to point out there is no real need or argument for limiting storage space in static objects..
EVE got a list of VERY unique features.. That should be sacred.
1. True non-consenting PVP (That works..)
2. True sandbox economy (That works)
3. Infinite storage space (no wow bag og bank slot crap)
Stay the course.. lets not start getting into copying those other lame mmos game-mechanics..
|
Echo Mande
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 10:28:00 -
[542] - Quote
All in all these seem like decent ideas and grab a lot of the low hanging fruit. There are some things I'm missing however: - Removal of the refinery cap, reducing spin cycle time and allowing the things to be hung in highsec - Removal of any material penalties to manufacturing arrays (T2 shipbuilding ones specifically) - Remove CPU costs for POS missile batteries and if possible add heavy (and light?) missile batteries - Reduce CPU costs for labs (20-25%; maybe more) - Reduce corp hangar array CPU and power load or increase storage space(currently there isn't that much of a reason to use hangars instead of component arrays if you're doing any building)
If you want to stimulate POS use there's some fairly simple measures you can take: - Make (highsec) station slot use more expensive and give station industrial slots a 10% (or ME whatever) materials penalty. - Reducing station refining efficiency - Reduce CPU and power use for all POS shipbuilding arrays
Incidentally, the proposed changes should allow people to build a jump freighter in a POS without building the T1 freighter there as well. Up to now the problem was getting a packaged freighter into the advanced LSAA
Comment |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy Dominatus Atrum Mortis
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 14:13:00 -
[543] - Quote
Greetings, I do like lot of the things you got in the pipe for us WH dwellers and I do hope it does not stop there! If you code new stuff for us please keep in mind that lot of corporations in WH are run by a very small amount of real people with multiple accounts. Therefore, the new private starbase hangars may look nice on paper but add little for these corporations:
-total storage is very limited for small corporations and unrealistic high for big corps. -You canGÇÖt manage access, e.g. your alts donGÇÖt have access.
Therefore, I doubt these new structures will solve a lot for us.
A key problem with existing POS for WH dwellers is the inability to effectively protect your corporation from corporation theft. For a WH corporation this can easily mean they lose tens of billions. Amongst other concerns this is a great hindrance for recruitment for WH dwellers.
I really wish you could implement a better system for access level management. For instance, the ability for individuals to claim a hangar slot and manage individual access levels for that slot. This should include not only the access by roles/titles but also the ability to grant access to individual members of a corporation/alliance. In general I would love to have a better way to deal with access levels. For instance, I hate to grant members the ability to mess with the POS if all they need is access to the capital ships.
While you are on it give the lower WH a capital escalation. As it is right now the isk generation from a C5 compared to a C4 and therefore the ability for C4s to give C5s a good fight is like a guy grinding L2s for his pvp ships compared to a guy that blitzes L4.
|
TheAmazingFlyingPig
The Scope Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:17:00 -
[544] - Quote
When do we get to rent out our research labs to out-of-corp bros for extortionate fees?
*Science & Industry *Installations *Sees 4 slots open on POS in system *Pays out the derp per hour
Get on it brah. |
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 15:36:00 -
[545] - Quote
Upgrade starbase defenses! Would be so cool if they could equip several doomsday devices. They could fire every 10 mins and mount a defense. Would make war in space more real and more rewarding. Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first. |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
435
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:54:00 -
[546] - Quote
Radius Prime wrote:Upgrade starbase defenses! Would be so cool if they could equip several doomsday devices. They could fire every 10 mins and mount a defense. Would make war in space more real and more rewarding. If I may be so bold as to re-phrase this gentle poster's words:
Please make starbase offensive modules relevant against massive super capital blobs that can "shave" and incap a POS before any reasonable defensive fleet is suitably formed to counter the supers-heavy blob.
This is NOT a suggestion to make fully autonomous and AI controlled starbases that can take on entire fleets, but rather a suggestion to create additional capital class modules that can neut, warp disrupt and otherwise debilitate a super-capital class ship while under the control of players "manning the guns."
Currently, supers face zero threat from even a "well-armed" POS if they are blobbed up with other supers and / or the current "slowcat" carrier groups that inevitably come along.
If one or two supers are trapped and struggling against a POS's defenses, that might mean increasing the chance for a true fight -- something that everybody wants in EVE. Am I right? +++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark GÇ£SeleeneGÇ¥ Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith. |
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
293
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 23:43:00 -
[547] - Quote
All these changes are nice, but I would prefer to have a larger m3 for personal stoarge. Maybe 100K m3 worth. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Mark Blema
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 03:04:00 -
[548] - Quote
My question revolves around extra fuel storage. Where.... Because as I see it if I want to store more than 1 month of fuel in the pos I have to use the cha, with personal space now going to be an issue where can I stuff extra fuel with out putting it in the pos or having a bijillion silos hanging about? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5502
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 16:26:00 -
[549] - Quote
Mark Blema wrote:My question revolves around extra fuel storage. Where.... Because as I see it if I want to store more than 1 month of fuel in the pos I have to use the cha, with personal space now going to be an issue where can I stuff extra fuel with out putting it in the pos or having a bijillion silos hanging about?
You can continue using a CHA. We're not removing CHAs. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Mark Blema
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 16:55:00 -
[550] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Mark Blema wrote:My question revolves around extra fuel storage. Where.... Because as I see it if I want to store more than 1 month of fuel in the pos I have to use the cha, with personal space now going to be an issue where can I stuff extra fuel with out putting it in the pos or having a bijillion silos hanging about? You can continue using a CHA. We're not removing CHAs.
Thanks for the reply and the answer. Aside from my question (now answered) I agree with everything being done. Cheers CCP thanks for the great game. |
|
DexterShark
Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 17:22:00 -
[551] - Quote
Why do we have to offline a silo to remove moon goo from it? You then have to online it again etc. Can it just behave like a hangar?
Sorry if that been mentioned already in these iteration ideas, not read the whole thread.
|
Frying Doom
2395
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 11:03:00 -
[552] - Quote
Would it be possible to get another progress update?
Thank you for all the work you have done so far. Any spelling and grammatical errors are because frankly, I don't care!! |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 14:09:00 -
[553] - Quote
I think there all busy with Fanfest ATM.
Though I will say this.
1) The New CHA + Old CHA + Enormous Freight Containers (Equipment transfers) helps allot.
2) Not having to slowboat around to drop equipment/modules in a POS is good (helps with life)
3) A fix to the Manufacturing Roles (cancellation of job fix, director fix, allowance of corp people to do sometype of manufacturing without giving them access to everything) = Great
The only two other items I would like to see.
1) Ability to assign roles specifically to online and offline Silo's (for production), without giving them the ability to online and offline the POS itself. (basically if someone wants to produce drugs, or do gas refining, we don't have to worry about them online and offlining the entire POS for whatever reason.
2) A greater ability to trade. Or the ability to make lock boxes or contracts within the POS itself (contract over 1000 bullets to corporate member person, and they are the ones that can pick it up, etc). |
Andy Landen
Air Initiative Mercenaries
118
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 15:49:00 -
[554] - Quote
CCP is actually working on the pos. Incredible. We have seen some of the near term goals. Will CCP share with us the complete list of long term goals? Will this just be a bandaid? Or will the pos be redone into a modular, mobile starbase/corporate operations center and operations support? Player anchorable and controllable, ie player owned, or just corporate owned COS? There are a lot of things that I am not doing because I cannot rely on the pos to support those activities. |
Lady Jennifer Croft
Fire Research Illusion of Solitude
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 19:36:00 -
[555] - Quote
If i buy a capital ship maintenance array BPO now, will it produce "extra large ship maintenance arrays" post odyssey?
its a lot to spend for the wrong BPO
thanks |
DeT Resprox
T.R.I.A.D
124
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 09:09:00 -
[556] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Q1: Will we be able to research and/or copy blueprints from our personal storages?
Q2: Can we issue contracts from/to our personal storages?
Q3: I didnt understand the reasons behind CSMA changes, could anyone explain?
Feature request: market facility. A director creates a list of trade-able goods, with prices. Any corp-mate can sell those goods to get isk from corp wallet, or can buy some. Goods are stored in a CHA tab, which is linked to the market facility. No orders are seen on a regular market, the interface looks more like a POCO. You cannot over-estimate that feature. It would make running corporate projects (including, but not limited to idustry) so much more efficient! Did you ever try to organize a mining operation with fair rewards? What about T2 or T3 production chain? Almost impossible, unless all of your corpmates are your own alts. Do it please - it's a rather simple feature that would incredibly tighten connections within corporation, solidifying community.
Take a look at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=228896&find=unread - feel free to try it out :) DeT Resprox T.R.I.A.D CEO-á Matari Tribal War Chief Founding Member of Ushra'Khan INGAME CHANNEL: TRIAD AGENCY |
Urban Trucker
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 12:30:00 -
[557] - Quote
Has the whole job cancellation deal with the pos been addressed? Also, has any progress been made on the new Ship Maintenance array, personal secure storage? |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 00:42:00 -
[558] - Quote
Hoarr wrote:I have a feeling that Fozzie just snipes other teams' content to get more likes on the forums.
As someone that lived in a wormhole for several months, all of these changes look amazing. Keep up the good work.
I have a question though. What is the additional complexity that is tied into the personal SMA? Does it have to do with the fact that there is much less room to work with and figuring out how to divvy up that space accordingly or does it have to do with the complexity of the code.
Follow up question, given that it has to do w/ a volume constraint, did that factor into your decision to make CSMAs anchorable without sov space? C.S.M.A in a wormhole is a no-brainer since anyone with decent knowledge of mass mechanics of W.H.'s knows that supers are never going to be allowed in them for various reasons besides the mass entry/exit restrictions. This allows for better utilitarian housing options for caps in W.H.'s without needing to stack multiple regular SMA to accommodate the volume requirements of carriers and stuff. Cheers Foz |
Urban Trucker
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 10:13:00 -
[559] - 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!
So how does the management pie taste so far?
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 13:19:00 -
[560] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Mark Blema wrote:My question revolves around extra fuel storage. Where.... Because as I see it if I want to store more than 1 month of fuel in the pos I have to use the cha, with personal space now going to be an issue where can I stuff extra fuel with out putting it in the pos or having a bijillion silos hanging about? You can continue using a CHA. We're not removing CHAs.
Is there any chance you can take a quick look at the capacity of Component Assembly Arrays? Some capital components use crazy amounts of trit and will only let you fit runs of ~60 units at a time. Even a small capacity boost would be greatly appreciated. |
|
Gull Dumar
Legions of the Praetorian
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 22:27:00 -
[561] - Quote
First, I would like to thank CCP for overhauling the POS and how they function. Many of these changes are a long time coming and are a welcomed addition.
Next I would like to maybe give you some further ideas to make the POS even more popular with your player base, speaking from my point of view, of course. I think it would great to make the POS a dockable station somewhat like an Outpost and have the ability to have more functionality to the POS by adding modules to the Station itself, so in essence the station would be one unit and as you add modules to it, the appearance of the station would change to account for the added modules, ship maintaince dock, Hangers, Silos, etc. I would still have the POS surrounded by the shield and when you warped into the shield you would just hit dock with station.
After all, this is a station in space and it seems unrealistic that we are unable to dock with it. This is just my opinion.
Again, thanks for adding these much needed and desired changes. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 21:54:00 -
[562] - Quote
Gull Dumar wrote: I think it would great to make the POS a dockable station somewhat like an Outpost
Nobody in the history of Eve has ever suggested this before! Well done! |
stoxxine
OLVI industries Inter Malleum et Incudem
26
|
Posted - 2013.05.05 13:50:00 -
[563] - Quote
It would be even better for industrialists if corp hangars were not separate but worked as a single storage pool. no more shuffling datacores around..
WH dwellers might hate it .. depends on if they can shift to using only their personal hangars easily enough. Disclaimer: The above was probably written drunk or by a friend on my pc or a hacker. No warranty for any misinformation provided. |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
271
|
Posted - 2013.05.06 12:55:00 -
[564] - Quote
For those asking for POS weapon improvements: move the guns back inside the bubble. It's not a big change, but does keep the POS in the fight longer than it would be shaved.
xttz wrote:Gull Dumar wrote: I think it would great to make the POS a dockable station somewhat like an Outpost Nobody in the history of Eve has ever suggested this before! Well done!
In case you didn't grasp his sarcasm, most of eve thinks this, and have petitioned CCP to make it so and adopt the modular POS design proposed a dozen times since 2006, but so far CCP ain't budging.
The Most Interesting Player In Eve. |
Vas Vadum
PH0ENIX COMPANY Tribal Band
49
|
Posted - 2013.05.06 13:01:00 -
[565] - Quote
I heard somewhere that CCP was thinking about removing Starbase Shields. Removing the bubble of protection that players have. Can you verify if this is true or false? In my opinion, this would be incredibly dumb. I can't see CCP even considering this.
Gull Dumar wrote:I think it would great to make the POS a dockable station somewhat like an Outpost You mean. Hiding inside the shield just beyond the reach of enemy weapons isn't protection enough?
xttz wrote:Gull Dumar wrote:I think it would great to make the POS a dockable station somewhat like an Outpost Nobody in the history of Eve has ever suggested this before! Well done! lol |
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.05.06 13:17:00 -
[566] - Quote
I would like also a Pub added to my POS. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 00:29:00 -
[567] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
In case you didn't grasp his sarcasm, most of eve thinks this, and have petitioned CCP to make it so and adopt the modular POS design proposed a dozen times since 2006, but so far CCP ain't budging.
I thought CCP has said they want to adopt that.. but it's a VERY long process as it pretty much needs a rewrite of all the code associated with it. (might have been just an urban legend) |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
703
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 00:59:00 -
[568] - Quote
as a rule cool things everyone wants but haven't happened for years are "because of some spaghetti code someone slammed out at 4 am a decade ago and we don't remember how it works, and if we touch it the entire game will break" |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 07:45:00 -
[569] - Quote
Vas Vadum wrote:I heard somewhere that CCP was thinking about removing Starbase Shields. Removing the bubble of protection that players have. Can you verify if this is true or false? In my opinion, this would be incredibly dumb. I can't see CCP even considering this.
This is true, it came out at one of last year's Fanfest round tables. Removing forcefields is definitely on CCP Greyscale's wishlist, to avoid dealing with that code anymore. He complained at length about how they can't determine when ships are inside tower shields for the purposes of logs/reimbursment because the code is so bad. However he didn't really seem to have a good grasp on what to do instead to ensure ships aren't just vulnerable in space.
The trouble is that the whole starbase system needs pulling out and rewriting from scratch, but CCP are scared to commit so many resources to one feature after the Incarna debacle. |
Foo Chan
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 19:38:00 -
[570] - 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!
I'm very glad to see someone looking into this! This little detail would be a TREMENDOUS improvement. |
|
|
|
|
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 |