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) |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
341
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:12:00 -
[91] - Quote
Better than nothing but there is so many problems with these changes that it's.. dissapointing. The ability for director to access others members' stuff to emergency evac, private hangars size and potential abuses with alts, unchanged corp roles... At least we are keeping the old CHA. G££ <= Me |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
383
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:13:00 -
[92] - Quote
please now increase the volume that assemblies can hold and ill be happy.
oh and make the role rent factory slot work so you don't have to give everyone who uses a pos the ability to cancel every job the whole corp is running OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:13:00 -
[93] - Quote
As a director for nearly 2 years of a successful WH corp, here are my thoughts:
- Subsystem reconfiguration in the hole? Big win.
- Accessing anything from anywhere within the shield? Also a win.
- Adding new hangar to allow personal items to be securely stored? Partial win. My only concern is directors not being able to access members' personal hangars. If someone wants to keep things truly private, they have the option to put them in an orca, or anchored in a GSC, etc. The directors manage the tower resources, and (in my mind) ought to be able to access anything stored there, including members' private hangars.
- Removing sovereignty requirement for Capship Maintenance Arrays? Somewhat win, but also somewhat terrifying. Yes, it'll be nice to be able to store all our vanity dreads and carriers somewhere appropriate, instead of having to anchor SMAs everywhere, one per capital ship. But please, please, PLEASE tell me you're not going down the path of allowing supercaps and titans to be built in wormholes (i.e. no capital ship ASSEMBLY arrays without sov). Don't get me wrong, if it becomes allowed, we'll be the first ones doing it, but it's a bad, bad, bad idea. At this point, no wormhole corp is immune from eviction; everyone in every hole could be evicted by a dedicated force determined to do so. But if you allow wormhole dwellers access to the biggest firepower in the game, you will astronomically increase the difficulty of evicting a well-dug-in corp. As of right now, if we find an enemy POS in our system trying to establish a foothold to evict us, we bash the POS and send the intruders home via pod express, a process taking hours or days. If we had access to supers and titans, we not only could bash their POS faster, but also repel any firepower they managed to bring with greater ease. Effectively, removing the sov requirement to construct titans and supers would greatly increase the position of the defender, and up the ante of the attacker. I'm as big of an industrial carebear as they come, but I don't want to see that, for it would mean greater safety and less fights. The whole point of wormholes is lack of safety. Please don't ruin that.
- No mention of fixing gas reactions to at least add a progress bar? Fail. C'mon, CCP. Just give me a timer like the refinery arrays have, or something better than "check the output in a couple hours and see if you set it up right"
But all together, thank you for putting effort where it will be most noticed by the most players. I bet this is the most closely scrutinized devblog EVER. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
280
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:13:00 -
[94] - Quote
and the fact we have to disconnect silos to take or put stuff inside, please tell me you are going to fix this? Official CSM 8 Campaign HQ * Unforgiven Storm for CSM8 * My Blog
|
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3101
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:14:00 -
[95] - Quote
I know this isn't related to the topic at hand, but would you mind changing the layout somehow ?
This white on black is bad. It hurts. A simple, light gray, background picture would help a lot already.
Thank you.
And now i'll try reading the rest of it. |
Lilli Tane
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:16:00 -
[96] - Quote
All seem good except the personal Hangar array.
I can see the value of personal ship storage (and I will love it) but I think directors/CEO etc. should be able to remove ships even from personal storage.
Not only will help to empty them when people are kicked/leave corp, as it will keep the corp theft operations rolling.
Corp theft is a big part of EVE; I hate to see it gone, or made harder by mechanics.
Corp theft is a lesson for people that manage poorly the roles allocation.
|
ArmEagle Kusoni
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:18:00 -
[97] - Quote
At first the personal storage sounds like a great idea. But, in a game where almost everyone has multiple accounts/alts, you're going to make private storage? How useful! It doesn't make much sense for item storage and even less for ships.
Though sure, for ships, some characters are specialized and won't fly all ships of a 'gamer' ('player' could be seen as to be meaning one account/character). But I'd still like to see it all together. And it's unfeasible tho creating tons of SMA's. Especially with the current roles...
I would want to share my item storage between my accounts/alts. Right now I'm using a secure container (living in a corp-mate's POS). Everyone can access it, but at least all my alts can too. Sure I was given access to a section in a hangar, but it's tedious for the POS owner to add permissions for all my alts, so I didn't even ask for it at first.
This is less than a half-baked solution (for the personal storage parts). The first step should have been better permissions/roles. Creating sections in the hangars, SMAs, etc. and giving easy permissions to them, without requiring global (corp) roles. It's crazy you need global corp roles to be able to place a POS. The POS is the entity there, not the corp! |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:20:00 -
[98] - Quote
From the blog post:
"No limit on the number of characters that can use the structure, but storage is limited per character. The exact per-character volume is undecided but we are currently considering a range from 10,000m3 to 40,000m3."
Devs, can we get some clarification on this point? Is there an upper limit to the volume the whole structure can hold? In other words, does the volume of materials stored in it by various characters actually deplete available volume for everyone else? This would clarify whether or not directors/CEO having access to stuff really matters.
Altrue wrote:Better than nothing but there is so many problems with these changes that it's.. dissapointing. The ability for director to access others members' stuff to emergency evac, private hangars size and potential abuses with alts, unchanged corp roles... At least we are keeping the old CHA.
If you're a tiny corp, maybe you won't want or need it. If you're a large corp, let the players decide what stuff should be stored in personal hangars and what should be stored in the current CHAs based on their fear of losing stuff to eventual POS destruction. If they want directors to be able to move it, they can put it in their CHA. Otherwise they store it in the personal hangar of their own volition. Choices are a good thing. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
227
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:21:00 -
[99] - Quote
Had to check this wasn't posted on the 1st of April lol, goes beyond my expectations.
Kennesaw Breach wrote:
Removing sovereignty requirement for Capship Maintenance Arrays? Somewhat win, but also somewhat terrifying. Yes, it'll be nice to be able to store all our vanity dreads and carriers somewhere appropriate, instead of having to anchor SMAs everywhere, one per capital ship. But please, please, PLEASE tell me you're not going down the path of allowing supercaps and titans to be built in wormholes (i.e. no capital ship ASSEMBLY arrays without sov). Don't get me wrong, if it becomes allowed, we'll be the first ones doing it, but it's a bad, bad, bad idea. At this point, no wormhole corp is immune from eviction; everyone in every hole could be evicted by a dedicated force determined to do so. But if you allow wormhole dwellers access to the biggest firepower in the game, you will astronomically increase the difficulty of evicting a well-dug-in corp. As of right now, if we find an enemy POS in our system trying to establish a foothold to evict us, we bash the POS and send the intruders home via pod express, a process taking hours or days. If we had access to supers and titans, we not only could bash their POS faster, but also repel any firepower they managed to bring with greater ease. Effectively, removing the sov requirement to construct titans and supers would greatly increase the position of the defender, and up the ante of the attacker. I'm as big of an industrial carebear as they come, but I don't want to see that, for it would mean greater safety and less fights. The whole point of wormholes is lack of safety. Please don't ruin that. I'd assume that super/titan building won't be possible in a WH, if it is possible it could have some interesting implications. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
608
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:22:00 -
[100] - Quote
Camios wrote:Ahem. I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but REFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Can you please do something about it? Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard. In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense.
Go here .... Push for this low-hanging, candy picking, get-r-done easy one ??? HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4882
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:24:00 -
[101] - Quote
I can confirm that we're not removing CHAs, the Personal Hangar structure is a separate structure and the two can exist alongside each other to meet different needs.
Letting directors and/or CEOs access the member's sections of the PHA is not going to be within our scope for the first iteration due to technical limitations, and I am honestly not sold on ever adding it. These structures are not intended to completely replace CHAs for all purposes, and the added difficulty to rapid evacuation provides slightly more incentive for wormhole invasions.
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.
And a reminder once again, we are not allowing people to build supercaps in wormholes or lowsec, don't worry. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
292
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:24:00 -
[102] - Quote
Tshaowdyne Dvorak wrote:Dalcho wrote:However I agree that ceo/directtors MUST be allowed access to remove items rather than destroying them for afk/on vacation members. This defeats the purpose of personal storage. Remember, these changes are a stopgap for a full POS overhaul, not the final product. I think that many of us who have to live out of a POS are tired of the theft problems inherent in a poorly designed system. Someone can get director access and clean out everyone's stuff, and it happens all the time in Eve. I don't think it's the best solution that the only ways to get rid of a player's crap who has left the corp is to blow up the hangar or to unanchor it, but short of a full overhaul of the roles system (which is the clear solution that must eventually be implemented) it's a reasonable compromise that I'm willing to accept in order to have storage completely incapable of being stolen. I'd rather my crap burn in a fire than have it be stolen by some jerk who I didn't approve of, and had no say in, getting a directorship. On the other hand, since it seems like the personal storage will be available to all members of the corp, maybe there's no upper limit to how much the structure can store. Then it hardly matters whether directors/CEO can access what's in there since it's not depleting valuable storage space for others. If that's the case, the only reason they'd want access to it is in order to take what isn't theirs. The rage of thieves warms the cockles of my heart. When you get cleaned out by a director, you have serious problems in your corp. Far more common is a general member with general access grabbing stuff from other peoples' hangar tabs. An even bigger problem is when the hangars are secured to prevent low level access, and a mid level player offlines the starbase or removes the fuel, and people come raiding. Frankly, removing director access to eliminate a fringe case, just makes things harder for the more common occurrences like when you have to move your starbase, evacuate, or when someone leaves the corp and doesn't take all their stuff.
As far as my corp goes, security hasn't been a huge issue, and we often ask other people to grab stuff from our tab (and alts share a tab. The issue personal sections fix is the fact that there's only 7 tabs per hangar array so keeping things organized means adding more arrays. Being able to keep things organized with a few dozen people is very important. |
Liner Xiandra
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
183
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:27:00 -
[103] - Quote
Awesome stuff CCP, can't wait to see all this outlined in the blog.
Can I request, with sugar on top and all; while you are working on personal hangers within the POS structures,
Please add a similar mechanic to a station-based corp hanger. Currently corp members can not launch industry jobs from their personal hangers: - job needs to be launched from corp hanger - job can be cancelled by anyone with sufficient flags
If we could launch jobs from a personal space (within the corp hanger) and have jobs return items to their respective hangers; so corp members could not cancel jobs and then run off with a blueprint that's not been nailed down within a special hanger.
|
Drosal Inkunen
Harmonic Discord Lightning Knights
18
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:29:00 -
[104] - Quote
Camios wrote:Ahem. I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but REFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Can you please do something about it? Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard. In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense.
I also have to wonder why they aren't doing anything about this. Doing something about this would be wonderful for wormhole dwellers, especially. |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:32:00 -
[105] - Quote
Best dev blog ever. The only negative I pull from this is the inability for CEO/Directors to add/remove from members' hangers. I think enough people have pointed out why this feature is essential.
Seriously, the people complaining about personal storage have no idea how good a thing this is. Recruitment to wormhole corps is seriously problematic due to there being no possibility of securing your stuff from everyone else unless you anchor a tower per player. Personal storage reduces that headache
To the people whining that it'll be hard to share things with their alts - do what you do now and use a standard CHA. To the people whining that 40,000 m3 isn't enough for mining - store it in a XLSAA, compress or refine it all.
This is a new module which allows personal storage; it should be both limited in space to force people to keep stuff in the pre-existing arrays as well and uncomplicated so we get the damn thing at all. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4882
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:34:00 -
[106] - Quote
Another quick note, Refining Arrays are definitely on our list of starbase issues. I can't say at this time when a fix will come though. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:37:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:And a reminder once again, we are not allowing people to build supercaps in wormholes or lowsec, don't worry.
<3
Pity I can only like this once.
|
T1nyMan
Interstellar Solutions Agency
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:40:00 -
[108] - Quote
Drosal Inkunen wrote:Camios wrote:Ahem. I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but REFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Can you please do something about it? Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard. In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense. I also have to wonder why they aren't doing anything about this, at least not yet. Doing something about this would be wonderful for wormhole dwellers, especially.
^ that x1000 (seriously i asked around)
Also the personal storage should be a portion of the total storage of the structure.. Anything else just seems rediculous to me. Large corps could benefit by working together without the fitting penalty, that and it is emmersion breaking like the scale of some capitals <- just sneaking that in there (I'm sorry but 2 exhumers in an orca model.. Please)
Still great changes, just my 2 cents :)
|
Jireel
I ain't got me ground legs yet
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:40:00 -
[109] - Quote
Drosal Inkunen wrote:Camios wrote:Ahem. I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but REFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Can you please do something about it? Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard. In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense. I also have to wonder why they aren't doing anything about this, at least not yet. Doing something about this would be wonderful for wormhole dwellers, especially. As an addition, i don't know if it was said somewhere, but i'd REALLY love a generic reprocessing array (even if the refining rate is terrible) that could reprocess stuff affected by scrapmetal reprocessing, yes i'm looking at you metal scraps.
CCP PLS |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
608
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:41:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Another quick note, Refining Arrays are definitely on our list of starbase issues. I can't say at this time when a fix will come though.
You're awesome, Fozzie !!!
Thanks.... HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
|
T1nyMan
Interstellar Solutions Agency
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:42:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Another quick note, Refining Arrays are definitely on our list of starbase issues. I can't say at this time when a fix will come though.
Here comes the like! ;) |
Bam Stroker
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
69
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:44:00 -
[112] - Quote
http://imgur.com/lwfTm4E.gif |
Arronicus
Shadows of Vorlon The Marmite Collective
498
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:44:00 -
[113] - Quote
About. Freaking. Time. Really glad to see that CCP is prioritizing the IMPORTANT changes; personal hangars, storage acess anywhere within shields, resizing the anchoring arrows, etc.
+1 ccp |
T1nyMan
Interstellar Solutions Agency
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:47:00 -
[114] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:About. Freaking. Time. Really glad to see that CCP is prioritizing the IMPORTANT changes; personal hangars, storage acess anywhere within shields, resizing the anchoring arrows, etc.
+1 ccp
So.. You guys took all the damn marmite |
Arronicus
Shadows of Vorlon The Marmite Collective
498
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:47:00 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Another quick note, Refining Arrays are definitely on our list of starbase issues. I can't say at this time when a fix will come though.
I assume that as part of an improvement, you plan to not only make it efficient to refine at a starbase array, but hopefully will remove completely, or greatly reduce the godaweful time required to refine, or at the very least, increase their capacity by a factor of 50-100, if the time isn't reduced? Always seemed silly to be that stations could do it 'instantly' but control towers couldn't.
Also, any plans for manufacturing arrays? As it is, you'd have to be just plain stupid to build any t2 ship (SHIP, not components) at a pos. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:48:00 -
[116] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Malcanis wrote:These changes are a good temporary measure to alleiviate some of the worst aspects of dealing with and living out of POS.
But they're not a substitute for a proper POS rework. Sooner or later that will have to be done. Agreed, but "the perfect is the enemy of the good". CSM7 worked very hard to help CCP squeeze out the most bang-for-buck for the development resources available. CSM8 will have to keep the pressure on to ensure that as CCP develops its longer-term plans, a revamp of starbases is in the roadmap.
These changes seem primarily focused on the WH usecase (not surprising given the CSM active member composition). I'm not saying they wont affect other POS users in a positive way as well, but the industrialist user might consider these changes pretty underwhelming.
Oh well, here is hoping for some clickfest reduction for Christmas. |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:52:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I can confirm that we're not removing CHAs, the Personal Hangar structure is a separate structure and the two can exist alongside each other to meet different needs.
Letting directors and/or CEOs access the member's sections of the PHA is not going to be within our scope for the first iteration due to technical limitations, and I am honestly not sold on ever adding it. These structures are not intended to completely replace CHAs for all purposes, and the added difficulty to rapid evacuation provides slightly more incentive for wormhole invasions.
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.
And a reminder once again, we are not allowing people to build supercaps in wormholes or lowsec, don't worry.
This addresses every significant problem I could foresee with the stopgaps you guys are putting in. As a part of emergent gameplay, it's a good thing that there's a bit of intelligence needed to decide what goes into a PHA and what goes into a CHA. Do I want directors to be able to move my stuff in case we get invaded? Which stuff? Which stuff can I part with, or don't trust corp leadership to have access to (keeping honest people honest - you might trust your neighbors, but lock your front door anyway)? Everyone hates the thought of losing stuff to invading forces, but this is Eve, and invading forces happen (and should happen!). Either defend your stuff or plan well to protect/evac it. This just adds another delicious layer to that planning.
Great post, as always, Fozzie. You have my autocannon! |
orlando Severasse
Phoenix of the Black Sun Wrong Hole.
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:52:00 -
[118] - Quote
i think the ceo should have the right to take a player who left corp stuff out of his/her hanger in stead of having to unanchor a mod just to clear his stuff out. I agree with the director not having access but a ceo should its his/hers star base |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:53:00 -
[119] - Quote
Sedrie wrote:Giddyness has subsided slightly, so I will also bandwagon on the private hangar. I will now paint a pretty picture and illustrate a potential (admittedly edge case) problem.
If Timmy runs out in his covops to get that much awaited Galente Dreadnaught skillbook for his alt Billy, he's got nowhere to put said book when he gets back to securely transfer it. Since Billy is on the same account as Timmy, he's got to jetcan it and hope that his mom doesn't come in and declare bedtime and power off his computer in the interim.
There's no station trading in a POS, so without shared hangars between Billy and Timmy, he's got little other options.
Sure, Billy could have gotten the book in the first place, but regretfully he has no covops skills and has to fly through hostile space to get it.
As it stands now, Billy and Timmy have the same roles for access to one tab, and can easily and effortlessly transfer items between the pilots on the same account. This change looks like it will completely eliminate that ability.
The proposed size is also way too small. It will be fine for ammo and modules, but the miners and ship builders who rely on these mechanics will be left out in the cold.
As has been mentioned, Director and CEO should have take privs. Emergency evac is a way of life when living in wormholes. Even if there is time to CTA for defense/moving, there will always be members who are unable to get back to the wormhole. Being trapped in k-space while your baubles go up in flames is not on anyone's bucket list, methinks.
That said, I applaud the effort and eagerly await the changes. Secure container and a password, anyone?
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:03:00 -
[120] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Had to check this wasn't posted on the 1st of April lol, goes beyond my expectations. Kennesaw Breach wrote:
Removing sovereignty requirement for Capship Maintenance Arrays? Somewhat win, but also somewhat terrifying. Yes, it'll be nice to be able to store all our vanity dreads and carriers somewhere appropriate, instead of having to anchor SMAs everywhere, one per capital ship. But please, please, PLEASE tell me you're not going down the path of allowing supercaps and titans to be built in wormholes (i.e. no capital ship ASSEMBLY arrays without sov). Don't get me wrong, if it becomes allowed, we'll be the first ones doing it, but it's a bad, bad, bad idea. At this point, no wormhole corp is immune from eviction; everyone in every hole could be evicted by a dedicated force determined to do so. But if you allow wormhole dwellers access to the biggest firepower in the game, you will astronomically increase the difficulty of evicting a well-dug-in corp. As of right now, if we find an enemy POS in our system trying to establish a foothold to evict us, we bash the POS and send the intruders home via pod express, a process taking hours or days. If we had access to supers and titans, we not only could bash their POS faster, but also repel any firepower they managed to bring with greater ease. Effectively, removing the sov requirement to construct titans and supers would greatly increase the position of the defender, and up the ante of the attacker. I'm as big of an industrial carebear as they come, but I don't want to see that, for it would mean greater safety and less fights. The whole point of wormholes is lack of safety. Please don't ruin that. I'd assume that super/titan building won't be possible in a WH, if it is possible it could have some interesting implications. Seriously, read the initital dev blog... if they were going to make CSAs available to WH residents, then they'd have put in the blog that the sov requirements on those would be going bye bye too! |
|
|
|
|
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 |