| 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
21
   |
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:16:00 -
[211] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:If you've got full capacity in the WH, money becomes less of a concern. I only venture out of the WH now to get those necessary components for fuel blocks & munitions that I can't source/create locally. If I had better refining capacity, I'd venture out even less.
I have lived exclusively in W-space for the past 2 years, and I am not in favor of any changes that make WH dwellers less reliant on having to travel outside their own systems.
Fuel in, loot out. I don't even mind the refinery losses, that's what rorqual ore compression is for. And I don't mind not being able to reprocess metal scraps, either, because people would just bring in modules to reprocess for their minerals rather than mine them in the hole, if reprocessing were a thing one could do in the hole. But if we're going to start getting nitpicky about industrial stuff that wasn't explicitly discussed in the original devblog, here's my laundry list:
1) Gas reactions: I've gotten used to the massive clickfest to set it up, but can we PLEASE get a progress meter on it? Or just make it a manufacturing job like everything else?
2) Ore compression: Yes it works, but the rorqual assembly lines always show as "READY" even if they're in use, so that's bugged.
3) Ore compression continued: If one corp member leaves jobs unfinished on the assembly line, and another corp member gets in the rorqual, that new corp member cannot start new jobs on the in use assembly lines (even though they show as READY). The original installer of those jobs will have to get in the rorqual and clear the lines.
4) Ore compression continued, continued: Can we not make jobs run multiple times? To do ore compression at maximum efficiency, it takes (I kid you not) one click every 6 seconds for 5 minutes straight. And that's for one cycle of the rorq's siege module. Giving jobs the ability to be run more than once, or better yet run until the supply of ore is depleted, would be huge. HUGE.
5) Ore compression, the final: Does anyone outside of W-space even do ore compression? This isn't really a bug needing fixing, I'm just curious if the nullsec denizens even care about it, or if they just jump freighter their raw ore to an outpost with max skills and implants to do their refining on the spot. Nullseccers have it so easy.
That's all I've got for now. If anyone wants to hear more, I may get drunk at fanfest and go off on an indy carebear rant about these topics to anyone who will listen.
|
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1174
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:26:00 -
[212] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:silens vesica wrote:If you've got full capacity in the WH, money becomes less of a concern. I only venture out of the WH now to get those necessary components for fuel blocks & munitions that I can't source/create locally. If I had better refining capacity, I'd venture out even less. I have lived exclusively in W-space for the past 2 years, and I am not in favor of any changes that make WH dwellers less reliant on having to travel outside their own systems. Personally, I don't much care, one way or another - Was just answering a question.
Hell, most of the Corp never comes into the WH - Which means I *do* need to venture out occsaionally to make deliveries (and sell loot). But my primary burn on cash is for fuel and munitions spares - So a change in refinery efficiency would definately make changes in how often you'd see me in K-Space.
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 |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:35:00 -
[213] - Quote
xttz wrote:a) Starbase weapon rebalancing
b) Centralised ammo mananagement
c) Starbase Defense Management UI
d) Auditing
^^ This
And
- Moon mining and reactions UI
- Centralized input/output hangars for labs
- Actually allowing and controlling alliance use of labs |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:35:00 -
[214] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote:bruestle2 wrote:I love all these POS changes!
However, 10k-40k m3 is a TINY amount per person. If you are a miner, you can fill that up in under an hour with one barge! When combined with the 3 hour cycle time of the Intensive Refining Array, I don't see how this will work for WH miners.
Also, can we do something about the intensive refining array? It takes up 4k cpu and 750k pg, takes 3 hours to run, refines at 70% (unaffected by skills), can only refine one type of ore at a time, and doesn't even have tabs! The medium intensive is identical except it takes 1/2 the fitting (still at ton), takes 1.5 hours to run, and holds 1/8th as much.
Agreed, 10 - 40k is a tiny amount. You could, alternatively, just anchor another CHA and drop stuff into a tab that you have access to (all players maybe, or something similar)? Go here ... and support the refinery cause!!!
10k is way too small. I would say 50k would be the "minimum". I get what they are aiming at though, if you really wanted it to work, it would have to be dynamic, or assignable (neither would work out well). I suppose if you want private storage, that would work. If you want MASS storage, well then you have the original Corporation Hanger.
The concept of a personal space was to keep your private things you like... well.. private.
I am not worried about someone trying to "Steal my ore from the Corporation Hanger". I'm worried about them stealing the shiny sh-t I like.
If you want to do it right... 50,000m3 private storage, 400,000 general storage.
So the "New" Corporation hanger array has 50,000m3 dynamic private storage, and a tab (General Storage) that is set at 400,000, which is globally shared. What this does is allow 20 people to use 1 Corporation Hanger, all have private spaces, and have a shared space of 400,000 for mining, ores, PI, whatever.
If they complain about lack of space, anchor a 2nd Hanger, now they have 100,000 private space, (2 hangers each with 50,000m3), and 800,000 shared space.
That is Well Over enough space.
|
Lunaleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises
Red Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:48:00 -
[215] - Quote
I think it's a good start.
Any thoughts on changing the time it takes to setup/deconstruct a starbase?
Refining & Building changes would encourage a lot more players to use POS's if they could at all be fit in.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
341
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:48:00 -
[216] - Quote
I'm sorry but what type of people are your targeting EXACTLY with your new instancied CHA feature ?
Wormholes ? Who would use this if in case of an emergency EVAC, if directors can't move your stuff out while you're at work ?
Known space ? They have stations, working just fine, but without m3 limitations.
You're loosing a lot of precious dev time to create an useless module, far BELOW our expectations about a POS rewamp. GG CCP.
G££ <= Me |
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:57:00 -
[217] - Quote
Okay I understand the direction you are going with this, basically you are turning Starbases into upgraded Player Owned Custom Offices (for lack of better descriptions) in terms of interfacing. One thing I have a question is, is there going to be a total limit on starbase hangars? For example, a small pos would have, naturally, a smaller hangar, lets say 10km3 / player. A large would probably have 40km3 / player. So my question is, is there a cap on how many items or how much storage TOTAL is there? A corp with 1000 players using 10km3 would reach 10 MILLION m3 of items, for a small pos, 40mil for a large. Thats quite a bit of stuff to be able to be put into a pos hangar in relation to the size of the pos itself :)
|
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:57:00 -
[218] - Quote
Altrue wrote:I'm sorry but what type of people are your targeting EXACTLY with your new instancied CHA feature ?
Wormholes ? Who would use this if in case of an emergency EVAC, if directors can't move your stuff out while you're at work ?
Known space ? They have stations, working just fine, but without m3 limitations.
You're loosing a lot of precious dev time to create an useless module, far BELOW our expectations about a POS rewamp. GG CCP.
The denial of Anybody having access to the private tabs I see as a issue, more logistically than anything else. I think that should be changed, the highest persons's (or the person with the role "Private Storage Management" should be able to move stuff OUT of private storage. Whether they can move stuff into it is another matter.
The module is not useless, it just needs to be tested, tried out, then reviewed and adjusted. There are 4 types of people to test it out on (that I could identify).
1) Mega corporations, who have hundreds of members.
2) Large Wormhole Groups, who live solely out of POS's
3) Miners/Ore gatherers, who mine for a living (and take up allot of space)
4) Manufacturers, who use POS's to build stuff, sometimes very LARGE things.
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:Okay I understand the direction you are going with this, basically you are turning Starbases into upgraded Player Owned Custom Offices (for lack of better descriptions) in terms of interfacing. One thing I have a question is, is there going to be a total limit on starbase hangars? For example, a small pos would have, naturally, a smaller hangar, lets say 10km3 / player. A large would probably have 40km3 / player. So my question is, is there a cap on how many items or how much storage TOTAL is there? A corp with 1000 players using 10km3 would reach 10 MILLION m3 of items, for a small pos, 40mil for a large. Thats quite a bit of stuff to be able to be put into a pos hangar in relation to the size of the pos itself :)
I think for this initial iteration, they aren't expecting this one hanger to deal or manage 1000 people. I think they have a estimated target that 1 of these hangers should accomodate.
And nothing is stopping you from anchoring 2 or 3 of these, and just telling people "Use hanger 2". |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
358
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:01:00 -
[219] - Quote
It's true that you can just use the normal corp hangars to avoid losing stuff - but then you really have the same issue as now not knowing who has what and why because you only have 7 seperated places to put stuff pr array.
Maybe give players an option to allow directors/ceo's access to personal pos space - like a tick box?
I don't mind people having to make a choice and potentially losing stuff but I thought most of the revamp was to help players and get around the old beaurocratic ways of pos handling... :-)
Good work - will be looking forward to seing the finished product.
Pinky |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
1037
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:01:00 -
[220] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Quote:Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield
The requirement to move within range of each and every starbase structure to access their storage is a major annoyance for most starbase users, and one we are working to fix. Thanks to new advances in starbase technology, tiny drones will now carry items to and fro within the shield bubble. This changes the POS module access range to instead check that your ship is inside the shield, allowing players to access all the structures from one location. Interesting... Does this mean if the POS is offline, or online without a shield, you cannot access any materials in any starbase structures because there is no shield to be "within"?
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)
"This one time, on patch day..."
CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
1037
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:02:00 -
[221] - Quote
Quote:Lots of questions about roles
The role system is responsible for a lot of the limitations of the current behaviour. To solve a lot of those issues, we're going to have to dedicate a good amount of time to reworking that system first. There simply isn't the scope for doing that in this release. This is the sort of thing we'll need to dedicate a team to for a full release cycle. (omg dat roles UI!)
Stegas Tyrano wrote:Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be!
They'll only be animated inside the server ;)
Lady Zarrina wrote:- Make sure enhancements to current corp hangers, gets replicated to the new player hangers. For instance I was not sure if I could repackage items in the new proposed player hangers? Yes, the personal hangars should be supporting the new repackage option like CHAs do. (I've already got the CHA version of repackage working, and will extend it to the new hangar once that is completed)
Max Kolonko wrote:Does the new Hangar have MAX TOTAL CAPACITY? or is it working 100% like POCO and have no maximum on sum of member hangars?
Like a POCO going loco down in Acapulco
"This one time, on patch day..."
CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:03:00 -
[222] - Quote
Altrue wrote:I'm sorry but what type of people are your targeting EXACTLY with your new instancied CHA feature ?
Wormholes ? Who would use this if in case of an emergency EVAC, if directors can't move your stuff out while you're at work ?
Known space ? They have stations, working just fine, but without m3 limitations.
You're loosing a lot of precious dev time to create an useless module, far BELOW our expectations about a POS rewamp. GG CCP.
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. |
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists
Intergalactic Conservation Movement
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:12:00 -
[223] - Quote
"Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield" 
Yes Please!
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
341
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:18:00 -
[224] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:Altrue wrote:I'm sorry but what type of people are your targeting EXACTLY with your new instancied CHA feature ?
Wormholes ? Who would use this if in case of an emergency EVAC, if directors can't move your stuff out while you're at work ?
Known space ? They have stations, working just fine, but without m3 limitations.
You're loosing a lot of precious dev time to create an useless module, far BELOW our expectations about a POS rewamp. GG CCP. 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.
After so many years screaming for some security improvements on POSes, I'm a TAD dissapointed by the skinny rachitic features we are getting here. Without any guanrantee to even see them in time.
It's you right to take this devblog as "good news" and I respect it. But I take it more as an insult.
I live in wormholes since 2009, and since 2009 I've never seen any consistent upgrade for us. This expansion made me feel hope, now I'm at the edge of unsubscribing.
G££ <= Me |
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:19:00 -
[225] - Quote
Sir SmashAlot wrote:"Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield" Yes Please!
I would guess that this also applies to starbase defenses as well? |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:21:00 -
[226] - Quote
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:I would guess that this also applies to starbase defenses as well?
Hope not. Don't you want to take pot shots at people reloading their guns? |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
1425
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:31:00 -
[227] - Quote
At least, some special interests are getting some love. 
The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
Rand McKikas
Rookies Empire
Rookie Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:37:00 -
[228] - Quote
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 |
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions
Ineluctable.
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:43:00 -
[229] - Quote
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
Its not a waste, its THEIR STUFF! |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
3295
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:43:00 -
[230] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:I would guess that this also applies to starbase defenses as well? Hope not. Don't you want to take pot shots at people reloading their guns?
All hail Amarr lazors!!!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
|
DEFIER ORILIS
DEFIANCE FRENETIC REGIMENT
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:44:00 -
[231] - Quote
Expanding the POS features is a great move. I personally like the POS right now but I am looking forward to be able to see the content of my structures remotely within the universe the same way I see my corp division items.
Thx, D. |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1302
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:46:00 -
[232] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Quote:Lots of questions about roles The role system is responsible for a lot of the limitations of the current behaviour. To solve a lot of those issues, we're going to have to dedicate a good amount of time to reworking that system first. There simply isn't the scope for doing that in this release. This is the sort of thing we'll need to dedicate a team to for a full release cycle. (omg dat roles UI!)
How about just adding that you have to be a director to cancel someone elses job?
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1738
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:54:00 -
[233] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
If people are not willing to take the risk that their corp will move without them, they can always store certain items in the CHAs instead. Having tradeoffs and decisions to make between what to store in each of the two forms of storage is one of our goals.
Having tradeoffs is fine. Having tradeoffs that suck is not good game design. Example: Learning Skills. It was a tradeoff you had to make: Spend time training skills so you can train faster later, or train other stuff right away. And it sucked. So you removed them.
Do not add back in a mechanic that introduces the need to make a sucky decision. Give us a check box "allow director access". Let that be the tradeoff that players make. Or have stuff pop out into some sort of secure container.
Now on the other hand, I see that if the member has quit it does not matter that his stuff gets destroyed. And as directors can see whats in there, the corp could have a reimbursement policy.
CCP Fozzie, a question: Will those little drones that carry stuff about allow for me to put a BPO in my personal hangar, make a copy at the POS lab copy slot, and the drones carry the copy back to my personal hangar?
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kerdrak
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:55:00 -
[234] - Quote
The change on CSMA is not gonna be a big deal. Everyone prefers to have a "sitter" character to hold the supercapital since is easier, safer and faster. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers
Project Wildfire
163
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:55:00 -
[235] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Quote:Lots of questions about roles The role system is responsible for a lot of the limitations of the current behaviour. To solve a lot of those issues, we're going to have to dedicate a good amount of time to reworking that system first. There simply isn't the scope for doing that in this release. This is the sort of thing we'll need to dedicate a team to for a full release cycle. (omg dat roles UI!) How about just adding that you have to be a director to cancel someone elses job?
Yep, is this going to be in Odessey at last? Simple fix to a long standing problem, since the rest of the problems in this area are manageable with all the existing corp hangar roles.
vote steve https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=7933451 |
Infinion
My Little Pony - Friendship Force
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 22:23:00 -
[236] - Quote
Quote:"The exact per-character volume is undecided but we are currently considering a range from 10,000m3 to 40,000m3."
Why not do exactly that, let directors dictate a range between 10,000 m3 and 40,000 m3? |
Alundil
Seniors Clan
Get Off My Lawn
190
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 22:35:00 -
[237] - Quote
In love so far. Might be time to consider moving back to WH space :p |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
302
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 22:57:00 -
[238] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Altrue wrote:Even if the code for starbases is old; badly made and so on, I really have a hard time believing you when you are under "technical limitations" for everything.
"Technical limitations" means "Really damn hard, and not really worth the effort at this time." I can believe it.
Sometimes I wonder if CCP shouldn't just take a "start from scratch" approach to problems like this. Just make entirely new code for a player starbase that works like they want it to. Then switch out every POS in EVE to the new structure they implement, in small, medium, large sizes of course.
Before anyone asks, no, I don't have personal experience with this. |
Grigori Annunaki
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 23:07:00 -
[239] - Quote
My reading is that they are. There's a large-scale reworking of the POS system taking place and these are the "appease the masses" changes for the short term. |
Seras VictoriaX
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 23:22:00 -
[240] - Quote
+1
I am really excited about the POS improvements.
I hope these small improvements do not decrease the priority of the large scale POS plan tho.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |