EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Swiftstrike1 Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black 17	Posted - 2013.04.02 23:31:00 - [241] - Quote Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but 200+ posts? pfft... not gonna read through all that lol. Odyssey is promising a revamp of the scanning system so for all I know this suggestion is already planned, but I'm gonna throw it out there anyway since It's an important stepping stone on the way to describing my suggestion/request for the POS system. Setting up probes in space takes too long. I want to be able to set them up once, click a button that says "save current configuration" and then be able to select that configuration from a menu on the scanner window in the future. Perhaps you could even add in a feature like having the number of configs you can save be dependent on your astrometrics skill level. Now for the POS system. I want to be able to do the same thing with a POS and its modules. I want to be able to set them up once, save my configuration and then next time I set up the same type of control tower I want to be able to have all the modules sitting packaged in the CHA inside the shield and just select my configuration from a menu on the control tower window. Ideally it would even anchor and online them all one at a time in a user-defined order and then tell me if anything was missing like the current fitting system does. General feedback to the Dev blog: I don't live in wormholes any more because of irritating POS mechanics, but if I did I would be celebrating by going out on a roam and blowing up lots of isk \o/. These changes are fantastic! I now have some real motivation to move back to w-space and POS life :)
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 3227	Posted - 2013.04.02 23:37:00 - [242] - Quote EVE isn't supposed to look like a cold, harsh universe, it is supposed to be a cold, harsh universe. One of the core features of EVE is the capability to act in a trustworthy manner where there is the option to be selfish and greedy. As such, I feel the inability for corp directors and security roles to take things from corp members' private hangars is a mistake. Otherwise, these changes are awesome! IMHO the ideal volume for a personal hangar is about 15k, about equivalent to three GSCs. Stuff larger than that is likely to be ores from mining operations, ship subsystems, or accumulated module loot. There should be other options for bulky/bulk goods, such as CHAs with a better role system. I am very glad to her that refineries are "on the radar", and I look forward to seeing whether that work will involve converting all refineries (NPC and POS alike) into activity lines. In the meantime, corp directors around New Eden will be waiting with bated breath for news about a revamp of the corp role system. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
John Butterhill Butterhill Industries 0	Posted - 2013.04.02 23:52:00 - [243] - Quote 10k - 40k is not much space for a couple hauler spawns, an afternoon of mining, sorting through PI materials, ship modules, and ammo. Increasing the limit to 100k - 400k would be a more realistic number. Having a limit of 1.4M that everyone shares would be a better alternative. All the users of the hangar would then share the total volume. An attribute of the PHA would be the total in-use volume. As items are added or removed from that PHA the value is updated. If more space is needed then an additional PHA would be anchored. The five miners that needed lots of space could share one PHA and fifty PVE players with just ship modules and ammo can share another PHA. Please don't give the directors access to take from the PHA. If I knew I was going to be gone I should have moved my stuff to a CHA or a station. If you are going to let directors steal you should at least give us logs so we can see who did it.
Agila Tradatus L'ove 0	Posted - 2013.04.02 23:52:00 - [244] - Quote So I read the blog, twice because I couldn't belive that this outdated POS that I call a POS is becoming useable! No more parking certain ships at just the right spot so I can move fuel?! And finally subsystem management in space?! ZOMG...I don't think I can contain myself... /me humps CCP Fozzie's leg
Infinion My Little Pony - Friendship Force 35	Posted - 2013.04.02 23:53:00 - [245] - Quote CCP Masterplan wrote: Stegas Tyrano wrote: Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be! They'll only be animated inside the server ;) Just out of curiosity, if you used an existing drone model and only animated it in such a way that it 1) moves between two points 2) passes through all objects and 3) appears/disappears within a certain distance from a structure which process would be too time-consuming to include with the feature?
Sol Mortis An Heroes 3	Posted - 2013.04.02 23:55:00 - [246] - Quote The most boring list of changes that ever might possibly maybe perhaps have a chance of probably being likely to happen. boooorrrrriiiinnnngggg.
mkint 974	Posted - 2013.04.03 00:10:00 - [247] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Pinky Denmark wrote: This is great and I love to see this aspect get some love - I do however hope everything will be re-invented as the current system won't easily be transformed... I do wish you think more about the game mechanics for those personal hangars - People always go on 14 day vacations or have computers break down for a week when a corp is about to relocate a tower... So I suspect lots of people will lose assets to repacking the personal hangar arrays. I know you don't want to make it easy to steal/scam assets from members, but how about those items dropping out in a locked container when repacking an array so corps can save personal assets and save them for their owner. It must be possible to create containers only accessible by 1 character? Have them drop in space with a 72hour decay timer and the option to shoot them if you want to destroy them. You can scoop the container but only the real owner can open the container. Maybe give him the option to open access for others somehow but personal assets in towers can be a pain when you suddenly have to relocate... Pinky 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. I'm seeing both sides... on the one hand, there has to be a tradeoff. On the other, a 100% loss sounds pretty sucky. What about a 24 hour stasis for a ceo/director to pull it out? Or a 50% chance to drop when it's unanchored? Some compromise to reduce the suckage. Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun.
Kynric Sky Fighters Talocan United 9	Posted - 2013.04.03 00:14:00 - [248] - Quote The idea behind the personal storage array is promising but this implementaion leaves a lot to be desired. 40,000 m^3 is basicly an Iteron5 which is tiny in the grand scheme of things. The big disappointment is that the wealth which needs protected from thieves is in ships, not in modules. This change will protect some ammo and spare e-war mods from a thief while leaving the capital ships, strategic cruisers, faction ships and such within their reach. Please consider expanding the personal storage area to be huge like in an npc station and allowing fit ships to be drug into the hanger in a similar manner to how they can be pulled into the current corporate hanger. This simple change would make this the enhancement which we need to protect our corp members assets and increase our corporate membership. The ability to access structures from a greater distance, repackage modules and fit subsystems are welcome changes. The personal storage structure however is a disappointment and will not in my opinion serve its intended purpose of protecting member assets. It is a bit like guarding the 'have a penny, take a penny' cup while leaving the cash register untended.
Bobby Oftheradio Eve Radio Corporation 0	Posted - 2013.04.03 00:21:00 - [249] - Quote [quote=CCP Masterplan] 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!) With what is planed with Dust514 characters isn't a complete rework of corp roles going to be necessary sooner rather then later?
Salaphiel L'ove 1	Posted - 2013.04.03 00:28:00 - [250] - Quote Another annoyance that I hope is an easy fix that I'd love to see come to POSes is that bug that makes a '0' crystal stay in a gun and makes the POS impossible to unanchor. It has happened to me EVERY time i've had to unanchor a POS. No one plans to fail, some fail to plan.
Stigman Zuwadza Repercussus RAZOR Alliance 99	Posted - 2013.04.03 00:45:00 - [251] - Quote Some handy changes I'm sure, however not a single mention of Roles. These changes may help those that currently use a POS but it does nothing to encourage greater collaboration, which seems a shame. Quote: ...we have already launched an offensive against the biggest flaws of the current system Evidently not, so, will you be tackling Roles in the December expansion? Its broken and its been broken for a long time and it'll be broken for some time to come.
Dalilus Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2013.04.03 00:51:00 - [252] - Quote Nullberas are going to be very happy once again, more bells and whistles for them. What are you going to do for the carebears of high sec? Anything? Hopefully not another nerf in the name of 'bwaaaaaaaa, careberas need to be nerfed just because'.
Warcalibre FDA Shipwrights Tri-Star Galactic Industries 26	Posted - 2013.04.03 01:40:00 - [253] - Quote Some nice changes, but there is one glaring omission: POS roles! Roles are incredibly confusing right now, and they are the one thing that must work well for efficient operation. I hope that roles makes it into a revised list of most important changes. Thank you.
Trion Roles Shogun's Samurai Unclaimed. 1	Posted - 2013.04.03 01:43:00 - [254] - Quote 1. Put out of fuel POSs on a timer so that they de-anchor after 30 days without fuel and can be scooped for limited time as well as mods. EVE space is full of abandoned POSs that could be put to use. If not scooped soon enough, they pop. 30 days seems long to me--10 might be more realistic. Can't fuel your POS because of vacation or holiday? That's what corpies are for. 2. For the PHA, if you de-anchor with stuff still inside, then it should act like if it were popped--some stuff drops, some doesn't. Comes out in a can with owner's name. A balance between risk and reward for thieves and loyal corpies alike. 3. Space limit for PHA is fine. CHA holds the bulky stuff. Bank vaults are smaller than mini-warehouses. Banks are more secure, too. PHA should have finite total limit just like CHA, and other POS arrays.
Xindi Kraid The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 306	Posted - 2013.04.03 02:20:00 - [255] - Quote Kerdrak wrote: 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. Not everyone has a Titan. This move is of great benefit to anyone with a few dreadnoughts, since a CSMA can hold a few of them while a SMA can only hold 1 plus some sub caps.
Jack Miton Aperture Harmonics K162 1565	Posted - 2013.04.03 02:26:00 - [256] - Quote I think I wet myself. Thanks CCP. The only thing I can see there that could be an issue is CEO/directors not being able to remove items from personal storage. I think they should be able to so that they can take down a POS without needing to destroy everyones stuff.
Ruze Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries 1	Posted - 2013.04.03 02:59:00 - [257] - Quote As two simple requests: Let each POS have it's own individual roles mechanism. Completely remove the corporate roles on the option. That way, as a POS is setup, it becomes a players entity, not a corporate, and can be governed by the player. Allow them to specifically grant rights to other entities (players, Corporations or Alliances) through a separate UI system altogether. Secondly, when taking down the POS, shunt the items into a can or something similar to a customs office, etc. The mechanics for this (customs offices) are in place already. Unless, of course, your trying to actively prevent players from dropping/raising POS's at will, than this is a futile request. Otherwise, it seems more logical. Otherwise, I'm interested in the upcoming changes.
BEPOHNKA Legions Force 72	Posted - 2013.04.03 02:59:00 - [258] - Quote hello!!! can we still get ring mining going with this addon?
Alystin Wyndyl Night's Shadows TriMark Alliance 11	Posted - 2013.04.03 03:03:00 - [259] - Quote Lots of good stuff here Fozzie! We need roles for specific POS modules and slots. We need an intermediate role between query and take that allows users of factory slots to use the slots, but ONLY cancel their OWN jobs, no one else. Not quite a factory Manager, but a Factory Worker role. Same sort of intermediate role for laboratories. Personal Hangars should NOT allow CEO/Directors to take from them (I know it's MY POS, but still, it's personal space) but by all means give them the ability to Query them, as we do in highsec station offices today. A possible solution to the moving problem is to change it so that if you offline the module and unanchor it, the contents get dumps into cans with the owner's names on them. Sure, a director or CEO could then steal all the stuff, but they have to unanchor it all to do it. (I'm not sure this is a solution we want, just offering it up as an idea) Give the ability to get materials from personal hangars and return them to them for research and manufacturing arrays. Huge win here. Do this with CHAs too. I have no problem with personal hangars being 40k m3, as long as you give us the Personal SMAs too, soon. (As in don't wait for December to release those, maybe in the Odyssey 1.1 release. Love the access from anywhere. Helps for using freighters in a POS shield.
Tennessee Jack Blac-x 33	Posted - 2013.04.03 03:04:00 - [260] - 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? Good god at least find a way to shoehorn patch this in somehow immediately.
Inepsa1987 Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 43	Posted - 2013.04.03 03:35:00 - [261] - Quote Title should be renamed to "Retribution 1.2 POS Fixes" More content next time . . . Spaceship Pilot.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE 12	Posted - 2013.04.03 03:38:00 - [262] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: CCP Goliath wrote: Sweet blog! Think this one will push you over 5k? I guess that will depend on whether Starbase users are a small portion of the community or not. Haha - I see what you did there! Well all I have to say is "So much WIN in this dev blog." I cannot express how happy I am after having WAITED YEARS for this. This will definitely help me sleep better at night knowing my "corpmates" are not going to rip me off or everyone else off. THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU! CCP FOZZIE, I don't know how you do it. You are the best like wh0re ever. My corp thanks you. Cheers!
Deornoth Drake Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 20	Posted - 2013.04.03 03:59:00 - [263] - Quote Deornoth Drake wrote: First: I like! And I hope that you don't run into a road block! Now on to some feedback: Private Hangars Quote: 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. That sounds a bit strange to me. Consider a small corp with 10 pilots, they would end up using 400k m3 of 1'400k m3 (if the volume of the private hangar module corresponds to the corporate hangar module). Hence, a relative number would make more sense to me. Or on the other side, consider a really big corp with 150+ pilots, they would be able to use more that the 1'400k m3. As said it depends on how the total available volume, if there is any at all. And don't forget to link the private hangars in case a POS has two modules. Maybe provide access to the hangars and fuel bays via the POS and increase the size via the modules and let the drones take care of distributing the stuff (e.g. gun ammo). Swapping and fitting Strategic Cruiser subsystems at a starbase Will this become possible within carriers, Rorqual, Orcas as well? I hope so! Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield As mentioned before. Let the tower be the central access location for all hangars, so the modules just increase the available size. As said, I like the changes and look forward to them! Good luck! The longer I think about the more potential there is in the control tower being the access point to all hangars: no need to implement any transport drone mechanic but a need to track the capacity of the different hangar no need to search for the right module to be able to access it's storage if there are two modules running but only the space of one module is used, you could remove one module without having to move a single item or pop up a warning if you should remove some items or lose them in case of PHA -> this would simplify moving a POS since you could remove that is not in use like for hangars, let the control tower be the access point to research & manufacturing slots (see above), which would allow a more dynamic way of running labs POS setup could somehow move towards fitting screen
TheFourteenthTry The 0rigin Illusion of Solitude 2	Posted - 2013.04.03 04:13:00 - [264] - Quote I had a question regarding The private hangar array. It seems that this could be a new item, or just a modified version of the current hangar array. Sp what is it a whole new POS module, or modification of the current one? If it is a modification of the current array, will this eliminate the corp hangar functionality/capacity entirely? My concern is that 1,400,000 m3 and 40,000 m3 are drastically different sizes, and it turns out some stuff in EVE is pretty big.
Abs Sciuto NorthWest Russian Corp Proxima Centauri Alliance 0	Posted - 2013.04.03 04:29:00 - [265] - Quote thanks! but I want to ask only one thing: give to directors right to take everything from personal hangars. it's necessary cause : 1 in my wh we can move our pos somewhere, or take everything to empire. and not all from us might log in and give things to me. 2 spy can't more do something really incredible) personal hangars with this rules you want will not be useable. 40k m3 per director will not enough, so I cant understand problem)
Alsculard VanHellsing The Dark Space Initiative 0	Posted - 2013.04.03 04:36:00 - [266] - 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. So far the new CHA is being universally hated by the major entities in W-space. Besides what is listed above and in countless (to me) other posts in this thread on this subject, it creates more problems than it solves. Bareface trolling and an increased potential of corporate interpersonal relation degradation will be the main result of the new CHA. (in its current form) Adding a grantable role would be the fastest quick fix to this potential problem while keeping the base essence of the addition intact. Another viable option is to eliminate this addition and just modify the current CHA with roles and expanded tabs to allow semi-individual control of a tab while not limiting the m3 to such a small amount. Granted the second method can cause some m3 greed however,it is easy to program the second method and be in time for the release. Just some last thoughts: If you are worried about your ceo/directors accessing your items in a corp pos then you shouldn't be using a pos and/or be in that corp. Corp theft is always a concern in whatever form however, adding a feature that adds such a great method for drama/hate/political fallout can ruin a corp faster than any current method potential theft in eve. Plz CCP take this seriously and rework that good intention
Aidan Patrick Aldebaran Foundation Tauri Federation 55	Posted - 2013.04.03 04:44:00 - [267] - Quote Personally I find the current announced implementation plan to be a bit underwhelming. However it is far, far better than nothing. However I hope you (CCP) read and consider my thoughts on the matter. Kennesaw Breach wrote: I'm more concerned about persons taking other people's stuff or corporate stuff from CHAs, labs, arrays, etc, and deliberately placing it in their personal hangar as a denial-of-resource action. This is also a concern of mine and something I feel justifies at the minimum allowing a CEO access to the contents of private hangars. I can imagine a disgruntled member with fuel bay access or access to the corporate hangar arrays fuel reserves for the POS taking those reserves and slamming them into an untouchable personal hangar. Unlike an NPC station where the Security Officer can only view the contents of the hangar (as the storage is provide by an entity other than the corporation, the Personal Storage Array is being provided by the corporation. It should be understood in my opinion that if an asset is stored in any facility at a POS it is corporate property. However, with that said, CEO/Director should only ever be able to TAKE from personal hangars, never put. Simply put allowing them to give & take would enable exploitation of the array for infinite storage given sufficient characters to 'create' or 'initiate' their personal storage. MarcelJust wrote: slap the personal hangars on the tower itself and be done with it. When personal ship hangars are added add those to the tower as well. I agree with this. Something tells me though that each individual POS structure is coded separately, which leads me to believe adding a new structure is a much easier solution for them than modifying an existing one. If this theory of mine is correct, in addition to adding the new POS structure(s) I would like to see a new control tower class added. Honestly using ORE or the Sisters of EVE as the producer could legitimize only having one new tower added. Call this tower an "Expeditionary Tower" and make it big, bulky, consume more fuel and likely be stronger. Maybe even have the perk of being able to use any of the four fuel types, or just one. It doesn't matter. Where an Expeditionary Tower would stand out though is allowing a much much larger Personal Storage directly embedded within the tower. Something like 1,000,000 m3 per player, plus an appropriate personal ship hangar capable of storing at minimum a compliment of 1 exhumer/mining barge (whichever has the highest volume), 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, and 3 frigates. This type of tower would be more advanced and an evolution to the system enabling players to actually store their personal gains from wormholes, remote mining operations, nullsec operations etc etc. As I see it now, even a 50k m3 personal hangar allotment is going to prevent any real personal gain from PI, Mining, R&D, Manufacturing etc at a POS as 50k m3 is not a lot of space, especially for any serious miner or PI user. However, it's better than nothing. My biggest disappointment with this announcement is that not a shred of information was released in this dev blog in relation to the usability of Research & Manufacturing facilities at a POS. When Odyssey was announced and POS changes were mentioned I was hoping the need for Factory Manager role would finally be addressed. I'm still holding out hope that it will be addressed and have a few ideas how to fix it (assuming I even have a grasp of how the code for roles [roles, not the POS module] are handled.) As it stands, I personally feel that if CCP were to fix the overwhelmingly large issues with the Factory Manager requirement in EVE it would breathe a new life into the game the likes of EVE has never seen before. Imagine a world where POS R&D and Manufacturing can be done in a corp with many members sharing the same labs and manufacturing facilities without fear that members that aren't part of the leadership can just cancel everything making everyone lose tons and tons of work? Imagine... Null sec corps and alliances would be more open to pure industrialists who could use the wealth of their systems to keep themselves stocked locally without over-crowding their outpost slots. People like me could actually fund a series of POS' and allow open member usage, creating an ease of accessibility for people who are interested in R&D or Manufacturing but simply don't have access to sufficient facilities. (Especially true with R&D). Food for thought CCP. Is there any hope of getting the ability to mark a player in the current roles system (assuming it isn't going to be revamped this expansion) as "Based At" a POS? The Personal Storage is a huge huge boon to POS security, but I really feel that being able to "Based At" a player to a POS would be significant. As it stands now, POS hangar access is all or nothing. Further security requires fuel tech or config starbase equipment, which further complicates things with access levels. Want secure storage beyond regular roles? Fuel Tech. Don't want that same person being able to manage POS fuel? Starbase Config. Crap, don't want that person unanchoring your tower? You're SOL. This often leaves the CEO/Director (in a smart, secure corp) in charge of maintaining their POS fuel bays and allows little room for delegation. Ideally I'd like to be able to fully delegate maintenance of a specific POS to a specific member by having "Based At" hangar access enabled for said POS and then further fixing it by having separate POS Fuel Tech & Config Starbase roles under the Based at section. If it's possible to do this and then further be able to specify in the existing POS menus whether it uses the based at or regular Fuel Tech/Config roles would immensely increase configuration with minimal effort. It wont let me have an empty signature...
Alsculard VanHellsing The Dark Space Initiative 0	Posted - 2013.04.03 04:51:00 - [268] - 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. So far the new CHA is being universally hated by the major entities in W-space. Besides what is listed above and in countless (to me) other posts in this thread on this subject, it creates more problems than it solves. Bareface trolling and an increased potential of corporate interpersonal relation degradation will be the main result of the new CHA. (in its current form) Adding a grantable role would be the fastest quick fix to this potential problem while keeping the base essence of the addition intact. Another viable option is to eliminate this addition and just modify the current CHA with roles and expanded tabs to allow semi-individual control of a tab while not limiting the m3 to such a small amount. Granted the second method can cause some m3 greed however,it is easy to program the second method and be in time for the release. Just some last thoughts: If you are worried about your ceo/directors accessing your items in a corp pos then you shouldn't be using a pos and/or be in that corp. Corp theft is always a concern in whatever form however, adding a feature that adds such a great method for drama/hate/political fallout can ruin a corp faster than any current method potential theft in eve. Plz CCP take this seriously and rework that good intention
Sinzor Aumer Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective 116	Posted - 2013.04.03 05:24:00 - [269] - Quote 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.
Caitlyn Tufy Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 225	Posted - 2013.04.03 05:34:00 - [270] - 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 "Trusting your leadership" ended badly quite a few times in the past, I'll be damned before I trust anyone with anything when it comes to EVE.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.