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) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
3055
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
After the high level announcement of the summer expansion EVE Online: Odyssey, to be published on June 4th, 2013, we are excited to update you with some more detailed plans for Odyssey.
CCP Fozzie introduces, in his latest blog, our plans for a first iteration on Starbases. While we are eagerly looking forward to implement these plans, please note that they are a first iteration on a very complex system and therefore not completely set in stone.
Read CCP Fozzie's devblog here: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4785
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Alternate title: Removing the S from POS
Big thanks to everyone who has provided us with their Starbase change requests so far and special thanks to the CSM for being extremely helpful at getting your constructive requests to us. Remember that the CSM 8 election starts tomorrow so everyone make sure and vote so you can have the best representatives to bring your concerns to us.
As always, we're very interested in what you think of these changes, and we'll be giving you more status updates as we progress through the Odyssey production schedule. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Gazmin VanBurin
PimpingSonsofPlunder
84
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
second! |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
513
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
edit: damn - Nulla Curas |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
2923
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ooo... page 1!
*\o/* Go ahead... Get your-áWham on!!! |
Hoarr
Asgard. Exodus.
131
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
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? |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2808
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Excellent news, is it not? Pre-Election has begun! Click to endorse Trebor for CSM8 * Candidate thread * CSM Blog |
Valkyrs
Deep Vein Trading
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Not much change here for me, though the accessing from within the bubble is a big deal, as I generally fly unwieldy ships into the mess of arrays and get stuck. Glad to see there's progress being made and eagerly await more POS changes!
Also nice login screen, the old one was a little embarrassing and made me sad!
Keep it up CCP! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1255
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
Gimme!
While it might not be /everything/ that we want, it's a good start. Steve Ronuken for CSM 8 Handy tools and SDE conversions Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Beaver Retriever
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
how dare you make poses usable i want my old broken eve back because it's what i'm used to wharbgrglrrbrhgrl
Someone was going to post it unironically, hopefully this will make them feel stupid enough not to. |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
1451
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sweet blog! Think this one will push you over 5k? CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
575
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
It was as if a thousand wormhole pilots were crying out in pain, and were suddenly silenced. Followed by a massive party that drowned out the noises of even Jita. http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4787
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:55:00 -
[13] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
292
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
its great news that u guys are working on improving the POS systems even with the work on a total revamp... its like u actually care! =)
<3 |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
516
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
Why can't I read the devblog? Page is not loading and I get 500 Server Error |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
470
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
Excellent! This will greatly improve wormhole life, even if you don't get everything done in time for Odyssey. Thank you. :-) Malcanis, Ripard Teg, and Trebor Daehdoow for CSM 8
(I have three accounts, so why not?) |
Dranchela
Pixel Navigators Hostile Work Environment.
18
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:59:00 -
[17] - Quote
A hanger is something you put clothes on in a closet. A hangar is something you store aircraft/spacecraft in. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
3498
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Glad to see this finally go public. The changes in the dev blog should go a long way towards making POSes a lot less of a pain, especially if the private storage SMA makes the release. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
tgl3
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
298
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
My babies. Please have them. Member of the EVE Blog Pack - Through Newb Eyes Twitter - TG_3 |
Roki Romani
Running with Knives Nexus Fleet
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Dranchela wrote:A hanger is something you put clothes on in a closet. A hangar is something you store aircraft/spacecraft in. Personally I like to store guns and ammunition in my hangars. Armories are for chumps. |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
7581
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
BACON!
|
|
Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
173
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
good to see work being started on the POS system. while the listed changes don't affect me all that much (though i am looking forward to accessing all arrays from within the shield), its good to know this is a priority for CCP. |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
148
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
I'm so excited! Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort Raiden.
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
Good on the personal storage divisions, but I do suggest you make it so a director can remove members items. so if they go AFK for a week and a pos needs to be taken down you don't have to destroy all there stuff.
EDIT, ADDITIONAL: Without a proper rework of the structuring of corporate roles we are still pretty screwed though. Basically as long as someone has setup rights they can destroy everyone's stuff, this is much better over steal everything I will admit, but we should be able to assign roles on a per system basis, not just globally. |
Deamos
Dev Null Development and Holdings
163
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
Looking good, CCP. I do hope, however, that you are planning on bringing the ability to publicly rent our POS Research/Manufacturing Slots. This is my #1 requested POS feature since POS structures were introduced. |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
2481
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:09:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Big thanks to everyone who has provided us with their Starbase change requests so far and special thanks to the CSM for being extremely helpful at getting your constructive requests to us.
FINALLY we can talk about this stuff we've been doing nothing about!!!!! CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
3498
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:10:00 -
[27] - 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.
You win this time. I will never catch you in likes CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Bitten.
167
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:11:00 -
[28] - Quote
After ignoring all your warnings about how some of this may not happen I decided....
This is best feature since forever <3 |
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
291
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
Excellent news. There's a significant issue I didn't see covered there: corp roles. CUrrently access is limited to everyone, Config Starbase Equipment and Fuel Manager. We need something in between so members can access arrays without also being able to defuel or dismantle the POS.
Glad to finally hear about T3, though I hope you expand that to include Ship Maint bays in capital ships.
As for corp hangars, you possibly should allow security managers to access everyone's stuff, and if a player leaves, the directors should be able to remove items from impound if the space is needed or the POS needs moved or reconfigured, and that player isn't expected back any time soon.
ChromeStriker wrote:edit: damn
Edit edit:.... wormhole supers??? Not likely, but cap ship maintenance arrays does mean you can store carriers and dreads without needing one maint array per. |
Hiram Alexander
Liandri Corporation Liandri Covenant
336
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:12:00 -
[30] - Quote
Excellent changes, thank you!
What I'd love to see next, is the ability of construction facilities to pull materials from storage hangars, and move the finished products to another... When you try to make things like Fuel Blocks, you can only make ridiculously small batches because of space constraints, so my alts inevitably end up tying-up public slots at npc stations that other people could be using. |
|
Sedilis
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
75
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
Five-0 and SuperFriends are in for some serious bro love from the wspace guys at Fanfest in a few weeks :)
Thank you for listening to us on this one. You've made a lot of people very happy today.
Here's to hoping you work something out for personal SMA storage or even access restricted by titles or hanger division.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
519
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Good on the personal storage divisions, but I do suggest you make it so a director can remove members items. so if they go AFK for a week and a pos needs to be taken down you don't have to destroy all there stuff.
EDIT, ADDITIONAL: Without a proper rework of the structuring of corporate roles we are still pretty screwed though. Basically as long as someone has setup rights they can destroy everyone's stuff, this is much better over steal everything I will admit, but we should be able to assign roles on a per system basis, not just globally. i agree please allow me to steal tia |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8411
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:15:00 -
[33] - Quote
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. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Jireel
I ain't got me ground legs yet
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:17:00 -
[34] - Quote
Oh god the joy |
Silex Vulcanos
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
QFT!!
Will definitely be watching this. Can't wait to see how they improve the POS system!
Keep up the good work.
|
George K'ntara
We Build Stuff Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:19:00 -
[36] - 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.
I bet we can put you over 5k! oh wait...
Keep this up and add a way to make research slots public and I'd setup a POS again. |
Deornoth Drake
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:21:00 -
[37] - Quote
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! |
Sedrie
Apple Industries Inc. Surely You're Joking
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:22:00 -
[38] - Quote
If you were to hang out at your local supermarket, the guys buying bulk quantities of tissues are the wormhole residents after reading this update.
brb, I need to run to the store. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
322
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:22:00 -
[39] - Quote
CSAA's? Yes because what the game really needs right now, is more supercaps.
Having a titan in a hole is going to be stupidly ridiculous. |
Deathwing Reborn
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:24:00 -
[40] - Quote
I like all the changes except the one where you will lose access to storage at a corp level of individual player.
While I think that it would be nice to have my own hanger and be able to keep it separate from other people, there has been many times when you have to emergency evacuate a POS for any number of reasons and if the corp is unable to move items for other players that might not be able to get on within a certain time frame there will be many tears. It would be nice if CEO / Director still had access in some shape or form to close a POS down. I think the biggest issue comes from not having the space to store items on a personal level to be able to keep access restricted to general corp membership.
Beyond that I love the changes if they can be done. |
|
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
71
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:24:00 -
[41] - Quote
Pesonal hangars idea is awesome, but
''Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hanger, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangers.'' - bullshit! Why is is fail: I'm a CEO or DIRECTOR, I have some pilots living in my pos, they have own hangars. But, pilot got rid of eve and left some stuff in his hangar. I can't take it. But I want to REMOVE \ OFFLINE \ UNANCHOR a hangar or whole POS. What should I do? Shoot own structures? Seems not so smart!
but
''If the structure is unanchored, all contents are destroyed.'' - Really? Kidding? What about accidents? To lose all stuff only cuz you can't create something smarter?
"The exact per-character volume is undecided but we are currently considering a range from 10,000m3 to 40,000m3." - bullshit! 40k m3 is ONE (JUST ONE) full cargohold of mining barge. What will he do mine more?
Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
Cyren Dean
Lonetrek Tax Haven
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:24:00 -
[42] - Quote
So no changes to where it's possible to anchor? Thought safe spot pos' was mentioned at one point, or cheaper easier to maintain personal pos'. |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
43
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:25:00 -
[43] - Quote
Private starbase hangers Maybe CEO should have access to anything inside the hangar? To be able to save some shinies when the tower is being reinforced (you don't have time to call for everyone when it happens).
Otherwise we will have to kill our own hangars once in a while, to get things out of them, belonging to those not playing anymore and so on).
BTW. ANd what will people, having 5 alts do with their sections? Need some way to share. Though I understand that looks tough from programming point. |
iskflakes
380
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:26:00 -
[44] - Quote
The biggest fix we need is the roles, as has already been mentioned in this thread.
How about a way to make SMA fitting service and SMA storage public? I often need to have out of corp alts in the tower, and it's a pain in the ass when they can't fit their ships, or even store their own ships moments after they drop roles.
Onlining delays are another annoyance (when you have 40 modules to online). Can we just have a "select all", "online all sequentially" button somewhere so I can go AFK for 40 minutes while it happens?
Edit: Something else I thought of. If the personal storage arrays have no pilot limit, will we see people creating storage alts that they just use to get more storage space? - |
Dalcho
Unknown Soldiers Unclaimed.
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
The overhaul seems great initially and yes WH folks will be skipping around naked!
However I agree that ceo/directtors MUST be allowed access to remove items rather than destroying them for afk/on vacation members.
Or this will be seen as CCP making more money from members! (does it need more negative feedback on this front)
Has any consideration been given to allowing modules (i.e guns warp dis ext) having the ability to drag back into the shields when taking the pos down?
Yes it will remove risk of flying to then and getting dropped but would mean putting up and taking down POs's is quicker and easier and would therefore result in more being used/sold and utalized in game (Hey! theres your isk making again!)
o7 Dalcho
|
Jim Orland
Furyan Federation Fade 2 Black
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:26:00 -
[46] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:edit: damn
Edit edit:.... wormhole supers???
Not unless they're removing the Sov requirement from CSAAs as well. |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:27:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dranchela wrote:A hanger is something you put clothes on in a closet. A hangar is something you store aircraft/spacecraft in.
I'm glad I didn't have to be the one to say it. It's a little bit like having an eyelash in your eye to see a word misspelled over and over again. Eventually you'll get over it, but it's really annoying while it's there. Apparently they managed to fix it between the time I read the article and started to write this comment, so now you and I will look like crazy people. ;)
On the topic of the changes: they all sound excellent. The only one I don't really care about is changing the interface to set up defenses. It's a huge pain to set them up initially, yes, but it's also something that doesn't happen very often. If something needs to be scrapped in order for other features to make the expansion and more time is needed to finish the other tasks, please deprioritize this. I think we can all live with the currently crappy experience of setting up a POS for a while longer if the trade-off is that personal hangars, repackaging, and Tech 3 subsystem swaps become a reality! |
Jesspa
BlackWing Cartel Insidious Associates
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:27:00 -
[48] - Quote
POSes aren't something I've had a lot of experience with so this may well be a ridiculous suggestion, but I've never understood why they can't be more like NPC stations. When I first heard of a POS I imagined something like a small NPC station, with some of the facilities thereof, not a massive shield in space with confusing, disparate bits of structure floating around inside, each with a different function.
I understand that they need to be modular, with players being able to add on bits to enable various facilities, but I don't see why that couldn't be done with something more akin to a station - one big structure into which you dock (or 'moor', if you don't have the appropriate 'module') and wherein all of the other facilities are available as you purchase the add-ons. It could just look like a really small, bare-bones station at first, and each of the additional modules, defensive installations, etc., could 'bolt-on' to the outside, much as a ship changes in appearance as different equipment is fitted, until it looked bigger and cooler.
Or you could go the boring route and just have the additional facilities 'unlocked' once you paid the right price. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2808
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:28:00 -
[49] - Quote
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. Pre-Election has begun! Click to endorse Trebor for CSM8 * Candidate thread * CSM Blog |
Giles Corey
Mnemonic Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:29:00 -
[50] - Quote
"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hanger, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangers."
I think allowing directors to remove items from the hangars should be implemented, in wormhole space there would still be risk of corp theft by trusted directors rather than currently by random members.
Also not being able to control the contents of a hangar with regard to inactive/quit members and members that have left the corp is extremely annoying. |
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
205
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:30:00 -
[51] - Quote
Why create a new structure for the personal hangars? I know there is a balance to keep with fittings of each tower (which are horribly unbalanced at the moment ) but with the removal of variable fuel consumption this doesn't make much sense. Just 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. |
Chitsa Jason
Infinity Explorers Exhale.
461
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:31:00 -
[52] - Quote
Great news for the EvE community. I do understand that POS code is a fracking headache but it just needs to be fixed in order for a lot of us to enjoy the actual game-play.
I just have a note about this one: ''Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hanger, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangers.''
CEO or directors should have the ability to manage personal storage of other people. A lot of time people just go afk or I can already see how someone puts stuff into his own hangar and you have to wait for that person to get online.
Chitsa Jason for CSM 8 Twitter:-á@ChitsaJason Skype: Casparas
|
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
243
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:31:00 -
[53] - Quote
This is really good stuff.
I would also like to add that reworking the POS defense interface (like an easy-to-access control within and Select Item box that launches a defense controller screen ) could help as well, but this stuff would make a lot of life MUCH easier for my POS guy(s). Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1445
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:33:00 -
[54] - Quote
Quote:* Repackaging modules in starbase arrays * Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield This is awesome. Can we also swap ships and fittings when anywhere inside the shield? I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
V'Kanth Agalder
Anomalous Existence Existential Anxiety
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:34:00 -
[55] - Quote
All the proposed additions sound excellent, and I hope they all (especially the private SMAs) make it into the expansion.
I do think that directors/CEOs should be able to access all items stored in the proposed CHA. That being said, if the feature is too difficult to program, I would rather the array was implemented without it all the same. |
Jackie Fisher
syrkos technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:37:00 -
[56] - Quote
Maybe allow directors to access personal hangers of players whose last logon was more than x days ago? Fear God and Thread Nought |
Mar Drakar
LDK Test Alliance Please Ignore
65
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:37:00 -
[57] - 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.
we see what you did there |
Vesago
Ghost Core General Tso's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:38:00 -
[58] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Good on the personal storage divisions, but I do suggest you make it so a director can remove members items. so if they go AFK for a week and a pos needs to be taken down you don't have to destroy all there stuff.
EDIT, ADDITIONAL: Without a proper rework of the structuring of corporate roles we are still pretty screwed though. Basically as long as someone has setup rights they can destroy everyone's stuff, this is much better over steal everything I will admit, but we should be able to assign roles on a per system basis, not just globally.
The changes look fair to me, but to be honest, when I saw changes were coming to the POS system, I was excited about a revamping of the Corporate Roles system, and I hoped for a system where each individual structure could be set to specific roles. Primarily to make Labs rentable to specific Corp Members. As it stands, everyone using my labs needs to trust one another, and in Eve trust is nearly nonexistant. Let me lock it down further please.
Vesago the Ultraparanoid. |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:38:00 -
[59] - Quote
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. |
Max Goldwing
Homeworld Republic The East India Co.
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:40:00 -
[60] - Quote
Looks great!
Even if 10-40km3 is a little small, its plenty for people to keep their modules, ammo, salvage in the POS, and will greatly improve the lives of ppl living out of posses.
For larger storage we still have our old CHA which can be used for mining storage, sharing between chars etc (you cant share in a station between 2 chars without a corp hanger anyway, why should this be better).
Very nice ! |
|
Ley 'Urhg' Grotman
Justified and Ancient
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:40:00 -
[61] - 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. I gave you six likes from both my accounts. Hope that says enough. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1968
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:41:00 -
[62] - Quote
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"?
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:41:00 -
[63] - Quote
Great to see we're getting some love for starbases.
Can you also confirm if any of these ideas are being looked into (perhaps as later Odyssey patches)?
a) Starbase weapon rebalancing We could use a fresh look at the various weapons that haven't been touched in 7+ years. Starbase mods were all balanced around fighting ships as they were in 2005/2006. Obviously ships have moved on a lot since then, but the starbase weapons have never been revisted to keep up. A perfect example is the way the SDM skill and Energy Neuts were introduced to counter dreadnoughts, then supercaps made them obsolete* a short while later. There's also the matter of missile and hybrid comedy-weapons, which are currently used as a metric to determine when someone has no clue what they're doing with a starbase.
b) Centralised ammo mananagement A way to check from the starbase window if all the weapons on the tower have sufficient ammo/crystals, without needing to fly over to each one. Unless of course the 'access modules within the shield' change affects this somehow.
c) Starbase Defense Management UI Why do I need to click the guns one. at. a. time. to control them? What's wrong with shift clicking several at once to grab control?
d) Auditing I'm sure the logs always show something these days, but it would be really nice if we could see them too. If starbases wrote to a central log for that corporation which allowed directors to see the latest happenings, e.g:
18 Apr 2013 12:10:11 - Jita Planet 1 Moon 1 GÇô Silo offlined by xttz 18 Apr 2013 12:10:43 - Jita Planet 1 Moon 1 GÇô Control tower unanchored by xttz 18 Apr 2013 12:11:23 GÇô CCP-US Planet 4 Moon 2 GÇô 405 Fuel Blocks removed by xttz
I imagine this would also save a fair few requests for GM's to investigate 'bugs' with starbases.
e) Standings-based Forcefield Access Yep I went there.
*outside of wormholes of course |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
172
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:42:00 -
[64] - Quote
Pancakes and jubilation!
I agree with the general sentiment that directors/CEOs should be able to empty hangars. Let's not see a repeat of the broken ammo bug in personal hangar form. |
Sedilis
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
75
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:42:00 -
[65] - Quote
At the risk of making personal hangers a bit OP it would be really nice if you could make them have more capacity per person. Or have an extra large version maybe?
A current workaround for personal SMA that is commonly used in wspace is for members to move assembled shiny ships (eg T3s) from the SMA to a CHA hanger division only they or a limited number of people have access . Its a bit of a PITA because you have to move them back to the SMA for boarding but it helps security a little bit.
With the proposed 40k m3 that would be far too small to store even one T3. An extra large PCHA with maybe 500k m3 would allow people to store 4-5 T3s or a Faction battleship. Even if you made it have similar fitting requirements to a CSMA that would give us something close to personal SMA security if you cant implement the personal SMAs.
Please consider that as a alternative. |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:42:00 -
[66] - Quote
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. |
Klarion Sythis
quantum cats syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
170
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:43:00 -
[67] - Quote
CCP, you glorious bastards, this is awesome! |
Dibblerette
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
145
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:44:00 -
[68] - Quote
EDIT: Nevermind, mixed up CSAA with CSMA. Carry on. |
Vesago
Ghost Core General Tso's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:44:00 -
[69] - Quote
xttz wrote:
d) Auditing I'm sure the logs always show something these days, but it would be really nice if we could see them too. If starbases wrote to a central log for that corporation which allowed directors to see the latest happenings, e.g:
18 Apr 2013 12:10:11 - Jita Planet 1 Moon 1 GÇô Silo offlined by xttz 18 Apr 2013 12:10:43 - Jita Planet 1 Moon 1 GÇô Control tower unanchored by xttz 18 Apr 2013 12:11:23 GÇô CCP-US Planet 4 Moon 2 GÇô 405 Fuel Blocks removed by xttz
I imagine this would also save a fair few requests for GM's to investigate 'bugs' with starbases.
*outside of wormholes of course
Ditto. Hell, do htis for Corporate Hangars too! |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3295
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:45:00 -
[70] - Quote
This is great news!!!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
Psihius
S-DNK U.C.F. Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:45:00 -
[71] - Quote
Well, maybe CEO/Director should not be able to take stuff while character is in the corporation, but when he's out - access should be allowed. |
vasanizome
Kokoblockers
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:47:00 -
[72] - Quote
It will nice if u change some stront mechanics
In strontium hangar of a pos atm u can cannot split strontium .
So when the pos is under attack its critical to adjust strontium to the prefer timer.
The only way to remove strontium is by holding shift and remove the amount u want.
That does not always work in heavy lag and u have a good possibility to remove all strong.
It will a good solution when u want to remove stront from pos to have the ability to split strontium inside the pos stront bay and remove the exact amount of strontium that u want .
Another pain for a pos manager is that when u have pos under attack the shield status does not update on the manage tab of the pos,the exact same thing happens when u rep a tower.
The only way to see that is: 1. Relog 2.Warp out from grid and warp back to the pos.
So it will be a good idea that the pos manage tab updates the shiled status of the pos to have a clear idea of what is the status.
Excuse my bad English.
I am waiting for your thoughts. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1821
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:48:00 -
[73] - Quote
Let the players decide. Make it configurable whether or not you trust your directors to clean out your personal hangar array.
Corps can set their own policies, players can follow it or not to their own detriment.
Everyone wins.
(Well, except the UI programmers who hate adding configurable settings to things, but thbptptpt!)
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Dring Dingle
Polaris Rising Gentlemen's Agreement
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:48:00 -
[74] - Quote
YAAAAAYYYYY.....
however... Is a CEO / director limited to a m3 amount?
I ran my own pos in a wh for a while, if I were to do it agen would I be limited to X amount ? So I'd be the only one using the whole thing and have a fraction of the space for the same CPU / power grid use? Or can that be scaled on how many members are using the hanger....
Alternatively perhaps the space could be set / modified by directors on a member by member basis. I think directors should have the ability to take from the members hangers aswell. Especially if someone goes AWOL and you are left with a module that's half full that you can't get access to. Least then you could take their stuff to a NPC station for when they return.....
My 2 cents
:)
Dringy.
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:48:00 -
[75] - Quote
Dibblerette wrote:EDIT: Nevermind, mixed up CSAA with CSMA. Carry on. won't change a thing, currently, it's easy to have super / titans in low, holding toon and log it out, pretty hard to know where it is stored if the alliance / corp has several large.
now, you will know where it probably is , cause even if the pilot / holding toon is logged, well the CSMA is still there(doesn't mean the super is inside but..)! |
Darth Sith
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:49:00 -
[76] - Quote
Think I just wet myself ..
Awesome updates - the removing proximity to pos objects requirement alone was worth reading the 80% disclaimer / 20% content :)
|
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:49:00 -
[77] - Quote
xttz wrote: e) Standings-based Forcefield Access Yep I went there.
I'+¼m against this. Forcefield Passwords are good. If I steal your password I can bump your (super)capitals out of the forcefield and make them go boom. Emergent gameplay, nice things. |
Huiron
Aperture Harmonics K162
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:50:00 -
[78] - Quote
First of all, thanks for working on pos's. They really needed the work.
I like the idea of personel hangars, but the notes only mention this for items. Is there any chance we could get the same for Ship maintenance arrays? That would be really nice for us wormhole people.
|
Galen Dnari
Darkhall Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:50:00 -
[79] - 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 HangarsQuote: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). Maybe each corp member gets [total volume]/[number of corp members] for himself. If that's not enough, restrict access by "rank" in the corp or some other means, or allow for multiple sizes of storage array, or allow the corp to buy extensions that increase the size. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
2375
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:52:00 -
[80] - Quote
I challenge ANY pod to find a devblog with a longer preamble disclaimer than THIS:
CCP wrote:Please be aware that when we say something is planned at this stage in the process there is absolutely no guarantee that each individual item will be delivered as part of Odyssey. The starbase code is quite old and complicated; so it is quite possible we will hit road blocks when addressing some of these features, road blocks that in some cases could render one or more of them undeliverable. Since we at CCP have made mistakes with expectations management surrounding this feature in the past we want to be very clear. This is our educated estimate of what we think we can deliver based on this time period, but we cannot rule out roadblocks arising including but not limited to: unforeseen technical hurdles blocking a feature, the starbase code gaining self-awareness, seizing the buildingGÇÖs climate control system and roasting us all alive, and/or emergency response tasks taking developer time from feature work. Development within CCP is very fast paced, problems come up, schedules and priorities sometimes change; this is an unavoidable reality of game development. We will be working very hard to deliver these changes to you all in the Odyssey expansion, and we will keep you all up to date on our progress.
LOL! Hilarious! Longerst. Devblog disclaimer. Ever.
No... but the changes look good... looking forward to it!
|
|
Mascha Tzash
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:54:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Sweet blog! Think this one will push you over 5k?
It only counts if he gets OVER 9000!!!! |
Sedrie
Apple Industries Inc. Surely You're Joking
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:55:00 -
[82] - Quote
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. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:56:00 -
[83] - Quote
Please tell me you are working on a way for Alliance members to have access to item storage (possibly actually enabling the "alliance" option in the "give" and "take" menu's for ALL of the arrays...) currently the method of using the new freight cans (if dropped by each member) works okay, but very stellar fix if you ask me.
|
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:57:00 -
[84] - Quote
Sedrie wrote:There's no station trading in a POS, so without shared hangars between Billy and Timmy, he's got little other options.
Nobody said anything about removing the current CHA structures. Those will probably continue to exist in their current state. As I understand it, the new personal hangar will be a different structure entirely and work like a customs office.
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:58:00 -
[85] - Quote
I would have preferred you tackled the issue of corporation roles & permissions with regard to security of jobs and the POS tower & arrays first. But I can see these proposed ideas will be good and a first step to getting this important area of the game made fit for purpose. I just hope & pray we don't have to wait too long for roles & permissions to get some attention?
I agree with others comments regarding these new private hangars that CEO's of corporations should be able to empty these new hangar systems to enable POS set-ups to be dismantled in case of war-dec or another emergency reason. Or have a button to press to transport the contents to the in-system office at a NPC station if applicable.
I think probably the best idea out of those proposed is to enable ships to access all arrays as long as they are within the POS forcefield. Good idea.
|
StonerPhReaK
Ashfell Celestial Equilibrium POD-SQUAD
104
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:59:00 -
[86] - Quote
Good Read. Been wanting this forever.
I think someone disabled ones ability to like Fozzies posts, I've tried and cannot so i will just say it here... Fozzy, I like you. Signature Removal in Progress, Estimated time of completion? Neva |
Stegas Tyrano
GLU CANU Open Space Consultancy
332
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:00:00 -
[87] - Quote
Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be! Herping your derp since 19Potato --á[Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2405
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:02:00 -
[88] - Quote
Nice stuff,
however the biggest problem related to the limited amount of roles still remains.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY
382
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:07:00 -
[89] - Quote
Excellent news!!! Finally!!!! Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 16:07:00 -
[90] - Quote
Stegas Tyrano wrote:Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be!
I think it's cooler to imagine that they're nanites capable of completely disassembling things at a molecular level, moving them, and reassembling them where they need to be. It's like the Star Trek transporter system, but with cool little intelligent nanites doing the work instead of magical beams that are unlikely to ever exist in reality. What do the nanites do when they're not busy moving anyone's stuff around? Maybe they play Minecraft with molecules, building their own little nanite worlds. |
|
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! |
|
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
222
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:04:00 -
[121] - Quote
I am Nick's happy face "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Malcorath Sacerdos
Unending Dream
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:05:00 -
[122] - Quote
Here my feedback and some questions.
Normal members viewing the structure only see their own items, in the same way as when someone views the contents of a planetary customs office.
ok intresting. but what about publicly avaliable stuff?
Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars.
Again what about Publicly owned stuff ?
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.
Very intresting. if i wanted a functionability similar to a Open tab ( open for all members ) and a drop box ( a place for members to drop stuff being sold to the corp ) in this hanger would this be possible?
If a member leaves the corp, his or her items are left in the structure but cannot be accessed unless the player rejoins.
and why not let the CEO be able to acess stuff owned by players no longer apart of the corporation?
If the structure is destroyed, it drops some but not all of the loot contained within.
as expected
GÖÑ malc |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
193
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:06:00 -
[123] - Quote
I am so full of happy about this. I live out of POSes, I have set up and taken down POSes, and while there are a lot of things that this won't make better, there's so much that it will. It will tide me over until the next round, at least.
Two minor nitpicky questions that I hope the devs are thinking about:
1. Accessing guns. Those are not technically inside the shield, and previously loading guns required you to make your ship vulnerable to attack. It's a small thing, but we've had some real fun with people who set up imposing death stars but didn't load all their guns and had to motor out of their shields to do it. I can go either way on this. On one hand, it makes the setup WAY less tedious. On the other hand, it takes away a fun way that people can be stupid. The POS operator in me is going one way and the POS attacker is going completely the other, but do think about it and let us know which way it's going to go.
2. SMAs and this "Access from anywhere inside the shield" shtick. Are we going to be boarding our ships from across the POS? That's cool and all, but also has real bugtastic potential.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 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"?
The only structure you can access in an offline POS is the tower itself, so that just comes down to fueling. I assume it will just default back to the usual access distance? The online-without-shield question is also something I would like CCP to think about.
Also, for the love of god, get this stuff on Sisi as soon as you can. There is so much potential for catastrophic bugs that this needs to get as much testing as possible before release. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:07:00 -
[124] - Quote
Why prevent a director from robbing people stuff, if he cannot rob hes going to do the second best thing, imagine the tears of just go there and unanchor this new Corporate Hangar Array and the best part is that there will be no logs. He can do this and still stay in corp and nobody will know who did it.
Official CSM 8 Campaign HQ * Unforgiven Storm for CSM8 * My Blog
|
Rekkr Thorgard
Strategic Tactics And Recon Academy Strategic Tactics And Recon Corporate Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:09:00 -
[125] - Quote
All of this looks great; thanks for making an effort to fix some of the worse parts of living in WHs. I really hope the personal SMA makes it into the summer release, but even without it this will be a major improvement. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:11:00 -
[126] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote: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. if you read the main blurp about the upcoming changes with Odessey, they specifically announce that industrial changes are also in the works, just be patient for the forum thread. |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:14:00 -
[127] - Quote
Malcorath Sacerdos wrote:Here my feedback and some questions.
Normal members viewing the structure only see their own items, in the same way as when someone views the contents of a planetary customs office.
ok intresting. but what about publicly avaliable stuff?
Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars.
Again what about Publicly owned stuff ?
Um, how about you don't put publicly available stuff in a private hanger, genius. |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:15:00 -
[128] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: 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!
Because CCP always put all changes in a dev blog? |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:16:00 -
[129] - Quote
another side note, but relevant to all of this.... no where has it said that the CEO won't be able to have normal full access to everything in his POS. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:17:00 -
[130] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:Pelea Ming wrote: 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!
Because CCP always put all changes in a dev blog? They put all major changes in them, and I'd imagine that something like this would qualify as pretty major. |
|
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Yulai Federation
66
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:18:00 -
[131] - Quote
Awesomeness :)
Could you add something like looking in all labs/CHAs/whatever for the items regarding R&D jobs? Scenario is, having something like a research output, and for some jobs (especially inventions) some input materials are needed, which currently has to be in the lab with the selected slot. It'd be a relief if we could have such things in any labs, or even better, anywhere within the POS's storage arrays (whatever has a cargo).
Also, could you please take a look into those remote R&D jobs? We'd love to be able to use them on POSs, for starting jobs, without an outpost/station in the system. Also, copy slots being usable in a cross-corp/private manner would be nice.
Keep on the good work :)
|
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:20:00 -
[132] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:another side note, but relevant to all of this.... no where has it said that the CEO won't be able to have normal full access to everything in his POS.
I'm afraid CCP Fozzie did
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:22:00 -
[133] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:another side note, but relevant to all of this.... no where has it said that the CEO won't be able to have normal full access to everything in his POS. I'm afraid CCP Fozzie did CCP Fozzie wrote:
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
missed that, ty, and then I pretty heavily disagree with it... can understand waiting on directors having access, but the CEO? |
kyrieee
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
110
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:24:00 -
[134] - Quote
Already the best expansion in ages |
Malcorath Sacerdos
Unending Dream
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:25:00 -
[135] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:Malcorath Sacerdos wrote:Here my feedback and some questions.
Normal members viewing the structure only see their own items, in the same way as when someone views the contents of a planetary customs office.
ok intresting. but what about publicly avaliable stuff?
Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars.
Again what about Publicly owned stuff ?
Um, how about you don't put publicly available stuff in a private hanger, genius.
i read that this wont replace the CHA sp those functions will still work as is. wich makes my points moot ;) and alsomakes this change awesome! |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
324
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:26:00 -
[136] - Quote
Thanks for the clarification on the CMSA vs the CSAA. |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:26:00 -
[137] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: missed that, ty, and then I pretty heavily disagree with it... can understand waiting on directors having access, but the CEO?
It appears to be a technical limitation rather than an actual design feature. I can live with it as long as it's iterated on as soon as possible. |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
74
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:28:00 -
[138] - Quote
Wow nice work CSM and CCP. Sure hope all these features get through to the summer release. These enhancements should bring a smile to every WH resident in the game.
Suggestions:
- Give players the option to allow directors to access to their hanger. Or even better, only certain directors or pilots. - 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? - Try to get the player ship hangers out :). I know I know, give them in inch they ask for a mile. Just saying how nice it would be. - Perhaps have various sized player hangers (small -10,000m3, medium 25k, large 50k).
Allocate resources to POS improvement |
Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:31:00 -
[139] - Quote
Quote:Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield
Would it be correct to assume this means that doing trivial, but time consuming and important tasks like resupplying starbase turrets with ammo can now be done from anywhere inside the PoS?
Quote:Removing the sovereignty requirement from Capital Ship Maintenance Arrays
heres hoping I won't continue to see 50 goddamn orcas on D-scan every time I log into the home system because of this one.
...Fozzie if you had boobs I think I would be in love at this point. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:32:00 -
[140] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:Wow nice work CSM and CCP. Sure hope all these features get through to the summer release. These enhancements should bring a smile to every WH resident in the game.
Suggestions:
- Give players the option to allow directors to access to their hanger. Or even better, only certain directors or pilots. - 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? - Try to get the player ship hangers out :). I know I know, give them in inch they ask for a mile. Just saying how nice it would be. - Perhaps have various sized player hangers (small -10,000m3, medium 25k, large 50k).
They did say that repackaging would be input. |
|
chen Gidrine
Karman Lines Syndicate HELM Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:40:00 -
[141] - Quote
Malcorath Sacerdos wrote:Oreamnos Amric wrote:Malcorath Sacerdos wrote:Here my feedback and some questions.
Normal members viewing the structure only see their own items, in the same way as when someone views the contents of a planetary customs office.
ok intresting. but what about publicly avaliable stuff?
Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars.
Again what about Publicly owned stuff ?
Um, how about you don't put publicly available stuff in a private hanger, genius. i read that this wont replace the CHA sp those functions will still work as is. wich makes my points moot ;) and alsomakes this change awesome!
I don't know if this was covered earlier but with the fact that is is all unable to be moved by anyone other then it's owner what happens if the tower is attacked and an emergency evac is needed? Anything in the private hangers is just SOL and the best you can do is destroy it all yourself before it gets onto the attackers kill mail? |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
3513
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:44:00 -
[142] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote: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.
I disagree. The access hangars from anywhere within the shields is *huge* for industrialists. I have an alt who does highsec POS stuff (was invention, now T2/T3 production) and that change alone will be very helpful. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
3513
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:45:00 -
[143] - Quote
Kel hound wrote: heres hoping I won't continue to see 50 goddamn orcas on D-scan every time I log into the home system because of this one.
You should do what I threatened to do in Nova, force all Orca owners to fight it out at the sun, the last 5 Orcas left alive get to stay CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
254
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:46:00 -
[144] - Quote
Does the new Hangar have MAX TOTAL CAPACITY? or is it working 100% like POCO and have no maximum on sum of member hangars? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:48:00 -
[145] - Quote
Two step wrote:
You should do what I threatened to do in Nova, force all Orca owners to fight it out at the sun, the last 5 Orcas left alive get to stay
Please tell me this was fighting it out in the Orcas??? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1256
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:48:00 -
[146] - Quote
Two step wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote: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. I disagree. The access hangars from anywhere within the shields is *huge* for industrialists. I have an alt who does highsec POS stuff (was invention, now T2/T3 production) and that change alone will be very helpful.
This. Most definitely this.
Restocking Arrays is a pain if you have to take a freighter in, and you're unlucky about your exact warp in point.
If I had to pick the 'next' change for POS, it'd probably be completely private hanger arrays. Locked down to a single player (Ideally with a unified inventory in POS ;) ) Steve Ronuken for CSM 8 Handy tools and SDE conversions Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Sinooko
Gespenster Kompanie Villore Accords
48
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:51:00 -
[147] - Quote
"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars."
What about CEO's? In all honesty CEO's and Directors really need to be able to access the hangers and yank stuff out. Especially with the fact that there is limited space in those arrays. Long Live Eve Online! |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:52:00 -
[148] - Quote
chen Gidrine wrote:I don't know if this was covered earlier but with the fact that is is all unable to be moved by anyone other then it's owner what happens if the tower is attacked and an emergency evac is needed? Anything in the private hangers is just SOL and the best you can do is destroy it all yourself before it gets onto the attackers kill mail?
It was covered. CHAs will continue to exist, so you'll have the option to use them or PHAs at your discretion. If you fear that you won't be able to get on in time to move your own stuff and want directors to be able to do it, put it in a CHA instead.
Also, stuff in POS modules don't show up on killmails now, so why would you expect they'd start to? I'm a software developer with a ton of experience myself, so I feel qualified in saying that by and large developers are lazy creatures. We won't code something we weren't tasked to unless it serves our own laziness (lots of throwaway code snippets or mini projects are produced in order to automate stuff we do manually which would otherwise waste our time). I assume that you just weren't aware that module killmails don't show contents, just the death of the module. |
Lev Ariss
Intelli-core Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:53:00 -
[149] - Quote
Overall a great improvement, for POS
Security management has always been the main issue of cha's/sma's
Hopefully everything mentioned will be complete in time for the expansion and then a proper major POS revamp in the future :)
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1256
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:54:00 -
[150] - Quote
Sinooko wrote:"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars."
What about CEO's? In all honesty CEO's and Directors really need to be able to access the hangers and yank stuff out. Especially with the fact that there is limited space in those arrays.
Limited per user. not limited overall. Steve Ronuken for CSM 8 Handy tools and SDE conversions Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Sinooko
Gespenster Kompanie Villore Accords
48
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:58:00 -
[151] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sinooko wrote:"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars."
What about CEO's? In all honesty CEO's and Directors really need to be able to access the hangers and yank stuff out. Especially with the fact that there is limited space in those arrays. Limited per user. not limited overall.
So this thing can take in anything I want to stuff in it? And the next 20 or so guys? AND THEN STILL HAVE ROOM!? What a *****... Long Live Eve Online! |
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
273
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:59:00 -
[152] - Quote
Good work, but don't lose perspective. Complete POS overhaul still needs to happen.
And soon. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Torrelus Toh'Kon
Cadre Assault Force This is why we cant have nice things
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:01:00 -
[153] - Quote
As a first round of updates, the stuff listed in the blog looks like an ideal start. Fozzie, consider yourself approved by the community.
Quick thoughts on the issue of individual hanger space limits. Would the idea be to have a maximum total capacity on the array? I would assume so, in which case I see the following two options - 1) Multiple arrays of varying size, e.g. S/M/L. All arrays would have identical number of hangers, but hanger sizes scale with array size. 2) 'One size fits all' array, or multiple sizes, doesn't matter. Critical factor, POS Operators can specify the number of internal hangers, to whom each is assigned, and the volume allotted (e.g. 5000m3 increments).
On the surface the first option would seem simpler, BUT surely any given array will NOT have an unlimited capacity (therefore inline with current array instead of NPC station hanger). This being the case there will be a need for a finite number of hangers in an array, and therefore there will in either above case, be a need to somehow assign hanger slots to corp members. If this is true, then I fully recommend the second of the options suggested above.
Wish I could be at CCP doing this with you guys. The whole concept of POS rebuild and modularization has had my brain throwing around software designs for months. |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:10:00 -
[154] - Quote
Torrelus Toh'Kon wrote:On the surface the first option would seem simpler, BUT surely any given array will NOT have an unlimited capacity (therefore inline with current array instead of NPC station hanger).
Incorrect. They will have infinite capacity as far as the module is concerned. The limits to capacity are on the characters.
Nobody is shocked that customs offices can store an infinite amount of crap in 35,000 m^3 allotments per character that no other player in the game has access to. The new PHA will be no different, except the amount that can be stored per character will probably be smaller.
It is done this way because it allows the array to remain for personal access only, without worrying that orphaned assets aren't cutting into other people's available storage space and without the need to give anyone access to it except the character to whom the assets belong. If orphaned assets were to take up the module's available m^3, I'd be the first in line requesting that directors had access to them because it's inevitable that the space would get chewed up by people who aren't playing Eve anymore or who have left the corp. |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:13:00 -
[155] - Quote
Torrelus Toh'Kon wrote: Quick thoughts on the issue of individual hanger space limits. Would the idea be to have a maximum total capacity on the array? I would assume so
For the love of all things shiny, we've been told the storage space will be infinite. This has been reiterated by lots of people. Infinite space is infinite so there is no maximum. |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Unclaimed.
210
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:14:00 -
[156] - Quote
Georgiy Giggle wrote:''If the structure is unanchored, all contents are destroyed.'' - Really? Kidding? What about accidents? To lose all stuff only cuz you can't create something smarter?
"The exact per-character volume is undecided but we are currently considering a range from 10,000m3 to 40,000m3." - bullshit! 40k m3 is ONE (JUST ONE) full cargohold of mining barge. What will he do mine more?
If you unanchor any structure in a POS, its contents are destroyed. I feel sorry for the people living in your POS, if you didn't know that. You'd have to be pretty stupid to unanchor a module accidentally, since the game asks for confirmation before allowing you to do so.
No competent miner uses the current corp hangar for storage. They use the XL ship array. |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
43
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:14:00 -
[157] - Quote
I'm literally dancing at my computer to CCP RubberBand's youtube link after reading this! SOOO HAPPY
Also, thanks for the clarification that it's CSMAs and not CSAAs--For a second I was excited about fighting sleepers and invaders with a Nyx (that would have brought up SO many questions. Supercap escalations!?) But yeah, regular CSMAs are great!
Balancing rules for the future pSMA will be more complicated than for the pCHA. If someone's not available / on vacation / quits during an evacuation and/or POS reinforce, there will be no way to evac or self-destruct their stuff to deter looters, as is currently done with everything in an SMA, unless directors or people with some sort of role have access to personal ship hangers. Of course that would somewhat remove the "personal" nature of the ship hanger. Luckily it's less an issue for the pCHA since those aren't accessible during reinforced mode anyway. For the pSMA I'm not sure whether that'd be a desirable consequence. |
pmota
the muppets DARKNESS.
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:19:00 -
[158] - Quote
POS are not Player Owned STATIONs like stated in the devblog. They used to be player owned structures and I believe they are now player owned starbases.
|
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative
58
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:20:00 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
that being said until you do add it I will not be allowing these "PHAs" in my wormhole. This will create more problems than it does solves. I suspect I stand with almost every large WH corp in saying that this needs to be looked at.
with that one exception I love everything else in this blog. |
Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Eternal Evocations
51
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:22:00 -
[160] - Quote
So, is it me or does this mean that CSAAs will be more prevelant in lowsec, which means nullsec alliances will have to care about this space and figure out how to attack it and defend it well? |
|
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:24:00 -
[161] - Quote
ExookiZ wrote: This will create more problems than it does solves. I suspect I stand with almost every large WH corp in saying that this needs to be looked at.
Please elaborate on the problems this creates for you that is so terrible you don't want them in your hole. |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:26:00 -
[162] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:ExookiZ wrote: This will create more problems than it does solves. I suspect I stand with almost every large WH corp in saying that this needs to be looked at. Please elaborate on the problems this creates for you that is so terrible you don't want them in your hole.
There are lots of things I don't want in my hole, but to each their own. Don't ask, don't tell...
|
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:26:00 -
[163] - Quote
Atomic Option wrote:If someone's not available / on vacation / quits during an evacuation and/or POS reinforce, there will be no way to evac or self-destruct their stuff to deter looters, as is currently done with everything in an SMA, unless directors or people with some sort of role have access to personal ship hangers.
If you're going on extended leave from the game, then move your crap to an NPC station in known space. It's inconvenient, but also a surefire way not to lose your crap.
Atomic Option wrote:Of course that would somewhat remove the "personal" nature of the ship hanger.
Therein lies the rub. This is why I support the devs' current conception and not any of the players' suggestions to the contrary. Personal means personal, and it's something K-space dwellers take for granted. Your stuff in an NPC station cannot be touched/taken/lost by anyone other than a GM and drunken you. Drunken you doesn't know better, but leads to hilarious stories of losses for the rest of the community. The rest of us support drunken you in all of his drunken endeavors, for your tears are delicious. ;) |
Marsan
Emergency and I
93
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:31:00 -
[164] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote: 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.
I disagree that these are all WH use case. They are great features for wormhole dwellers because wormhole dwellers live and die out of a POS, and anything that helps POS will help us. These are multi-user use cases, and will greatly help anyone who has multiple people in a POS. If you are a solo industrialist POS user I can see how nothing other than the inventory changes is helpful. This is just hopefully the 1st pass on POSes. I'm hoping that the Summer expansion includes a few nice bonuses like being able to queue up more jobs in the various arrays, and reduces the POS penalty to refining.
Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a hopeful small portion of the community. |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:32:00 -
[165] - Quote
Not having CEO and Directors able to empty member hangers will mean increased timescales for moving POSs - i.e. a notice period to move your stuff or it will be lost for good. Without making the member hangers in pCHAs accessible to CEOs and Directors there will be plenty of times where a POS move results in destruction of player property. Even with a notice time period there will be people who didn't or couldn't log in.
I don't have a massive issue with the destruction of stuff, just having to wait a week or two because some mechanic is dumb. |
Danny Centauri
Huzzah Industries
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:33:00 -
[166] - Quote
Dissapointed you missed the easiest change that would make an actual difference to industry players.
Remove the material penalties from advanced ship assembly arrays! In order to manufacture hulls in a POS and take more risk we have to pay more...
This should be simple like stupidly simple, just goes to show there really isn't anyone on the CSM focussing on industry and how they get their ships to shoot each other in the face. There was a lot of hope with the POS tweaks hey who knows perhaps industry will get some love in the winter release. EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
254
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:35:00 -
[167] - Quote
And Fozzie - while looking at POS structures, can You look at the problem with no ships droping from destroyed SMA??? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:38:00 -
[168] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:Not having CEO and Directors able to empty member hangers will mean increased timescales for moving POSs - i.e. a notice period to move your stuff or it will be lost for good. Without making the member hangers in pCHAs accessible to CEOs and Directors there will be plenty of times where a POS move results in destruction of player property. Even with a notice time period there will be people who didn't or couldn't log in.
I don't have a massive issue with the destruction of stuff, just having to wait a week or two because some mechanic is dumb.
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. If directors, or at least the CEO, can access personal hangars, I'm happy about it. If it stays inaccessible to anyone other than the character who put it there, I'm not a fan, and would argue that they're more of a liability than a help.
|
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:39:00 -
[169] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:And Fozzie - while looking at POS structures, can You look at the problem with no ships droping from destroyed SMA???
Eh? I've shot SMAs for the candy inside before. Never noticed a problem. Are you sure the SMA wasn't empty to begin with? |
Schwein Hosen
DuckPus Fightclub
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:39:00 -
[170] - Quote
2 Things:
Cargo Scanners: Please correct the bug to make cargo scanners actually work on offline POS modules. Currently they activate but always show nothing, giving you the impression that there is no loot even if there actually is loot that can drop. This is a big deal when plundering POS's. If there is no loot that can drop, it may be worth your time to destroy the tower and unanchor the modules, but if there is loot you would be better off destroying the modules.
POS Module Kill Mails: Also, in relation to this, please fix POS module kill mails to actually show the loot that was dropped or destroyed. The hard part of generating the kill mails was already done, now we just need to make them accurate... In the current system, if someone destroys someone else's T2 BPO in a POS module, no one except the POS owner will know that it happened. That's not very much in the spirit of EVE... |
|
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:40:00 -
[171] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:Oreamnos Amric wrote:Not having CEO and Directors able to empty member hangers will mean increased timescales for moving POSs - i.e. a notice period to move your stuff or it will be lost for good. Without making the member hangers in pCHAs accessible to CEOs and Directors there will be plenty of times where a POS move results in destruction of player property. Even with a notice time period there will be people who didn't or couldn't log in.
I don't have a massive issue with the destruction of stuff, just having to wait a week or two because some mechanic is dumb. 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. If directors, or at least the CEO, can access personal hangars, I'm happy about it. If it stays inaccessible to anyone other than the character who put it there, I'm not a fan, and would argue that they're more of a liability than a help. I'd not considered that. I am clearly not as devious as you. That does cast an ugly angle on these pCHAs. Bugger.... |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
341
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:42:00 -
[172] - Quote
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.
What about just letting us create as many tab as we want in CHAs ? With associated rights. Hop, done. Personal hangars without creating a new instancied module with infinite room blablabla. G££ <= Me |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
172
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:43:00 -
[173] - 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.
Not letting CEOs and directors access the personal hangars is not going to yield more loot in wormhole invasions. The people who take the scorched earth policy will, as they always have with every other item-containing POS mod, unanchor it and nuke everything. Fixing this would do more to incentivize invasions than making it so that people ritually unanchor their PHAs when they're sieged. You really don't see rapid evacuation by the invaded that much. It's far more common to see rapid self-destruction of everything they have. Rapid evacuation is what the invaders do when they're extracting post-op. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
357
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:43:00 -
[174] - Quote
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 |
Count of MonteCylon
Wiziam
44
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:44:00 -
[175] - Quote
I feel that giving starbases a magic amount of unlimited storage space (limited per person, but otherwise it's magic) would damage the sense of realism and consequence in Eve because to my knowledge nothing else has unlimited space. You are forced to deal with and manage all sorts of limitations in other areas, for one small star base to house a hundred million m3 and another one to house only three people's worth of space would be strange. Even "somewhere" is a real place. |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:44:00 -
[176] - Quote
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.
"This code is crap and poorly commented and I'd have to reimplement it from scratch" counts as a technical limitation, and I don't have a hard time believing it at all ;) It gets extra embarrassing when it was code I wrote myself from a year or so ago...
|
ROSSLINDEN0
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
84
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:51:00 -
[177] - Quote
"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars."
What about ceo's? i find myself having to take down someones pos and storing their assets in a secure hanger elsewhere if they have to go afk from game for some reason so this would kind of **** that up and id have to blow the hangers up each time. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4967
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:51:00 -
[178] - Quote
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.
Count of MonteCylon wrote:I feel that giving starbases a magic amount of unlimited storage space (limited per person, but otherwise it's magic) would damage the sense of realism and consequence in Eve because to my knowledge nothing else has unlimited space. You are forced to deal with and manage all sorts of limitations in other areas, for one small star base to house a hundred million m3 and another one to house only three people's worth of space would be strange.
Customs offices have exactly the same mechanic of unlimited total space but limited space per character. Also stations have infinite interiors. Quantum storage is the wave of the future. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:57:00 -
[179] - Quote
ROSSLINDEN0 wrote:"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars."
What about ceo's? i find myself having to take down someones pos and storing their assets in a secure hanger elsewhere if they have to go afk from game for some reason so this would kind of **** that up and id have to blow the hangers up each time.
Been answered to death. Go hunting backwards. |
ROSSLINDEN0
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
84
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:02:00 -
[180] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:ROSSLINDEN0 wrote:"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars."
What about ceo's? i find myself having to take down someones pos and storing their assets in a secure hanger elsewhere if they have to go afk from game for some reason so this would kind of **** that up and id have to blow the hangers up each time. Been answered to death. Go hunting backwards. Yeah i came back to edit my post but you'd already quoted me :P |
|
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:03:00 -
[181] - 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.
To Hek with the people unwilling to take risk (hello? wormholes? pure risk?), but if you're looking for a reason to give CEO/director access to personal hangar, it's to prevent a situation where an average member can do something that a CEO/director can't. Stuff can be stolen from existing CHAs, yes, but anything that's anywhere in any POS module can be accessed by the CEO/directors. Making a POS module where a trolling thief can put other people's stuff (taken from CHA, lab, assembly array, whatever) and deny them access to it, and a CEO/director can't touch it either, would be a new vulnerability.
At that point, from the system you describe, the only way to even have a chance of getting that "stuff" back would be to offline the tower and blow up the personal hangar array and hope for the best. Ew.
|
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:09:00 -
[182] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie]Making a POS module where a trolling thief can put other people's stuff (taken from CHA, lab, assembly array, whatever) and deny them access to it, and a CEO/director can't touch it either, would be a new vulnerability.
As opposed to just putting it in a carrier/Orca/freighter/hauler and logging off? This is no new threat to anyone. You could fly the stuff out to a customs office and dump it in there now if you wanted. With the new PHA, the CEO and Directors will be able to see what you have in it, so they can sanction you accordingly for thefts. If you want to profit from your spoils, you'll still have to drag it out of the wormhole in something that anyone in the corp can blow up. |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:13:00 -
[183] - Quote
Tshaowdyne Dvorak wrote:Kennesaw Breach wrote:Making a POS module where a trolling thief can put other people's stuff (taken from CHA, lab, assembly array, whatever) and deny them access to it, and a CEO/director can't touch it either, would be a new vulnerability. As opposed to just putting it in a carrier/Orca/freighter/hauler and logging off? This is no new threat to anyone. You could fly the stuff out to a customs office and dump it in there now if you wanted. With the new PHA, the CEO and Directors will be able to see what you have in it, so they can sanction you accordingly for thefts. If you want to profit from your spoils, you'll still have to drag it out of the wormhole in something that anyone in the corp can blow up.
Fair point but not everyone has an Orca alt or would be willing to commit an Orca to a wormhole they intend to rob. What Kennesaw is laying out is a way anyone could easily instigate asset deprivation. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:13:00 -
[184] - Quote
Hallemotherfuckinglujah. |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:14:00 -
[185] - Quote
Tshaowdyne Dvorak wrote:Kennesaw Breach wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie]Making a POS module where a trolling thief can put other people's stuff (taken from CHA, lab, assembly array, whatever) and deny them access to it, and a CEO/director can't touch it either, would be a new vulnerability. As opposed to just putting it in a carrier/Orca/freighter/hauler and logging off? This is no new threat to anyone. You could fly the stuff out to a customs office and dump it in there now if you wanted. With the new PHA, the CEO and Directors will be able to see what you have in it, so they can sanction you accordingly for thefts. If you want to profit from your spoils, you'll still have to drag it out of the wormhole in something that anyone in the corp can blow up.
True that there's no new threat, merely an extension and convenience factor to an existing one. I just don't like the idea of there being something in a POS I manage that I can't manage. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
173
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:14:00 -
[186] - 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.
That would be great if CHAs were a sane way to do personal item storage at all, ever. Right now it's cans or bust, and I could write you an essay about how using cans to organize your things in a CHA is a nightmare. Usually every tab is in use by the corp for sorting its own things. If we were just choosing between public storage and private storage, that would be fine. But you're asking us to choose between "finally I can store my own things in a simple, easy to access manner" and "my stuff can't be totally locked down utterly at this time for whatever reason so it's back to the old ways".
If you're really intent on keeping PHAs 100% secure and personal, are you at least considering another type of module with a lower tier of security but similar ways of dividing up items so we can have the best (and corp-thieving worst, should we choose to risk it) of both worlds?
And, to change the subject a little, will PHAs become inaccessible the same way CHAs do when the POS is reinforced? |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:20:00 -
[187] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:Fair point but not everyone has an Orca alt or would be willing to commit an Orca to a wormhole they intend to rob. What Kennesaw is laying out is a way anyone could easily instigate asset deprivation.
Again: move the crap to a customs office. They're just general storage floating in space that you can put anything you like into.
Also, who needs to move an Orca or any such thing into a WH in order to rob them? You just train up your character(s) to be able to fly an Orca/all the freighters/carriers and you steal one of those too. Why go small in your theft when you can nab a 1.5 billion ISK freighter or even more disgustingly expensive carrier if that's what you're infiltrating a corp to do? Also, don't most people just strip every ship they can of valuable modules and self destruct all the ones they can't easily move for the insurance?
I'm no corp thief, but I can certainly think like one, and have read enough posts on heists committed in the past to get the gist of how those guys operate. It's called "casing the joint." In real life heists, people figure out what they can easily take with them and plan to do that quickly. Yes, the bank's whole safe did cost them a ton to have installed, but it also weighs several tons and is much harder to make off with than the contents of a specific few safety deposit boxes which may well contain bearer bonds or other valuable assets that are worth more than what's in the whole rest of the bank. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1173
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:26:00 -
[188] - Quote
Seleene wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Big thanks to everyone who has provided us with their Starbase change requests so far and special thanks to the CSM for being extremely helpful at getting your constructive requests to us. FINALLY we can talk about this stuff we've been doing nothing about!!!!! Still waiting on LEGOS in space, but this is a good start. Yuppers.
Over all, a good first slice at the problem. I find the DevBlog to be full of encouraging news. Carry on smartly!
Edit: Roles still need re-doing, to be sure, but this change as proposed is sensible and gives me a warm fuzzy that we're going to see continued effort down this path. Kindly don't disapoint us, please! As you were. 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 |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:30:00 -
[189] - Quote
Tshaowdyne Dvorak wrote: Again: move the crap to a customs office. They're just general storage floating in space that you can put anything you like into.
I'm not 100% on this, but I'm fairly certain POCOs will only hold PI materials. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1173
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:32:00 -
[190] - Quote
Sedrie wrote:If you were to hang out at your local supermarket, the guys buying bulk quantities of tissues are the wormhole residents after reading this update.
brb, I need to run to the store. Nope. This is a first step on a lengthy process - It'll make life better for W-space residents such as myself, over all.
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 |
|
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:32:00 -
[191] - Quote
Two step wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote: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. I disagree. The access hangars from anywhere within the shields is *huge* for industrialists. I have an alt who does highsec POS stuff (was invention, now T2/T3 production) and that change alone will be very helpful.
When I said "primarily", this was the change I had in mind. And it IS a nice change to be sure (not huge but nice). Still, there is so many other aspects of industrial life that need attention that I still feel it is pretty underwhelming. It is a good improvement package for you WH guys though, and admittedly - you probably needed changes the most. |
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
The Dark Space Initiative
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:35:00 -
[192] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:Tshaowdyne Dvorak wrote: Again: move the crap to a customs office. They're just general storage floating in space that you can put anything you like into.
I'm not 100% on this, but I'm fairly certain POCOs will only hold PI materials.
Verified. I was wrong about this and you are correct. I never did try until now. Still, GSCs anchored in a safe spot. Hard to track down (but not impossible) and can only be killed to be rid of. Nobody can get into them either. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1173
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:36:00 -
[193] - 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 believe this is deliberate, and I think it's to force some W-Space dwellers out into K-Space every now and again.
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 |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1173
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:40:00 -
[194] - Quote
Psihius wrote:Well, maybe CEO/Director should not be able to take stuff while character is in the corporation, but when he's out - access should be allowed. Fair point. When someone is booted, you don't want to leave all their crud littering up the Corp spaces. And if you're kind-hearted enough to want to give them their crap back, well, it'd be nice to have some mechanism for that. 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 |
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
409
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:42:00 -
[195] - Quote
My favorite part of the blog is where they are going to allow Capital Ship Maintenance Arrays in other places. Always annoyed me when we couldn't put them on our POS just because we didn't hold sovereignty out in 0.0. Would make things much more convenient and easier with them. Also, another good thing is accessing stuff from anywhere inside the POS shield. Was always a pain in the ass slow boating to the arrays in a cap ship to access the hangars and so on. *removed inappropriate signature* - CCP Eterne |
Bryg Philomena
Kosher Nostra SCUM.
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:43:00 -
[196] - Quote
Quote:If a member leaves the corp, his or her items are left in the structure but cannot be accessed unless the player rejoins.
This worries me. As there is no way to contract, sell, move, courier, or trash the items in question they are essentially lost to both the player and the corp.
Griefing would be way too easy. Kick a player out and they lose everything. Hell, I wouldn't mind so much if it got put into a deliveries hanger there so the directors can access it, move it, sell it, use it, whatever. But locking it down sounds like a bad idea, IMO. |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:44:00 -
[197] - Quote
Tshaowdyne Dvorak wrote:Verified. I was wrong about this and you are correct. I never did try until now. Still, GSCs anchored in a safe spot. Hard to track down (but not impossible) and can only be killed to be rid of. Nobody can get into them either.
My point is that making it in the POS at the new personal hangar makes it trivial to deny access to resources. I know it's not a new threat, but the personal hangar array makes denial of access literally a drag and drop thing for the trolling thief, with no recourse from the POS managers. Philosophically, I don't like having a POS module with aspects that are off limits to the POS managers and POS owner.
|
Seismic Stan
385
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:44:00 -
[198] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks to new advances in starbase technology, tiny drones will now carry items to and fro within the shield bubble.
I'd love to see an animation for this, even if it's just the standard tractor beam. This wouldn't just be aesthetic, it could be useful to have a visual representation of activity. Seeing beams of light flickering across industrial starbases would be a helpful indicator for both corpmates and other, more nefarious observers. A constant beam from operator ship to POS module being used would be ideal.
At the very least it would highlight the difference between the AFK and the active. Plus the starbase and occupants would look more like an ongoing industrial concern rather than just stuff floating idly. Freebooted - Tech4 News - Incarna: The Text Adventure - Guild Launch EVE Correspondent |
Christopher Mabata
Scionian Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:46:00 -
[199] - Quote
Im glad to see these changes finally arriving, and so soon at that. I get that not all of it will be able to go live by the 4th but It is a great start. Especially the edits to personal hangars and interbubble access which will make this soo much easier especially when youve got an orca full of ore to bring over to an assembly array moving at like 3m/s Lol.
Just on a side note for another change i might reccomend would be the refining arrays, I hate that you need to be in .3 or lower to use them its a terrible drag on time and efficency to have to go find an Empty .3 moon rather than the .4 you already have set up especially for people who cant enter high sec. It would be great if they could be anchored there and linked to either a silo or corp hangar as well to make it simpler on everyone who uses them.
Other than that looking foreward to the new expansion and what secrets it holds for us all haha |
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
301
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:48:00 -
[200] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote: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. That would be great if CHAs were a sane way to do personal item storage at all, ever. Right now it's cans or bust, and I could write you an essay about how using cans to organize your things in a CHA is a nightmare. My corp just has multiple CHAs. Each person has a specific tab in a specific array. To say we have a bit of a sprawl going on would be underselling it, and we have some people utilizing a few sections of the assembly arrays.
silens vesica 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 believe this is deliberate, and I think it's to force some W-Space dwellers out into K-Space every now and again. Aside from the fact we still have to sell stuff to make any money?
Refining arrays suck just as much in a POS in the ass end of null. |
|
Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
208
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:50:00 -
[201] - Quote
With the introduction of the new corp hanger. will it be possible to mount them near the outter edges of the Pos shield so mates could pick up items with out entering the shields.
I am a paranoid guy some times and having my Rorqual bumped out of the POS (those evil spys)
I would like to offer my corp mates a storage space in my POS just not access to fly inside the bubble. Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY
382
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:52:00 -
[202] - 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.
Can we have a Capital Personal Hangar? Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:53:00 -
[203] - Quote
Two step wrote:Glad to see this finally go public. The changes in the dev blog should go a long way towards making POSes a lot less of a pain, especially if the private storage SMA makes the release. Last year you said that POS revamp issues were under NDA, and not only that, but the REASONS for CCP wanting a total POS revamp were also under NDA. So what were those reasons? Or are they still under NDA?
As for the devblog itself, this is wonderful news! All of it. I'm sure 90% of players would approve of an Odyssey launch delay if it takes an extra couple of weeks to get all of it done.
These changes address just about every issue players have had with POSes over the last few years. So what was the reason again for blowing us off (and two step [who despite my dislike of him has been the best CSM7 member]) last year in favor of some pie-in-the-sky "POS 2.0" system that never got off the ground? These changes should have been delivered in..... what was the name of last December's expansion again?
I'll end on a positive note. These POS changes are awesome. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1173
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:54:00 -
[204] - Quote
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. 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 |
bruestle2
Broshield
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:55:00 -
[205] - Quote
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.
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
175
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:57:00 -
[206] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote: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. That would be great if CHAs were a sane way to do personal item storage at all, ever. Right now it's cans or bust, and I could write you an essay about how using cans to organize your things in a CHA is a nightmare. My corp just has multiple CHAs. Each person has a specific tab in a specific array. To say we have a bit of a sprawl going on would be underselling it, and we have some people utilizing a few sections of the assembly arrays.
If it's feasible that works, but there comes a time when the sheer fuel and space requirement becomes prohibitive. I don't envy you the roles management for that, though. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
162
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:00:00 -
[207] - Quote
Will there be support in the EVE API for the per-character container? i.e. within http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_API_Corporation_Asset_List
There's a few outcomes I could think of, from worst to best:
(1) API broken for anyone who anchors one of them (2) Contents don't show in API (3) Contents show, but all jumbled together (4) Contents show, in separate subcontainers, but no indication who owns what. (5) Contents show, in separate subcontainers, and a characterID attribute on the subcontainer showing whose it is.
vote steve https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=7933451 |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1173
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:03:00 -
[208] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:silens vesica 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 believe this is deliberate, and I think it's to force some W-Space dwellers out into K-Space every now and again. Aside from the fact we still have to sell stuff to make any money? Refining arrays suck just as much in a POS in the ass end of null. 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. 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 |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3853
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:03:00 -
[209] - Quote
Bryg Philomena wrote:Quote:If a member leaves the corp, his or her items are left in the structure but cannot be accessed unless the player rejoins. This worries me. As there is no way to contract, sell, move, courier, or trash the items in question they are essentially lost to both the player and the corp. Griefing would be way too easy. Kick a player out and they lose everything. Hell, I wouldn't mind so much if it got put into a deliveries hanger there so the directors can access it, move it, sell it, use it, whatever. But locking it down sounds like a bad idea, IMO. I belive that is why it is set up that way, there is no way to profit from kicking a player out so as to confiscate his stuff. If you unanchor the tower the stuff is automatically destroyed. Now you can blow it up, but then only have normal loot drop chances... which means except under unusual circumstances will likely not be very profitable. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
610
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:11:00 -
[210] - Quote
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!!! HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
|
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.
|
|
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 HangarsQuote: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 starbaseWill this become possible within carriers, Rorqual, Orcas as well? I hope so! Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shieldAs 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. |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 05:35:00 -
[271] - Quote
Alsculard VanHellsing wrote: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) Some anonymous entities is not a valid argument. Please explain how it leads to "bareface trolling" and degradation? |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 05:42:00 -
[272] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote: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. Happens every time people are forced into communism. More options for capitalism, please. Personal hangars as a guarantee of private property is a right decision. Also want to implement a market on my POS. |
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 05:42:00 -
[273] - Quote
I have to agree with many of the posts here. There should be some way for ceo's, directors, or corp members with some certain role to be able to move items to and from other people's hangar bays.
On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable. It also greatly decreases the chances of them continuing their subscription. I had one corp member who was with us for the better part of a year, left for a few months, returned, and, because he had been dropped from corp while he wasn't playing, lost the expensive ship he had logged out in to our own automatic POS guns. He stopped playing shortly after that and has not returned. Imagine how much this would be amplified if someone returns to find out all the items they've been collecting in their WH home are now gone.
Now, of course this happens currently when a corp theft happens, and when the POS is attacked. But, there's a key difference here. Currently, the person to blame is the corp thief, or the attacking force. But, with the change, the person to blame for all your stuff being lost would be the corp CEO or directors. You're the one that took down the POS. If you don't want to destroy people's stuff, you'd have to keep up old POSs indefinitely, making moving or changing POS models prohibitively expensive.
I don't want to be forced to decide between preserving billions of isk worth of my corp member's items, and moving to a new system so that my corporation can grow and thrive.
My corp has lived in quite a number of different wormhole systems over the years, and every time we've moved, we've hauled everyone's stuff out and saved it for them, whether they were currently active or not. |
Hitoni Jaynara
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 06:04:00 -
[274] - Quote
Here is one thing that I havent seen (I will admit that I didnt read ALL of the thread) - allowing the ability to have super-capitals stored in lo-sec/wh areas. With that ability (mainly in lo-sec), wouldnt it be easier for the large, null-sec alliances to move closer into high-sec by denying acess to the lo-sec area for people who arent in those alliances? I dont know about you, but this fills me with dread - giving the ability to these alliances to "take over" another part of EVE is an even more dreadfull idea and limits exploration for everyone.
Just my badly worded ha-pennies worth there. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 06:10:00 -
[275] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable. 1. You can always choose to never anchor a new PHA, only use CHA. 2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc. 3. You're a CEO, damn it, not a baby-sitter. If corpmates connot care for themselves and their property - should you care? If you choose to be a baby-sitter though, you have an option #1.
PS: I bet that player who lost his tengu to POS guns whould have quit anyway. |
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 06:37:00 -
[276] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable. 1. You can always choose to never anchor a new PHA, only use CHA.
That's another way of saying "your corp can never have more than 13 members". This change would let us do away with that restriction. I'd rather like to finally be able to grow my corp above this arbitrary limit we've had to live with so far.
Sinzor Aumer wrote: 2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc.
I wasn't talking about evacuation due to being attacked. I was talking about moving to a wormhole system that better suits the needs of our corp members.
Also, you seem to have missed the part where I stated:
Now, of course this happens currently when a corp theft happens, and when the POS is attacked. But, there's a key difference here. Currently, the person to blame is the corp thief, or the attacking force. But, with the change, the person to blame for all your stuff being lost would be the corp CEO or directors. You're the one that took down the POS.
Additionally recall that I was trying to prove the following point:
this change will lead to "corporate interpersonal relation degradation"
Sinzor Aumer wrote: 3. You're a CEO, damn it, not a baby-sitter. If corpmates connot care for themselves and their property - should you care? If you choose to be a baby-sitter though, you have an option #1.
We have always been a corp where RL comes first. If something happens in RL that pulls you away from EVE for weeks, or months, we want our members to know that their stuff will still be there when they come back, even if you had to stop playing suddenly, with no time to prepare in game.
And, as for option #1, well, I don't want to be limited to 13 members.
Sinzor Aumer wrote:PS: I bet that player who lost his tengu to POS guns whould have quit anyway.
It wasn't a tengu, and while he may have left anyway, this occurrence increased the chances of him leaving quite a bit. Seems to me that CCP wouldn't really want to alienate returning paying subscribers. |
Gelatine
EverBroke Geeks
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 06:48:00 -
[277] - 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 is probably the best news I've read regarding EVE for a very long time. Thanks CCP and CSM7
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 07:16:00 -
[278] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: 2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc.
I wasn't talking about evacuation due to being attacked. I was talking about moving to a wormhole system that better suits the needs of our corp members. "Any reasons" was exactly as I said. EVE is a dark cold place, let me repeat that.
"13 members" - while role system is bad, it's not that bad.
Anyway, I have a solution for your type of corporation ("go play kids, daddy is always there to bail you out"). When a corpmate returns, and finds out he've lost all his hard-earned pixels - he's upset, no doubt. But then you send a corp mail: "Let's help him all we can, cause we're one family!" Folks a glad to help, they stockpile some isk. When presented, he says with tears of tender emotion: "So nice of you guys, but I cannot accept this. Let those isk go to the corp wallet to help our friendly family to prosper even greater!" Everybody happy. And I'm not trolling, even if it may seem so. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 07:52:00 -
[279] - Quote
Seems to have been some love for this post - any chance it could get a response from Fozzie or Masterplan?
|
Alsculard VanHellsing
The Dark Space Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:05:00 -
[280] - Quote
So far all the posts from my last to this one seems to continue to support what I have written. Even the counter arguments have done nothing more than reinforce it. The prospect of just having the mod available and corp denying the use of them will contribute highly to potential corp dissent. It is a lose/ lose situation in that regard. The base of the mod and the arguments to support it have been about the individual however, it is being placed in a small (compared to a station or outpost) corporate based field. The attention needed either on the fly and/or a daily basis for a w-space pos precludes a complete hands off approach. For those that read the 1st post, it was a synopsis and analysis of all the previous posts to that point. Again, more in overlords and beyond have rejected this as a good intention but it will cause more problems for w-space corps than what it will solve. |
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:34:00 -
[281] - Quote
As a small portion of the community I got to say this is great to hear, planning for living in wormholes is back on the table
Regarding CCPgames expectation management towards it's paying customers about many features in the past, IF I was making promises at my company without delivering or delivering in time or as stated, I would be fired a long time ago. Chris Roberts - I think the CCP guys did a very nice job, what they do on eve online, but it is not the style of game the first person visceral-áWing Commander, Privateer, Freelancer style (was).
Scource:-áhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU#t=16m35s |
Kamil Kamilov
Terrelian Republic.
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:34:00 -
[282] - Quote
Please do so that we could bring to the village anchored another corporation or breaking Pos anchored by hacking! |
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
423
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:36:00 -
[283] - Quote
If you get the personal SMA working this will be an awesome expansion :) If not however, the most important part will be missing.
There is a major problem with the planned new personal storage system though. Almost every serious player has alts, especially wormhole players. Many alts in fact. We usually keep all our stuff in one place where all our alts can access it because the same roles are granted to all alts of a player. But with the new system each character will have its own storage and no other character can take stuff from it. What this means is that if I deploy my main to another wormhole and then want to get one of my ships with one of my other chars, I can't because my main was the one who stored it in the SMA.
This will be a huge problem and will in fact force me to continue keeping all but the most expensive stuff in general storage.
Please consider other options and make them work if at all possible, like: Grant access to personal storage for other characters based on PERSONAL standing. This way we could set our alts or trusted friends to excellent standing and they could access our storage but no one else could. . |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
251
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:58:00 -
[284] - Quote
Very nice first pass.
2 teams on it? I guess you guys decided it's a bigger priority than it sounded like you thought it was before that threadnaught on the topic.
I'm sure many will appreciate these first steps. |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
86
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 08:59:00 -
[285] - Quote
Unfortunately the priority of the corp hangars is higher than the prio for the ship hangars.
Personal ship hangars would be much more important for us as a wormhole corp since they hold much higher value stuff.
|
Nalha Saldana
Sickology
701
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 09:29:00 -
[286] - Quote
I find it quite silly that you can get more storage by having more alts, its a cheap solution from ccp tbh.
Another way to design personal hangars would be to make a hangar with say 20 x 10k m3 hangars and have a ui where you can enter character names in rows. If you want to give more storage to someone you enter their names in more then one field, their storage is simply increased by 10k for each row. |
Celestis Kudzu
Grimlock Technologies
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 09:35:00 -
[287] - Quote
Maybe u introduce bigger arrays ?
building ammo in 20 arrays really sux
access in pos shield help but it will still stupid
secound why we can`t invent / produce more jobs at once ?
|
Max Teranous
THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:38:00 -
[288] - Quote
Sup,
I like the design on the personal hangers, the only change i would suggest is that rather have the unanchoring outright destroy everything in it, instead it drops some of the contents on unanchoring like loot in the same way as if the PSH had been destroyed.
What will happen with the current design is that if a POS needs to be moved or whatever, it's better for the owner to shoot the PSH themselves and at least get some of the contents back than unanchor it and definitely have all the contents destroyed if there's a few corp members that can't long in. (let's face it this always happens lol) It seems cockeyed for the design to encourage such behavior. |
Qual
Cornexant Research Sleeping Dragons
18
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:43:00 -
[289] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:I find it quite silly that you can get more storage by having more alts, its a cheap solution from ccp tbh.
Another way to design personal hangars would be to make a hangar with say 20 x 10k m3 hangars and have a ui where you can enter character names in rows. If you want to give more storage to someone you enter their names in more then one field, their storage is simply increased by 10k for each row.
Its hard to satify everyone. I'll rather take cheap solution NOW than a slightly better one in 12 months.... |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
877
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:50:00 -
[290] - Quote
I do think that ceos / directors should be able to take out of wormhole hangers, but with a rule, when items are taken from a hanger a notification should be issued to their owner.
Half the problem with CHAs isn't just that people can take things out, it's that there's little if no way to keep things separated once inside a particular division. The upcoming changes take a significant amount of pain out of the separation woes, but put people in a position of potentially losing all their stuff if they so much as take a weekend break or fall ill for a few days (RF Mode time).
So, IMO, it needs the option for "trusted" parties to extract all the assets. |
|
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:57:00 -
[291] - Quote
Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2406
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:06:00 -
[292] - Quote
Alternative implementation of personal hangars:
- implement titles as selectable roles in POS structure access management (we need to separate POS management roles from hangar access, really)
- increase the number of divisions per CHA to something reasonable, 12, 16, 24 or whatever
- everyone with correct title to access a CHA can set a password for a div
- CEOs and directors can override this password, or if easier, enable a master password
- same kind of divisions in SMAs
This would allow alts or even friends sharing hangars, and giving temp access to your stuff to someone else when needed. Password would cling to your pod, like POS pwd.
Separating CHA and SMA access from Starbase Fuel Tech and Config Sbase Equipment is really the most important thing we need, and having titles as roles would achieve this.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:06:00 -
[293] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:put people in a position of potentially losing all their stuff if they so much as take a weekend break or fall ill for a few days That's why you dont want to store all your stuff in a personal hangar. The choice between CHA and PHA is not obvious, and as stated by Fozzie, it's intentional. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5064
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:16:00 -
[294] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved.
Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:19:00 -
[295] - Quote
Could we have some answers for those questions?
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.
|
brinelan
The Flying Dead
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:25:00 -
[296] - Quote
How feasible would it be to be able to use a corp hanger (or the new personal hanger) or even some new R&D array for all inputs and outputs for all manufacturing and research jobs in pos arrays?
Also, having the ability for the preference settings like input and output location to be saved like they can with sell order creation.
Another annoyance is you start a job from array X, why do we then have to select that array as the first step to creating the job, why not just have it auto select the array and the input location that your blueprint etc was in when you right clicked it? It always seemed odd that I had to tell it to use the array for the job when that is where my blueprint was to begin with.
Otherwise, the changes in the blog look good and I hope they all make it to release, especially the one where you can use arrays from anywhere in the pos shields. Moving the big ships around a pos and trying not to get hung up on stuff is annoying, and having a bunch of bookmarks to the various arrays gets messy. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:32:00 -
[297] - Quote
Private Starbase Arrays --
make director access parallel current access to member hangars at stations with offices.
That is allow directors to drop but not take items into private hangars.
Not allowing drops into private hangars can however make distribution of secured corp items (e.g. ammo) to individual players unnecessarily difficult. The most likely workarounds are mandatory logon overlap between directors and each member to receive items. OR setup unsecured areas or cans where less privilege members are simply trusted to take their items only...which takes us back to where we are NOW in many ways.
If you think fumbling items into private hangar space instead of corporate space is more likely at POS - then put a default popup warning which can be disabled by the user.
Frankly I can see NO drawback to allowing directors to drop items into personal hangars. Any issue with undesired items and overflow can be solved on the private members next access where they can just jetcan the unwanted stuff ... or politely drop it back in shared corp hangar areas. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:33:00 -
[298] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved. Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge.
A checkbox poll on every POS mod! |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:49:00 -
[299] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved.
Same problem I envisioned myself, at least directors or the CEO should be given a way to move stuff to a new location. Hell, it would even be good enough to have a shinkwrapped item out of any personal hangar if need be, so nobody can use it but can only move it to the new location so the owner can unwrap it once he's back. but destroying all the stuff (presumably valuable stuff if it's in the personal hangar) if you need to relocate is plain dumb. I'd never put my personal stuff in a place where it gets blown up if the tower needs to be relocated for any reason, due to the constant danger and the shifting needs of WH life that's going to happen sooner or later. |
Seatox
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:55:00 -
[300] - Quote
Is the current PoS code as truly awful as rumor has it? Someone should keep an eye on CCP Masterplan, lest he end up in a padded cell somewhere scribbling "POS = PIECE OF SKYNET IT ALL FITS HAHAHA" on the walls in crayon. |
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 12:08:00 -
[301] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved. Same problem I envisioned myself, at least directors or the CEO should be given a way to move stuff to a new location. Hell, it would even be good enough to have a shinkwrapped item out of any personal hangar if need be, so nobody can use it but can only move it to the new location so the owner can unwrap it once he's back. but destroying all the stuff (presumably valuable stuff if it's in the personal hangar) if you need to relocate is plain dumb. I'd never put my personal stuff in a place where it gets blown up if the tower needs to be relocated for any reason, due to the constant danger and the shifting needs of WH life that's going to happen sooner or later.
Shrinkwrap idea sounds like an acceptable compromise. Especially if you plan to allow corps to rent space in their POS to other non-hostile corps -- just as NPC stations do. :)
Still kind of think term POS should be sufficient warning about theft by CEO or director though. Choose your corp wisely.
Really this destroy on unanchor idea sounds more like a request from directors of big corps who do not want to be burdened with moving personal property. They want to say "sorry had to save structures and CCP does not allow me to waste hours moving your personal junk around. Its just gone sacrificed without a thought to support the corporate good." |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
877
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 12:17:00 -
[302] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge.
It would not absolutely need a new database back end for it, I would have thought?
Perhaps consider the possibility of adding a new inventory item called, let's say "Evacuation Orders", which, if placed in a hanger, would allow a CEO / director to extract items from it. Thus if this item is not included in the drag then it is not permitted. Clearly this is something which could not be placed in the hanger by anyone but the hanger owner. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 12:31:00 -
[303] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge. It would not absolutely need a new database back end for it, I would have thought? Perhaps consider the possibility of adding a new inventory item called, let's say "Evacuation Orders", which, if placed in a hanger, would allow a CEO / director to extract items from it. Thus if this item is not included in the drag then it is not permitted. Clearly this is something which could not be placed in the hanger by anyone but the hanger owner.
I get what they are doing.
1) These new hangers will not have a Ultimate size limit... technically, you could put a million people in it, and you will never fill it up.
2) It turns into a loot Pinata, (a reason to bash a POS and destroy the corporation). If you don't want the enemy to get your cool loots.. take the damn thing down. You lose all the crap... thats the sacrifice you take for putting the array up, and thats the sacrifice the people take for storing crap in that thing.
Ok.. fine. Loot Pinata Approved, more conflict approved, complete restriction and denial of internal basic item corp theft, approved.
You could do the same thing with SMA's, restricted on ship size (Use the ORCA's or Supercapital's system).
Then people will have to use the CSMA for storing their capitals, giving people that much of a bigger target.
I'm fine with the size restriction of the hangers, but I would do it exactly like the POCO, which is 30,000m3 (Decent midground).
Come to think of it.. there are 3 main area's you could target.
1) Miners 2) PI people 3) Industrialist.
The industrialists I think are decently set, as they generally use the Large Arrays for managing their equipment to a degree (that and the stuff itself is so varied you can't do restrictions on items)
Make a Ore Storage Array. The ore storage array is a new creation by Ore Industries, though the magic of Microcompression, we are allowed to store more Ore, Ice and Gas than humanly possible in the old SMA"s, give it a cap of.. oh 5,000,000m3 (3 freighters worth). Something like that. Put 2 tabs in it. Private, Public. You can dump your stuff in your private tab, or dump it in the public tab if you need to offload it to someone else to haul it.
We can dream up stuff for a long while on this.
But please.... I should not be able to cancel my CEO's manufacturing Job, and Day 1 New Guy in Corp should not be able to cancel my manufacturing job... Fix this please.
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 12:35:00 -
[304] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:P.P.S.: My first thought was also "need a way to scoop those stuff somehow". But then I've read a reasoning from Fozzie, who said that you should have a tough choice between using CHA and PHA. The choice is hard indeed, works as intended. Just make sure your corpmates understand that.
This isn't going to be a choice between security and non-security. It's a choice between having an obnoxious, outdated method of personal storage and a convenient one at potentially significant cost if you can't log in at the drop of a hat. Me, I'm going to be keeping my cheap, crappy mods and items in the uber-private storage and still keeping the expensive, useful stuff the same way I always have -- in ships and cans. Seems a little backwards to me.
If, if a PHA does not become inaccessible when a tower is reinforced the same way a CHA does, I might feel a little more sympathetic to the "oh noes tough cookies" argument. You have a known window of time to extract your things. And if the CHA functioned at all well for personal storage, then I wouldn't care at all! But right now, it does not. I cannot repeat this enough. We are not choosing between equally accessible methods of personal storage with different risks and rewards for the different security settings. Even if it doesn't come in this release, we need some middle ground someday. Please, o gods of POS revamps, please take this under consideration. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 12:35:00 -
[305] - Quote
I understand the convenience of instantly accessing anything inside the POS shield. But it does not match concept of separate anchored structures. microdrones that can move any sized cargo instantly? The idea seems more like 50% for coding convenience of that monster the Universal Inventory system. So lame I start wonder if we will see asset management panel driven instant item movement across all of EVE explained by micro-drone generated micro-wh technology.
A control tower based tractor beam (increased mats and cost?) with some time delay per item movement would be far more realistic and give CCP opportunity for some Kickass graphic animation.
I think that as far as convenience goes most people would be willing to wait a handful of seconds for each movement.
Also why limit movement to inside POS shield? Why not let tractor beam move to structures outside shield?
Just make item being moved targetable outside POS shields and decrease rate of movement according to distance from control tower. Such that items being moved within shield complete movement within 10 seconds but ammo being moved to guns 10km outside shields might take 20 seconds. The apparent signature radius of the tractored item could be made quite large. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 12:56:00 -
[306] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Why create a new structure for the personal hangars? I know there is a balance to keep with fittings of each tower (which are horribly unbalanced at the moment ) but with the removal of variable fuel consumption this doesn't make much sense. Just 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 that PSH having infinite storage is sort of unrealistic. if you are going to do that with structures -- indeed just make it part of tower. Currently its sounds like a badly implemented WOW ag of infinite holding. A structure that services 1 member to all of largest corp in EVE sounds silly. An idea that sound driven by desire to keep UI code simple rather than code that feels realistic.
PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.
Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.
I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations. |
Ager Agemo
Imperial Collective
255
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 13:18:00 -
[307] - Quote
YAY! if you allow to anchor POS anywhere i will be very very happy! :DD |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 13:19:00 -
[308] - Quote
If the thrust of PSH is to simplify management of POS space...
If directors are not going to help save personal property when a hangar must be moved on short notice -- then the best way to reduce their work is to remove the member from director role. If you do that he has tons more free time while everyone else retains their property. Agreed directors will not always have time to save everything, but they should make a best effort.
But...
(1) simply putting a fixed cap on user space pretty much solves all a director's normal management issues about storage at a POS. It then becomes the individual members problem. Allowing director to assign different sized fixed blocks of storage to each user until PSH total space is all allocated would be super nice (like old server disk space management).
(2) Giving director button to eject everyone's stuff as shrinkwrap contents in jetcans prior to unanchor would be nice as any available body could then haul. I guess shrinkwrapped packages would need to limited to 10K m3 or jetcan as to fit into common industrial haulers.
(3) Making the total space in single structure infinite is bad. If it does need to move under proposed not director access (not even shrinkwrap eject) you have to wait much longer for massive number of members to clear personal goods before unanchor (or lose toons more member stuff).
By limiting numbers of users per PSH corps limit the number members who need to move their stuff before unanchor ...or limit losses if they cannot be contacted before move. Generally if divided some subgroup of personal storage users will reach move out goal more quickly than others. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 13:34:00 -
[309] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.
Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.
I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations.
20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 13:38:00 -
[310] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:YAY! if you allow to anchor POS anywhere i will be very very happy! :DD No, hell no! There MUST be a competition for a place to set your shop. Remember? "Location, location, location." (c) To be honest I'm so glad Fozzie took over POS revamp. He has a strong argumentation on things he does. Not just pulling something out of his nose shouting "that'd be awesome, because it rocks!" Unlike that other dev. Yes, I remember that name; no I'm not saying it aloud. |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 13:54:00 -
[311] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:If, if a PHA does not become inaccessible when a tower is reinforced the same way a CHA does, I might feel a little more sympathetic to the "oh noes tough cookies" argument. You have a known window of time to extract your things. The reinforcement timer is not designed to let you un-anchor everything and dock up safely. It's to give you the time to assemble a fleet and strike back. Cannot win? Then you loose. And that loss actually hurts. Making thou thirst for revenge... sweeeet bloody holly revenge!!!!111oneone |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:01:00 -
[312] - Quote
Fozzie is obvious a good manager and Software Engineer. But I am not sure if he is one of those who elicits clarification and help via making polarizing statements -- or if he is letting a lot of his personal opinion on how EVE should be played color his proposals.
Taken at face value the PSH proposal would make it seem Fozzie detests the idea of personal property being stored at a Corp owned POS. Thus the PSH incinerate all personal items at POS in single move design. Not sure if the idea of using only Corp stuff at POS stems from totalitarian Communist or ultra company-slave style Capitalism as the two concepts are mirror-images in practice if not moral justification. I just know its an extreme twist on what is currently possible and practiced by most in EVE.
Obviously some the extremism might be explained by allowing obsession with simplicity of coding to drive the game mechanic results - rather than having desirable game mechanics drive the necessary code. If so I applaud Fozzie for considering reduced software complexity at expense of some desired game mechanics frills. However there tradeoffs need to at least be proportionate and neither code complexity nor game mechanics suffer so much as to become unrecognizable. Balance.
bottomline: Please leave it up to the individual corps as to the degree personal property is or is not allowed in POS. PSH as single stop incinerate is not necessary. Corps can have that effect by just not providing PSH at all or PSH access or only to certain individuals. So flexible PSH with director able to drop in and take provide maximum corp flexibility |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:06:00 -
[313] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.
Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.
I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations. 20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are.
If you store it in Corp Hangar Arrays now - how is trading 1 CHA for each PSH more restrictive? Assume equal volume and 20 personal user rather than 7 tabs.
Not more restrictive UNLESS you stick with Fozzies 1 PSH per POS. I am proposing Multiple PSH model. I only suggested 1.4M m3 volume and 20 users as a starting place that might be reasonable. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:14:00 -
[314] - Quote
Tennessee Jack wrote:I get what they are doing. ... 2) It turns into a loot Pinata, (a reason to bash a POS and destroy the corporation). If you don't want the enemy to get your cool loots.. take the damn thing down. You lose all the crap... thats the sacrifice you take for putting the array up, and thats the sacrifice the people take for storing crap in that thing.
Ok.. fine. Loot Pinata Approved, more conflict approved, complete restriction and denial of internal basic item corp theft, approved. Always nice to meet another sane person ;-) Dont you think the ability of defenders to blow up all stuff kinda discourages the attacking side? And a saboteur can deal a lot of damage with a single click of a mouse - seems like a bad design, isnt it? What if a PHA remains anchored unless it's completely empty? Much better solution from any point of view, imo. Well, just imagine you log in and see a corp mail: "I accidentally our PHA, all of it. Sorry. Sincerely, 1-day noob." |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:15:00 -
[315] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.
Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.
I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations. 20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are.
Can't be more restrictive than 7 tabs per CHA now. I bet you do not have 100 members in single CHA now. Probably not even in 5 CHA.
Yes I agree we could EXPAND current POS abilities so that large corps could consolidate the need for say 3-5 POS into one POS. Pardon me but is suspect that is where most your enthusiasm comes from. And maybe to some degree you are correct.
I am just saying a POS does not support storage for 1000 members today and it should not tomorrow.
But yeah maybe CCP needs to look close at how many people each POS size should support for personal storage. IDK maybe 20 per PSH is high and maybe its low. I did not set that proposed number in stone. I just said storage for all of GOONSWARM at a single POS seems ridiculous especially in one cheap structure.
|
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:19:00 -
[316] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Tennessee Jack wrote:I get what they are doing. ... 2) It turns into a loot Pinata, (a reason to bash a POS and destroy the corporation). If you don't want the enemy to get your cool loots.. take the damn thing down. You lose all the crap... thats the sacrifice you take for putting the array up, and thats the sacrifice the people take for storing crap in that thing.
Ok.. fine. Loot Pinata Approved, more conflict approved, complete restriction and denial of internal basic item corp theft, approved. Always nice to meet another sane person ;-) Dont you think the ability of defenders to blow up all stuff kinda discourages the attacking side? And a saboteur can deal a lot of damage with a single click of a mouse - seems like a bad design, isnt it? What if a PHA remains anchored unless it's completely empty? Much better solution from any point of view, imo. Well, just imagine you log in and see a corp mail: "I accidentally our PHA, all of it. Sorry. Sincerely, 1-day noob."
If your corp is giving PHA unanchoring roles to a 1 day noob, well, you've got bigger problems there.
And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first? |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
28
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:22:00 -
[317] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first?
That would be the unfortunate side effect of the proposed personal hangar array. If there's stuff in it when you need to move, and the owners of that stuff aren't around right then, the only way to recover anything is to blow it up.
Unless CEOs/directors can pull stuff out of people's personal hangars, I don't see us anchoring the new module at all.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:24:00 -
[318] - Quote
If one of the primary goals of the new PSH is actually to help larger corps consolidate POS and save ISK...
how many people should each size POS support (along with some upscaling of the number of available industrial facilities as well)?
Small tower -->15-20?
Medium tower --> 50+ ?
Large tower ---> 100-150?
I know Fozzie didn't originally say that. But it seems to be the thrust of a lot of support for his ideas. Jsut seems that is that is the reason may it needs a wee bit closer examination and then official acknowledgement. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:25:00 -
[319] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:I just said storage for all of GOONSWARM at a single POS seems ridiculous especially in one cheap structure. GOONSWARM-SIZED LOOT PINATA!!! |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:33:00 -
[320] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:I just said storage for all of GOONSWARM at a single POS seems ridiculous especially in one cheap structure. GOONSWARM-SIZED LOOT PINATA!!!
Agreed -- both a positive (ISK saved in construction) and NEGATIVE effect. And not sure that those are the intended dominate effects that they would become.
Currently if you look in most C3+ wh you see 3-10 POS.
I suspect a lot of that is due to storing personal user stuff 7 users per CHA (in additon to shared area CHA). True some of it is also just to prevent quick conquest by having fall back POS.
In any case I would bet the number of POS in typical well developed C3+ wh systems would fall to much lower numbers maybe more like 1-3 for most wh's |
|
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:37:00 -
[321] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first? That would be the unfortunate side effect of the proposed personal hangar array. If there's stuff in it when you need to move, and the owners of that stuff aren't around right then, the only way to recover anything is to blow it up.
That's true. So, Fozzie, is that really what you want here? Standard procedure for moving your own pos involves bashing your own POS modules?
In wormhole corps, member turnover is rather high. So, if you have a PHA in a corp pos for any length of time, you're going to have items stuck in it.
There's also the issue of giving items to people. Quite commonly when someone makes a run to a trade hub, they'll grab a few items for other people, then just drop them into the appropriate hangar bays when they get back. But, now, you can only transfer items if the other person is online, and at the POS when you return. Or, I mean, you could use a CHA and reassign roles each time to make a temp hangar bay for a person, but ugh, changing roles a few times a week? It's bad enough doing it once every few months.
This module messes up asynchronous item exchanges. |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
28
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:38:00 -
[322] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Currently if you look in most C3+ wh you see 3-10 POS.
I suspect a lot of that is due to storing personal user stuff 7 users per CHA (in additon to shared area CHA). True some of it is also just to prevent quick conquest by having fall back POS.
In any case I would bet the number of POS in typical well developed C3+ wh systems would fall to much lower numbers maybe more like 1-3 for most wh's
You might want to add Force Fields to your overview, mate. Not all POSes in wormholes are online, and some of those offline POSes are offline for good reason.
Wormhole POSes are for defense, changing ships, and doing industrial work. Personal storage is best done in orcas.
|
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:40:00 -
[323] - Quote
First i wanted to express my appreciation to the work you do on the pos system.
On the topic of access:
Not having access to corp members hangar space sounds somehow wrong. From the ceo/director perspective where i provide a pos and hangars to corp members i really think it makes sense to have access. If just for the reason to secure the stuff inside in case **** hits the fan badly. But i can also imagine that it might cause you some headache from a coding point of view. : ) I also red the comment/idea about allowing a corporation to decide about whether there is personal hangars or not. As i red the dev blog it will be a different structure than the CHA, so basically each corp can decide about on-lining such.
On hangar size:
prolly too small, why not oversubscribe the hangars? difficult to code?. So every member could possibly use the full storage. In combination with the access part above there would not be much potential to abuse that. Given there are roles that can see the content and size of the personal hangars and actually access/remove/destroy it.
hangar access range:
plain awesome
capital ship maint arrays in non-souv systems:
good but could use some polish; these capital maint arrays currently use a lot of power grid; i would like to see that power grid need get reduced by like 30 to 50% or so; especially since there are still no personal ship hangars or more granularity in the access management we will still have to keep secure and less secure ship maint arrays online which also eat up quite some power grid. As is, we will prolly keep the whole lot of ship maint arrays anchored, each with one capital in it and just online the one we want to access at a time. it is a quick thing anyway and i just need to offline like one neut battery or another ship maint array to be able to get all caps launched within a minute or so (especially since i wont have to be close to it anymore).
Still thinking about all this awesomeness... : )
Cheers Gal
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:41:00 -
[324] - Quote
heh or CCP could make things really easy on themselves. Just allow WH and single star system in unconquered constellation to have some sort of limited single system sovereignty structure so corps can build real outposts and stations instead. POS issues solved. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:42:00 -
[325] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first? That would be the unfortunate side effect of the proposed personal hangar array. If there's stuff in it when you need to move, and the owners of that stuff aren't around right then, the only way to recover anything is to blow it up. Exactly. If you relocate your POS with all responsibility, you'll bash the PHA anyway. The cases you destroy a contents of PHA are: 1) You're a spy and want an easy grief on your corpmates. 2) You want to grief invaders. 3) You misclicked. No, we dont give roles to 1-day noobs, but 1000-day pro is not immune to that as well. Proof - Battle for Ansakai.
Kennesaw Breach wrote:Unless CEOs/directors can pull stuff out of people's personal hangars, I don't see us anchoring the new module at all. Alright, it's your choice. We will anchor it for sure. |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
28
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:43:00 -
[326] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:heh or CCP could make things really easy on themselves. Just allow WH and single star system in unconquered constellation to have some sort of limited single system sovereignty structure so corps can build real outposts and stations instead. POS issues solved.
And with sov comes supercaps and titans. And with that comes a lot of unsubscribing of wormhole players. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1177
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:50:00 -
[327] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote: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. That's the cleanest way to do things, but it can be very intensive - A lot of existing code connects in odd places, and those need to all be found and dealt with - Without breaking other features - before you can switch over. Basically, a clean start costs $$$, takes time.
Sometimes, it just isn't worth it to make a change. Or isn't worth it to make a change right now. The fact that CCP is willing to make some changes now indicates that they're invested in cleaning up the mares-nest that POS' have become, and is very encouraging.
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 |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:54:00 -
[328] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:Currently if you look in most C3+ wh you see 3-10 POS.
I suspect a lot of that is due to storing personal user stuff 7 users per CHA (in additon to shared area CHA). True some of it is also just to prevent quick conquest by having fall back POS.
In any case I would bet the number of POS in typical well developed C3+ wh systems would fall to much lower numbers maybe more like 1-3 for most wh's You might want to add Force Fields to your overview, mate. Not all POSes in wormholes are online, and some of those offline POSes are offline for good reason. Wormhole POSes are for defense, changing ships, and doing industrial work. Personal storage is best done in orcas.
Your corp operation philosophy mate. Its only one of several ways.
But yes I know some interior WH need extra industrial and storage due to not always having clear path to normal space. And some corp prima donnas (valuable senior players) just like to built extra POS as status symbols too (thus offline since they aren't actually needed)
Sure Orca is safe place while pilot is logged off in case POS gets blown. Fairly limited space. And Orca is only safer place if you retain ownership of WH. Its pretty obvious why new owners often set up MWD and patrol location where old POS were destroyed for a month or two. Among other measures. But Orca is inventive for your own personal property. Was even nicer when you could suck combat ships into maintenance bays. Heard somewhere you can't do that anymore. |
Ager Agemo
Imperial Collective
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:04:00 -
[329] - Quote
KEEP YOUR ******* SUPERCAPS OUT OF OUR WHS! -.-! |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:10:00 -
[330] - Quote
Infinion wrote: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? Dude. Burning needless and precious server-side CPU cycles. Completely needless, and counter-productive to what we want CCP to be doing - Putting cycles into things that matter. 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 |
|
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:12:00 -
[331] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Infinion wrote: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? Dude. Burning needless and precious server-side CPU cycles. Completely needless, and counter-productive to what we want CCP to be doing - Putting cycles into things that matter.
Oh, I'd lump it in with the other eye candy, like the little ships at customs offices that make me think I'm getting ganked every time I see one flash onto my screen... those are great. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:13:00 -
[332] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote: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. So you play solo, eh? 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 |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:21:00 -
[333] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs". 1. Allow access for CEO/Directors 2. Allow access for ALL
Problem solved. Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge. Oh, they'd do something, even if it wasn't anything you added. People would be clicking them like lunatics, trying to figure out what they really do - Like so many demented monkeys. Then, they would spawn many, many threadnaughts full of frustration and tears and conspiracy theories.
But maybe those are functions you might find less than desireable.
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 |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:21:00 -
[334] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote:If, if a PHA does not become inaccessible when a tower is reinforced the same way a CHA does, I might feel a little more sympathetic to the "oh noes tough cookies" argument. You have a known window of time to extract your things. The reinforcement timer is not designed to let you un-anchor everything and dock up safely. It's to give you the time to assemble a fleet and strike back. Cannot win? Then you loose. And that loss actually hurts. Making thou thirst for revenge... sweeeet bloody holly revenge!!!!111oneone
I'm thinking from a perspective of if I want to keep any personal items or subsystems to swap (because hooray subsystem swapping!), I'd like to have them available in case of emergency. It doesn't sound like this will be the case, so the PHA isn't going to improve my life there. I'm not worried about someone saving my stuff from destruction -- if I get invaded, I'm throwing everything I have at the invaders. If I have anything left when the POS goes down, the victors take the spoils. That's life. But my personal stock of items won't be available to me if I don't log in before the tower is reinforced.
People evacuate their CHAs when they come under siege not just to save their things, but to keep the use of the items inside. Anything I put in a PHA I am not only writing off in the usual "anything that goes into w-space dies" kind of way, but in the "anything that goes in here will be inaccessible in an emergency". Thus, the important things will have to stay in the CHA. This seems completely backwards to me. Sure, I'll use the PHA for some random junk I have lying around or for quick swapping of items between ships, but I think people are too fixated on "but the carebears want to save their things!" and are forgetting that the defenders need access to their things in order to defend.
Seriously, my only complaint with this is that the PHA as it stands is being introduced without any competitors in utility to make it a real choice of risk and reward. "I may not be able to get those items when I really need them" should not be a necessary tradeoff of "basic quality of POS life improvement from an organizational perspective". If the argument being put forth for making it 100% private is "well you risk that for great reward" then there should be plans in the works for something equally useful for organization with different privacy settings. The unfun way that POSes currently work should not be built into the new system as a tradeoff.
Proddy Scun wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.
Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.
I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations. 20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are. If you store it in Corp Hangar Arrays now - how is trading 1 CHA for each PSH more restrictive? Assume equal volume and 20 personal user rather than 7 tabs. Not more restrictive UNLESS you stick with Fozzies 1 PSH per POS. I am proposing Multiple PSH model. I only suggested 1.4M m3 volume and 20 users as a starting place that might be reasonable.
You're assuming a one user per tab model rather than using CHAs as corporate storage. Once your corp is big enough that your loot and corp stock of items (which gets very big very quickly if you're in w-space; see also the fuss kicked up when they imposed a limit on unstacked items in a CHA combined with the inability to repackage things) needs to be carefully sorted, indexed, and have tiered access levels, the one user per tab model leads to ridiculous fuel expenses. Personal storage tends to take place in a tab designated for cans, anchored secure containers, or the items being kept in ship cargo holds. The reason people clamored for personal arrays isn't just for security. It's because keeping everything stored and organized in a POS requires far too much work. The PHA is a step in the right direction, as is the ability to anchor CSMAs in wormholes, but limiting the number of people who can use a single PHA would make its utility even more limited. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:29:00 -
[335] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Infinion wrote: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? Dude. Burning needless and precious server-side CPU cycles. Completely needless, and counter-productive to what we want CCP to be doing - Putting cycles into things that matter.
Agreed server is NOT involved with animation effects - just last position, expected position, system status (damage, modules on/off, ammo counts) and destruction...and that stuff directly related to those calculations.
Your computer running client software provides 99.8% or more of CPU power needed by EVE game to support your EVE experience
Client creates all animations based on simple current position-projected position and others status reported by server. the base assumption is that ships, missiles etc fly on smooth path between current and expected positions - unless the server updates status and position before arrival at old project position.
|
Dring Dingle
Polaris Rising Gentlemen's Agreement
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:05:00 -
[336] - Quote
Haha... Fozzie past 5 k likes ! :D
.... directors/CEO access is a must! |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5075
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:11:00 -
[337] - Quote
Thanks everyone for their feedback so far both on the proposed changes and on other changes we can make in the future.
Want to remind people once again that we're not removing CHAs from the game with these changes, nor are we talking about limiting PHAs to one per starbase. You can online as many of both structures as your Starbase's fittings allow.
And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:16:00 -
[338] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:
Agreed server is NOT involved with animation effects - just last position, expected position, system status (damage, modules on/off, ammo counts) and destruction...and that stuff directly related to those calculations.
Your computer running client software provides 99.8% or more of CPU power needed by EVE game to support your EVE experience
Client creates all animations based on simple current position-projected position and others status reported by server. the base assumption is that ships, missiles etc fly on smooth path between current and expected positions - unless the server updates status and position before arrival at old project position.
Fair enough. however... Even that little bit, multiplied across whoever many players active at their POS'... Still a drain I'd rather see used elsewhere. 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 |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1178
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:19:00 -
[339] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We may consider it for later iterations.
Please do. I think we've made our case as a community that 'no one but owner' is an undesireable condition. We can make-do until a change in a later iteration.
Carry on smartly with the good work!
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 |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:26:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations.
Please do!
Everything else announced is spot on. Good luck and happy coding! |
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:37:00 -
[341] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
You're assuming a one user per tab model rather than using CHAs as corporate storage. Once your corp is big enough that your loot and corp stock of items (which gets very big very quickly if you're in w-space; see also the fuss kicked up when they imposed a limit on unstacked items in a CHA combined with the inability to repackage things) needs to be carefully sorted, indexed, and have tiered access levels, the one user per tab model leads to ridiculous fuel expenses. Personal storage tends to take place in a tab designated for cans, anchored secure containers, or the items being kept in ship cargo holds. The reason people clamored for personal arrays isn't just for security. It's because keeping everything stored and organized in a POS requires far too much work. The PHA is a step in the right direction, as is the ability to anchor CSMAs in wormholes, but limiting the number of people who can use a single PHA would make its utility even more limited.
I do agree 7 user per hangar is too few for a PSH. In fact my main argument was merely that PSH should have a limited total size. I did not Say 20 per hangar was ideal. It was just easy to talk about. I was mainly arguing that a PSH should be aimed supporting a limited number of typical active wh users. Let us say 30 instead just to emphasis I am not fixed on 20. There is however some right compromise number less than 50 active users. Or better yet some total storage limit of less than 2M m3 per PSH (or other sized structure with cost of say 3.5M ISK per 1 M m3).
Dividing PSH in multiple units will NOT Un-organize everything - because all PSH are automatically grouped together by type at each POS by the Universal Inventory. heck You could even name them like files to add your own additional ordering within type. So its sort of like arguing scrolls are better organized than books with securely bound pages.
Or perhaps you speaking more to the esthetics of POS landscaping and locating particular structures -- fewer being considered more beautiful by some. There you have some point though really its easy enough to lay out numbered streets of labeled structures and use bookmarks for regularly visited structures.
I suspect that the biggest reason for disagreement and the biggest issue for which large POS corps want a freebie is -- having online space for all those members who are never in the wh or only seldom visit and only briefly (typically 70-95% of corp). Personally I think that corp management who want to cut fuel costs just need to say NO to users who have not plans for making significant contributions in the wh economy or security. I have always suspected that is what all those offline POS in wh about...POS with storage for people who only show up in wh on special holidays. Its always easier to not manage people than to set and implement any given policy.
I have over 5M m3 of personal stuff at our POS so I know about storage needs growing fast. Its not all online at once. There is at least that most corp shared stuff. I just disagrees with unlimited storage for free. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:43:00 -
[342] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:heh or CCP could make things really easy on themselves. Just allow WH and single star system in unconquered constellation to have some sort of limited single system sovereignty structure so corps can build real outposts and stations instead. POS issues solved. And with sov comes supercaps and titans. And with that comes a lot of unsubscribing of wormhole players. Hence why he said "limited," ie, to not allow full sov and thus the supercaps. |
Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1559
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:53:00 -
[343] - Quote
1/3 of blog dedicated to cover your behinds |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:54:00 -
[344] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks everyone for their feedback so far both on the proposed changes and on other changes we can make in the future.
Want to remind people once again that we're not removing CHAs from the game with these changes, nor are we talking about limiting PHAs to one per starbase. You can online as many of both structures as your Starbase's fittings allow. Since CHAs are not being removed we are not removing any of the current functionality for miners storing collective ore, or for people wishing to share items within their corp.
And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations.
OK cool - sounds like PSH may have some limit in total size then. So that would be fair.
It would also be cool if 420 member corp could divide up 1 PSH of hypothetically (just for speculation) 4M m3 between the 400 member who hardly ever contribute to wh ops (so 10K m3 each) and another PSH between the 20 WH active members (200K m3).
My only issue was with infinite space and infinite members per PSH meaning it would be pointless to have own more than 1 PSH regardless of corp size or actually space used. I was picturing all the perfect death stars with 1 PSH and 1 PSA (ships) and everything else in guns -- assuming you did no in wh industry. |
Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1559
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:58:00 -
[345] - Quote
40-10k m3? I guess we wont be dooing much PI.. |
Backfyre
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:12:00 -
[346] - Quote
It's a start I guess.
Can we open containers in a CHA?
When are the permissions getting reworked? All the bundling of permissions is still one of the biggest headaches with POS.
As it stands, not sure my corp will be using the new hangar module. Not being able to remove an inactive player's gear is a non-starter. The space is also an issue. For people with multiple characters, the new module makes gear sharing a PITA.
I would rather have CCP fix the FUBAR permissions system than create new half-baked arrays. How about something simple like adding a password feature to a CHA tab in much the same way as secure containers? |
Pantson Head
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:16:00 -
[347] - Quote
Aidan Patrick wrote: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. If the disgruntled member with fuel bay access can do this it means that you can too. Take an alt, store enough of necessary item X to get by in your alt's section of the PHC and the problem is solved at the cost of some of your alt's storage space. If the changes happen as they are currently laid out, you'll also be protected from disgruntled director level people from attempting to deny resources. I understand yours and others concerns about not having control over everything in your pos, but I don't see this PHA as being for you. It's for all the shlubs with limited roles who just want a little personal space to put **** in without having to trust everyone in a game where you're taught very early to trust no one. The PHA is for CEOs and directors only insofar as it will make your corpies happy. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
384
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:17:00 -
[348] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Quote:Lots of questions about roles
the only role I really care about is the 'rent factory slot' one.
can you just get it to actually work, its been there for years and does nothing.
rent factory slot = rent/use corp build slot(but not cancel jobs) factory manager = above and the ability to cancel jobs.
is it really that hard to fix this one little thing after the many years of it not working? please say it isn't so OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:17:00 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Isn't there an easier way to address it, that will benefit multiple groups of players at once? Rework the audit log containers (station containers included), add "Anchored" configuration flag. Container can be anchored in space or in corporation hangar. Only person knowing the configuration password may unanchor (and therefore move) the container. This will instantly simplify the hangar access roles configuration. The account that have anchored the container will have unlimited transparent access to it's content without the need to enter password. The access password may be used to let other people access container contents, and configuration password - to access container configuration (at all times, there should be no transparent access to container config). This way, if you trust your directors, you may let them know the password and they could unanchor and move your container, if need. To make it running smoothly, can we please have all nearby shared facilities visible in the inventory window?... This will also benefit people without POS - they may anchor some containers in their area of operation and share goods this way. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5078
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:18:00 -
[350] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote: OK cool - sounds like PSH may have some limit in total size then. So that would be fair.
The personal hangar has no limit on total size. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:19:00 -
[351] - Quote
Athena Maldoran wrote:40-10k m3? I guess we wont be dooing much PI..
Well that is the thing - its usually only a few members of a corp that do a lot of PI.
So why give every corp member 10M m3 when most have never have been in wh after corp orientation?
So it would be good to give those few that need lots of space - the space they need. Or at least fewer competitors for the limited total space in a given PSH.
Sounds like Fozzie is on that in some crude manner but just has not decided total size of each PSH. Apparently also not decided whether each hangar user has a max space quota or if everyone with right to given PSH has a variable used size until no free space exists in that entire PSH. Sort of sounds like he favors latter as its what old CSH uses. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
117
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:30:00 -
[352] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:I'm thinking from a perspective of if I want to keep any personal items or subsystems to swap (because hooray subsystem swapping!), I'd like to have them available in case of emergency. It doesn't sound like this will be the case, so the PHA isn't going to improve my life there. I'm not worried about someone saving my stuff from destruction -- if I get invaded, I'm throwing everything I have at the invaders. If I have anything left when the POS goes down, the victors take the spoils. That's life. But my personal stock of items won't be available to me if I don't log in before the tower is reinforced.
People evacuate their CHAs when they come under siege not just to save their things, but to keep the use of the items inside. Anything I put in a PHA I am not only writing off in the usual "anything that goes into w-space dies" kind of way, but in the "anything that goes in here will be inaccessible in an emergency". Thus, the important things will have to stay in the CHA. This seems completely backwards to me. Sure, I'll use the PHA for some random junk I have lying around or for quick swapping of items between ships, but I think people are too fixated on "but the carebears want to save their things!" and are forgetting that the defenders need access to their things in order to defend.
Seriously, my only complaint with this is that the PHA as it stands is being introduced without any competitors in utility to make it a real choice of risk and reward. "I may not be able to get those items when I really need them" should not be a necessary tradeoff of "basic quality of POS life improvement from an organizational perspective". If the argument being put forth for making it 100% private is "well you risk that for great reward" then there should be plans in the works for something equally useful for organization with different privacy settings. The unfun way that POSes currently work should not be built into the new system as a tradeoff. Alright, that is a concern I understand and agree with. Dont really know how it can be fixed in a civilized way (without logged off orcas and such). Maybe a separate POS module ("armory"), to hold only ammo, ship modules, rigs, etc. - that would not go offline when reinforced. May come in two flavors as well: corporate and private. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:30:00 -
[353] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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) Why not start from this instead, and remove the shield already?... Before adding more clutter to the system. You have the code to support it. It is the same code that run outposts. Make POS modules be "exposed services", adjust visuals and you'll get much more robust system. Then adding more hangar arrays will increase POS storage capabilities rather than fragment it. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:31:00 -
[354] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote: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. That's just a bunch of crap in spite of a moment. You didn't though your idea through even for a second. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:52:00 -
[355] - Quote
Athena Maldoran wrote:40-10k m3? I guess we wont be dooing much PI..
Enormous Freight Container, the old Hanger, etc.
It is hardly perfect, but ccp is looking at this new hanger as a method of immediate security of your cool bling bling modules, not a secure hold to put everything you get in there. If you are that low on the totem pole in your corporation, then you probably should not be bringing in THAT much crap into the corp anyway.
In addition, there are alternative ways of giving out space or locations for people to stow PI. A POS with 1 of the new hangers, and one of the old hangers. Old hanger for bulk volume (which would be hard to steal cause its so damn much), and the new one to hold your cool bling stuff.
People can make this work, but I think that it won't be easy, but definitely better than it is atm. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:06:00 -
[356] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations.
Please consider it or some other simplified storage mechanism with variable permission settings. If you someday combine easy sorting of things by person with improved industrial facilities and roles to use same, the world would be a beautiful place.
Proddy Scun wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote:
You're assuming a one user per tab model rather than using CHAs as corporate storage. Once your corp is big enough that your loot and corp stock of items (which gets very big very quickly if you're in w-space; see also the fuss kicked up when they imposed a limit on unstacked items in a CHA combined with the inability to repackage things) needs to be carefully sorted, indexed, and have tiered access levels, the one user per tab model leads to ridiculous fuel expenses. Personal storage tends to take place in a tab designated for cans, anchored secure containers, or the items being kept in ship cargo holds. The reason people clamored for personal arrays isn't just for security. It's because keeping everything stored and organized in a POS requires far too much work. The PHA is a step in the right direction, as is the ability to anchor CSMAs in wormholes, but limiting the number of people who can use a single PHA would make its utility even more limited.
I do agree 7 user per hangar is too few for a PSH. In fact my main argument was merely that PSH should have a limited total size. I did not Say 20 per hangar was ideal. It was just easy to talk about. I was mainly arguing that a PSH should be aimed supporting a limited number of typical active wh users. Let us say 30 instead just to emphasis I am not fixed on 20. There is however some right compromise number less than 50 active users. Or better yet some total storage limit of less than 2M m3 per PSH (or other sized structure with cost of say 3.5M ISK per 1 M m3). Dividing PSH in multiple units will NOT Un-organize everything - because all PSH are automatically grouped together by type at each POS by the Universal Inventory. heck You could even name them like files to add your own additional ordering within type. So its sort of like arguing scrolls are better organized than books with securely bound pages. Or perhaps you speaking more to the esthetics of POS landscaping and locating particular structures -- fewer being considered more beautiful by some. There you have some point though really its easy enough to lay out numbered streets of labeled structures and use bookmarks for regularly visited structures. I suspect that the biggest reason for disagreement and the biggest issue for which large POS corps want a freebie is -- having online space for all those members who are never in the wh or only seldom visit and only briefly (typically 70-95% of corp). Personally I think that corp management who want to cut fuel costs just need to say NO to users who have not plans for making significant contributions in the wh economy or security. I have always suspected that is what all those offline POS in wh about...POS with storage for people who only show up in wh on special holidays. Its always easier to not manage people than to set and implement any given policy. I have over 5M m3 of personal stuff at our POS so I know about storage needs growing fast. Its not all online at once. There is at least that most corp shared stuff. I just disagrees with unlimited storage for free.
My objection stems from the fitting costs of POS modules. I don't want PHAs to turn into the new SMA problem, or to have a PHA lock active people out because someone went AFG with stuff in the PHA and no one can get their stuff out to dump it in k-space. People are still going to run extra towers because of finite limits on ship storage and fitting resources, and CHAs aren't going anywhere. I imagine there will be fewer anchored cans, not fewer CHAs.
Those random offline POSes at moons are there to keep invaders from plonking down a POS at that moon without first having to shoot the offline tower. If people aren't in the wormhole, there is no reason to store their things because SMA space is so valuable and storing things in k-space is so much simpler. If I had to leave w-space for an extended period of time, I wouldn't want my stuff in a place that I may or may not be able to access easily at any given time. Unless I was giving my ships away to the people still in the hole, they wouldn't want my stuff cluttering up the SMAs.
If 70-95% of a corp spends their time primarily living in k-space but have some POSes in w-space, I'm going to bet that the 5-30% that stay in w-space are isk-making alts and the corp does not consider itself a wormhole corp. Those people are not who I'm talking about at all. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:09:00 -
[357] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Alright, that is a concern I understand and agree with. Dont really know how it can be fixed in a civilized way (without logged off orcas and such). Maybe a separate POS module ("armory"), to hold only ammo, ship modules, rigs, etc. - that would not go offline when reinforced. May come in two flavors as well: corporate and private.
I like that idea a lot. I'd definitely use that kind of POS module. |
Infinion
My Little Pony - Friendship Force
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:15:00 -
[358] - Quote
I'm pretty sure the only reason they're doing the 10 - 40k m3 per member with unlimited total space is because it means they can re-purpose the customs office code for the personal corp hangar with little development time.
CCP, in the future you need to come back to this and make two major changes, make the total storage space finite and give POS managers the ability to allocate space. Current numbers are clearly not ideal for industry pilots and corporations of various sizes.
Allocating space should also mean that you can allocate more than is available. You either trust your members to understand that the extra space they use is everyone else's, or ask a director/ceo to find and talk to the people that don't. |
Bellanea Rajanir
Poseidaon
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:45:00 -
[359] - Quote
Paraphrasing - That's one small step for a community, one giant leap for CCP |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:50:00 -
[360] - Quote
Bellanea Rajanir wrote:Paraphrasing - That's one small step for a community, one giant leap for CCP In fact, they aren't doing ANYTHING to the problem that is POS. Just adding one new module to the existing mess. I'm not impressed. |
|
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
45
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 20:18:00 -
[361] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:Oreamnos Amric wrote: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. That's just a bunch of crap in spite of a moment. You didn't though your idea through even for a second. Aw cute, it's trying to speak. |
naed21
The Dark Space Initiative
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 22:18:00 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Proddy Scun wrote: OK cool - sounds like PSH may have some limit in total size then. So that would be fair.
The personal hangar has no limit on total size.
This sounds potentially dangerous...
Imagine for a moment that you have a thousand member corp each completely fill the space of a PSH.
Now imagine you exploded it.
Did you lag out? Did you TiDi? Did Eve Break?
Have you tried opening your inventory?
This all sounds like a very bad idea.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 22:31:00 -
[363] - Quote
naed21 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Proddy Scun wrote: OK cool - sounds like PSH may have some limit in total size then. So that would be fair.
The personal hangar has no limit on total size. This sounds potentially dangerous... Imagine for a moment that you have a thousand member corp each completely fill the space of a PSH. Now imagine you exploded it. Did you lag out? Did you TiDi? Did Eve Break? Have you tried opening your inventory? This all sounds like a very bad idea. well, that particular scenario does sound like a bad idea.... but also a damned hilarious one, lol. |
Sassums
Wormhole Exploration Crew R.E.P.O.
76
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 23:02:00 -
[364] - Quote
I realize that "taking the easy way out" requires less work, but that really shouldn't be how a company operates. We need the CHA's and their permissions fixed, not glossed over with some new feature.
First off the Private starbase hangars are just a simple terrible idea and a waste of time. The entire concept is broken. You could fix CHA's by allowing more customization to the roles we already have in place.
But lets focus on the private hangers rather than CCP being lazy about the existing CHA system.
First of all - does the 10k-40k m3 apply to each person, or is it only 40k total divided among the people using the CHA?
The inability for directors to not access members stuff is unacceptable, especially if they leave the corporation. So if someone goes inactive and gets booted from the corp or leaves, the items are just simply stuck there? That seems incredibly pointless. If someone leaves the corp, is booted, or goes inactive and is booted, their items should be able to be removed and either contracted to them in HS or taken for the corp.
A SMA is needed badly. More than a CHA. Simply copying the code from the CHA to the SMA would do wonders. Allowing SMA's to have the same "tab" system would be great.
As it stands SMA's lowest role is "Corp" so anyone in the corp can access it. This is unacceptable. By adding "tabs" this would allow directors to add roles for each tab, preventing anyone within the corp from accessing ships unless they have the correct roles. Why is such an easy change being ignored.
The following upgrades look great:
Swapping and fitting Strategic Cruiser subsystems at a starbase Removing the sovereignty requirement from Capital Ship Maintenance Arrays
Starbase setup UI improvements - I am not sure what this implies, could you expand on it. As it stands, setting up and moving POS mods around is incredibly tedious.
Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield - What about guns outside the shield, do we still have to slow boat to each and every gun to load ammo into the guns? This seems counter productive to the change you are doing to the POS mods within the shields. The ability to load ammo into the guns should be able to be done from anywhere in the shields.
The POS Modular system that was discussed - does this mean it is totally off the table, or simply on hold? |
Sassums
Wormhole Exploration Crew R.E.P.O.
76
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 23:10:00 -
[365] - 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!)
That is incredibly disappointing, I thought the POS Rework would be the main problem here. So you are well aware that those of us upset with the POS system are not a vocal minority, yet you neglect the largest problem with the POS system, the roles. The POS update should be a large update, not some stupid band aid. Where are your priorities?
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 23:26:00 -
[366] - Quote
Sassums wrote: But lets focus on the private hangers rather than CCP being lazy about the existing CHA system.
First of all - does the 10k-40k m3 apply to each person, or is it only 40k total divided among the people using the CHA?
You know, if you'd bothered to read this thread instead of being tl;dr... each person.
Sassums wrote:The inability for directors to not access members stuff is unacceptable, especially if they leave the corporation. So if someone goes inactive and gets booted from the corp or leaves, the items are just simply stuck there? That seems incredibly pointless. If someone leaves the corp, is booted, or goes inactive and is booted, their items should be able to be removed and either contracted to them in HS or taken for the corp. Doesn't matter if peeps have crap left behind, their storage space affects no one else's.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 23:30:00 -
[367] - Quote
Sassums wrote:Starbase setup UI improvements - I am not sure what this implies, could you expand on it. As it stands, setting up and moving POS mods around is incredibly tedious. I agree, more info is always a good thing.
Sassums wrote:Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield - What about guns outside the shield, do we still have to slow boat to each and every gun to load ammo into the guns? This seems counter productive to the change you are doing to the POS mods within the shields. The ability to load ammo into the guns should be able to be done from anywhere in the shields. Already answered, suck it up and leave your shield to resupply your guns.
Sassums wrote:The POS Modular system that was discussed - does this mean it is totally off the table, or simply on hold? The complete rehauling of POSs is still on the table, these changes are just to offer us something while they continue to work on it.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 23:39:00 -
[368] - Quote
Btw, on a completely unrelated note... I want something like the "Likes" counter to see how many emo tears I create! |
Gorgon Spinoza
Solaris Institute of Science and Technology Border World Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 00:06:00 -
[369] - Quote
Despite your best intentions, I'm sorry to say that I'm totally not impressed with the POS changes.
Why not fix broken functionality first, before introducing new features?
Alliance use of POS labs/factories from a blueprint in a corp hangar at an NPC station is broken if the job requires materials. Currently they are required to be in the POS lab's local storage, where only the owning corp has access. Alliance members can never access another corp's hangar. Input materials should be taken from the 'slot renting' corp hangar at the NPC station instead.
Public use of POS labs/factories is totally broken and does not work, although such facilities are listed as 'public' in the science & industry window by default.
Please remove the "Rent Research Slot" and "Factory Manager" corp role requirements for installing S&I jobs on an alliance POS. There is absolutely no reason to prevent corp members from using alliance (or public) lab/factory slots. Give the job owner the (default) option to pay the research/factory costs from their personal wallet. The option to pay from the corp wallet is only available for users in the "Rent Research Slot" role.
Please no laboratory type "package deals" ... when I need a certain kind of lab (copy, invention, research ME/PE), do not force me to spend CPU/Power on slot types I do not want and will not use. Replace the lab arrays with a "Blueprint Copy Laboratory" with only copy slots, an "Invention Laboratory" with only invention slots, etc, etc. This would also be in line with the different types of assembly arrays; there is no assembly array with both drone- ammo- component- and equipment-slots.
All Science & Industry job slots of a single type should be listed on one single page under the control tower, not on multiple pages under individual labs and factory arrays. Installing additional lab modules would add extra lab slots to the control tower (75% of my clicks in the Science & Industry 'select slot' dialogs are wasted clicking on lab/factory facilities that have no free slots available).
If you introduce new features, then please think 'out of the box' instead of dwelling on previous mistakes:
In my view a POS tower should be a mini station that has giant empty halls inside where modular facilities like corp/personal hangars, SMA, labs and factories can be installed. It should share the same codebase as outposts and NPC stations, just mini-versions without sov requirements.
Don't focus on limiting pos storage space. From a user point of view, being told "You cannot do this" is a frustrating aspect of interaction with the EVE client. Sometimes there are good reasons for game balance. But no amount of extra storage space is going to let you do more DPS. There is no financial gain in having more storage space available. For server load it makes no difference wether stuff is stored in a POS or at an NPC station. Please give everybody a personal hangar with unlimited space in the control tower just like in NPC stations. Storage space should consume no CPU/Power at all except maybe for a single light bulb.
All POS facilities should be able to input/output to the Control Tower's central storage or route their products as is the case with PI facilities. Managing all materials for production and dropping them in the right facility at the right time is boring at best, and frustrating at worst. It reduces the time I have available to do things I like about EVE.
A POS module for a corp/alliance-only market would be cool too.
|
zeho
DIVINE DIVIDE
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 00:08:00 -
[370] - Quote
Starbase Ideas
Introduce different Classes of Starbase with tweaked stats or special attributes that suit specific roles. Spacecraft in EvE are all role specific - why not introduce some specced pos towers too!
1. Military Outpost - tweaked stats for "deathstar" configuration. 2. Science & Industry. 3. Exploration / Logistics. 4. Covert Operations / Intelligence.
You get the idea!
Thanks. |
|
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 01:31:00 -
[371] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations.
I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible.
Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do.
Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members.
And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure?
Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either.
The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription.
But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time.
If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
95
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 02:07:00 -
[372] - Quote
About 20 minutes into this Fozzie said something rather profound, that I think CCP and CSM need to consider a whole new Modus Operandi..
zebras-episode-22
Parallel Feature functionality.
Its not band aid if two systems exist together to eventually transition into the new..
I think it would be valuable to EVE if we started accepting more of this parallel features on the live servers.
This would basically mean we could let CCP launch band aids a lot more and just make sure that the old system is not taken down until its ready, and all old features exist in the new.
Thus a third itteration could be running on test servers and when big patches come around mergers would become a normal phenomenon..
Its rather relevant if we are expecting 10+ more years, which is starting to look very likely.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 02:35:00 -
[373] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations. I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible. Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do. Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members. And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure? Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either. The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription. But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time. If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there. Blah blah, cry me a river. Everyone knows how this mod works, if they can't plan accordingly, it's their own damned fault if they lost crap in it. |
rodyas
tie fighters inc
1109
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 02:50:00 -
[374] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations. I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible. Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do. Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members. And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure? Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either. The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription. But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time. If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there. Blah blah, cry me a river. Everyone knows how this mod works, if they can't plan accordingly, it's their own damned fault if they lost crap in it.
But what about all the officer modules and gear I need to operate at the average lvl in a wormhole??????????
I can't just trust dumb POS storage building to hold it, then its destroyed. I will lose Billions of PLEXs I redeemed when it goes doooowwwwnnnnn..... Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne |
Ghostly Dread
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 04:04:00 -
[375] - Quote
Reducing the fuel requirement for small empire r&d pos's would be nice. It's not practical to run a small tower with one lab since the fuel block change. Maybe a r&d tower. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4514
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 06:29:00 -
[376] - Quote
Will the subsystem fitting change apply to ship-based SMAs such as on carriers, titans, etc. or only on POS SMAs? Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Pantson Head
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 10:27:00 -
[377] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations. I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible. Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do. Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members. And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure? Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either. The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription. But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time. If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there. I don't get why the most frequent objections to the personal nature of the PHAs in this thread are things which simple behavior will nullify. Worried about trolls denying you pos resources more easily than they currently can with the PHA? Store some of those resources in the PHA yourself and never worry about that again. Think you'll have to pos bash yourself or lose your corpmates goods when you need to change locations? If someone is going on a vacation or taking a break from the game, it wouldn't be difficult to transfer stuff to the CHA. Send a corporate mail about using your brain to determine what you keep in personal storage when you may be away and forward it to new members. Yes people will lose **** in PHAs. No it won't be the CEOs fault. I don't feel that removing the personal nature of the PHA is justified by concerns that can be addressed by not being an idiot about this stuff. |
Komen
Capital Enrichment Services Existential Anxiety
180
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 11:00:00 -
[378] - 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. Smug bastard.
Awesome changes. It's like a check-list of every gripe we have with the damn things. Almost as though you were....but no...this is CCP, that just doesn't happen... |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
96
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 11:29:00 -
[379] - Quote
OK I have a small question I would really like Fozzie or any dev to answer..
Why have these spatial limits on stationary entities? Space limitations belong in things that fly or move stuff around not things that just store things?
Its starting to smell a bit of wow bag mechanics.
Hoarding is good and huge storages in static entities should be EVE trademark.
Maybe the infinity should go, but lets keep storage nice and comfortable when its not mobile.
Oh and why not reuse impound feature and just make it personal?
|
Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1588
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 11:33:00 -
[380] - Quote
Feedback:
Not happy about the "Private Starbase Hangar", It's not what we want. Very limited size, and we already have storage. Not beeing able to retrive items when a corpie leaves corp. What we want is a remaking of the permission system, so we can make things work. Theres a number of ideas surrounding this topic. Why give us something noone wants? "If the structure is unanchored, all contents are destroyed. A confirmation box warns the player if the structure is not empty, and ensures that the items are not destroyed by accident." HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE...
On the other hand, most of the other "fixes" you have mentioned, are very welcome. The ability to access anything and move everything within the shields, the new system for deploying pos modules etc, repacking, t3 fix, removing the sov on csma. these are what we expect as fixes. They are very needed.
But I think many people are a bit dissapointed, because it all looks like your just painting an old horse to make it look good. Nothing here that smells like a modular pos or anything. Should there be riots in the streets, you will know why. I'm worried that this expansion will rival Incarna in faliure. |
|
Cuhlen
Tower of Ravens The Laughing Men
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 11:50:00 -
[381] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
So not even the CEO can empty it without destroying the contents? Seriously? Way to go CCP - turn an otherwise good idea into junk. Typical.
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
96
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 11:50:00 -
[382] - Quote
Athena Maldoran wrote: Feedback:
Not happy about the "Private Starbase Hangar", It's not what we want. Very limited size, and we already have storage. Not beeing able to retrive items when a corpie leaves corp. What we want is a remaking of the permission system, so we can make things work. Theres a number of ideas surrounding this topic. Why give us something noone wants? "If the structure is unanchored, all contents are destroyed. A confirmation box warns the player if the structure is not empty, and ensures that the items are not destroyed by accident." HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE...
On the other hand, most of the other "fixes" you have mentioned, are very welcome. The ability to access anything and move everything within the shields, the new system for deploying pos modules etc, repacking, t3 fix, removing the sov on csma. these are what we expect as fixes. They are very needed.
But I think many people are a bit dissapointed, because it all looks like your just painting an old horse to make it look good. Nothing here that smells like a modular pos or anything. Should there be riots in the streets, you will know why. I'm worried that this expansion will rival Incarna in faliure.
This sentiment.
Also I recently posted on related issue, and gave a few ideas for how a more latteral integrated system could be applied. The ide Personal Division Hangars: Which would be a potential mechanic that could be reused in these PSH
PDH Concept
A variation on that theme would help more types of players imho..
|
Etheoma
The Dark Space Initiative
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:42:00 -
[383] - Quote
AWESOME!!! personally my self if you just did the personal storage / ship storage, in shield access to all modules and the C-SMA in non-sov space. I would call that a great patch and call myself lucky.
But with the scanning mechanic changes and what I assume will be Battleship tieracide and rebalancing you have just proposed the best patch to my eye's that I have ever seen maybe excluding Apocrypha.
I LOVE YOU GUYS & GALLS!!! |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:53:00 -
[384] - Quote
The PSH is a great idea to complement the already existing CHA(or whatever it's acronym is if I got that wrong, the current one for storing crap in). you get a small amount of completely secure storage, if someone leaves **** in it (go on vacation, leave corp, quit eve, whatever) and later on wants it back but the pos had to be moved, well, they knew when they first put their stuff in it it could be lost, on their own heads be it. |
Etheoma
The Dark Space Initiative
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:16:00 -
[385] - Quote
Cuhlen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
So not even the CEO can empty it without destroying the contents? Seriously? Way to go CCP - turn an otherwise good idea into junk. Typical.
tbh you can just unanchor the PHA and let them destroy it personal equipment isn't really at least usually where all the isk is and even if the PSMA were to work under the same mechanics as long as you get out the majority then unanchor the worst thing about losing thing is knowing the other person got them.
And if your not a fail corp you should be able to get over 75% of your members online within a 24 hour window leaving time to evacuate. So i wouldn't call it junk by any means. Its a down side but the upside in my opinion outweighs the downside.
That you would be able to invite more people to the corp and not be so worried about security, and also potentially reducing the number of POS's you would need to have for day to day Operations so saving iskies. |
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 15:04:00 -
[386] - Quote
Etheoma wrote: And if your not a fail corp you should be able to get over 75% of your members online within a 24 hour window leaving time to evacuate. So i wouldn't call it junk by any means. Its a down side but the upside in my opinion outweighs the downside.
Well, 75% of currently active members. The longer your pos is up, the more bays full of stuff from not currently active members you're going to get.
CCP is always sending out emails to inactive subscribers, trying to get them to rejoin. Sometimes this works. But, if someone decides to resub, find that their items were all just destroyed by the CEO, well, that resub has a good chance of not lasting very long.
And sure, the upside does outweigh the downside. This is a great new pos module which many people, including myself, are going to put up. It just has one major glaring flaw that's going to effect almost every corp that uses it, unless it gets fixed within a reasonable period of time.
People have been saying that you can tell people to remove their stuff before they unsub. Well, sure, you can ask. From my experience though, this rarely happens. Many times when people let their subscription lapse(from what I've seen), it's after a period of inactivity. They log on less and less often, then one day when they try to log in, they find out that their subscription has ended, and decide to take a break from EVE.
I plan to set up methods in my corp to reduce the chances of this happening, but I can't eliminate it entirely. And, our corp policy has always been that RL comes first. If you have to leave EVE suddenly, without having time to conclude your affairs in game, well, we'd like to be able to take care of the stuff they left in our care until their return. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
318
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 15:44:00 -
[387] - Quote
Bravo... I love these proposed changes. I especially like the part where you plan on implementing hangar improvements with the addition of a new module(s) that we can take or leave... We do a lot of ship swapping with other corpies, so this new hangar would actually be a loss of functionality for us... Good job! |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
321
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 18:22:00 -
[388] - Quote
Great News CCP. Keep up the good work!
Remove insurance. |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 19:20:00 -
[389] - Quote
I like all the changes. One thing I would like to see changed though is the naming of the CSMA to XLSMA. If it is allowed to be placed in any system it no longer is what it was.
Fred |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5104
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 19:30:00 -
[390] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:I like all the changes. One thing I would like to see changed though is the naming of the CSMA to XLSMA. If it is allowed to be placed in any system it no longer is what it was.
Fred
This is a good idea. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4518
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:14:00 -
[391] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Will the subsystem fitting change apply to ship-based SMAs such as on carriers, titans, etc. or only on POS SMAs?
Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Eliniale
co-operative resource extraction
144
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:33:00 -
[392] - Quote
I'm happy you finally decided to commit to fixing this issue.
However I'll be holding you to this one, so no returning to the 'we're-not-going-to-do-it-since-we're-not-sure'- stage. As that was ******* annoying. System ideas: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=191928&find=unread |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
53
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:41:00 -
[393] - Quote
Eliniale wrote:I'm happy you finally decided to commit to fixing this issue.
However I'll be holding you to this one, so no returning to the 'we're-not-going-to-do-it-since-we're-not-sure'- stage. As that was ******* annoying. Sorry, what fixes exactly you're seeing here? |
drummergirl
Azule Dragoons Sspectre
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 06:15:00 -
[394] - Quote
When is CCP going to bring capital-class ships back to high-sec in EVE? I've heard stories of huge mining operations being run from Rorqual platforms that just make my mouth water, and frankly, I don't see the point in keeping them out. The benefits of going to low/null/neg-sec aren't going to change. You have to go to this sort of space in order to mine your "ABC" ores to get the rarer minerals for production of just about anything. Forcing carebear pilots like myself to take on increased risk and danger in those areas of space just to use a bigger/better ship to mine the same ores that we would in high-sec is pointless! If you want to keep the PVPers from invading high-sec with capital-class vessels so as to "muscle out" smaller corporations/alliances, a modified version the CONCORD security system which restricts pilots with low ratings from entering certain areas or all of high-sec, already in place, could be used. If a pilot's Kill/Death ratio is high, then they can't bring their capital into high-sec. Also, you could restrict pilots from using capital-class weapons or weapons fitted to capital-class ships against other capsuleers in high-sec. That way, PVE gets a big boost, especially in the Incursion area, and miners are able to use their Rorquals in high-sec without incurring the increased risks of being subjected to PVP pilots. All carebears are happy, and with the increased supply of ore/minerals, thus ships and modules, on the market, prices will inevitably drop, which I don't think any PVPer would mind at all. |
kosswomen Mckay
Fight Club Outfit
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 06:35:00 -
[395] - Quote
I am so disappointed in this blog and thread. You are talking about pretty minor changes to an old section of code, OK it will benefit the game but seriously this is really just tweeking the game.
How many devs and other staff does Eve have working for it? I know they are not all just doing POS but seriously the above tweek is enough work for 1 person. What the hell is everyone else doing?
If you had written - You will now be able to dock in your POS and get out your ship and walk into the corp offices and bar for a drink then that would be something worth writing about.
Seriously "development" on Eve is like watch paint dry. I have been playing Eve on and off since beta and am constantly frustrated at the lack of development. I hate how these "expansion" are promoted like they are game changing major expansions, they are not - they just tweeking the game.
When oh when are we going to see some real development like this exploring wreaks idea and when oh when is that locked door going to open?!
I want to walk in my POS not have it tweeked.
Come on devs pull your fingers out or hire more staff! |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 07:06:00 -
[396] - Quote
kosswomen Mckay wrote:I am so disappointed in this blog and thread. You are talking about pretty minor changes to an old section of code, OK it will benefit the game but seriously this is really just tweeking the game.
How many devs and other staff does Eve have working for it? I know they are not all just doing POS but seriously the above tweek is enough work for 1 person. What the hell is everyone else doing?
If you had written - You will now be able to dock in your POS and get out your ship and walk into the corp offices and bar for a drink then that would be something worth writing about.
Seriously "development" on Eve is like watch paint dry. I have been playing Eve on and off since beta and am constantly frustrated at the lack of development. I hate how these "expansion" are promoted like they are game changing major expansions, they are not - they just tweeking the game.
When oh when are we going to see some real development like this exploring wreaks idea and when oh when is that locked door going to open?!
I want to walk in my POS not have it tweeked.
Come on devs pull your fingers out or hire more staff!
I share this sentiment though not as harshly.
I think what CCP need to do is stop being afraid of player outcry. Some fixes and added complexity or depth will not be received well by a habit engrained playerbase. Any big new change will cause a lot of raging, and to some extend the CSM is potentially hindering big changes when representing this rage. We are lucky that some really visionary players have had access to CSM and been open to shaking the boat a lot.
We have 3 problems atm that ccp seem to not want to comment on. The Blue Donut, The Hi-Freq Trading, and The WH Cricket Wars. Any attempt to resolve these things will make those benefiting from them rage. The question is can and will ccp tank that rage and just bloody fix it. Scarcity and competition is really something CCP have been afraid to take to the next level, its been like dragging a mule. The SLOT problem on stations have only been partially resolved and the same with office rental. Please lets get some big changes SOON, instead of these small tweaks and work arounds.
|
Raneru
Euphoria Released Verge of Collapse
56
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 09:41:00 -
[397] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:
I share this sentiment though not as harshly.
I also share the views of the above. I was hoping for something along the lines of the ability to design our own deadspace cities complete with dockable stations, pleasure hubs, acceleration gates, etc.
|
Frying Doom
2164
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 10:29:00 -
[398] - Quote
One little thing I would like to see as well, well one of several is a distance counter showing how far out a gun, ecm, ect.. is from the tower when you are anchoring, just to make it easier.
Also just a little marker in the manage screen to show what percentage of full a guns ammo is. Vote Now My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 10:55:00 -
[399] - Quote
Raneru wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote:
I share this sentiment though not as harshly.
I also share the views of the above. I was hoping for something along the lines of the ability to design our own deadspace cities complete with dockable stations, pleasure hubs, acceleration gates, etc.
Something like this is what I am trying to ask WH space dwellers over here.
Phase Space Concept
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
544
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 11:39:00 -
[400] - Quote
How about allowing the SMA to repair damaged modules? |
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 12:32:00 -
[401] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:How about allowing the SMA to repair damaged modules?
Using which resource?
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5109
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 13:25:00 -
[402] - Quote
Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
179
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 13:30:00 -
[403] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Raneru wrote:I also share the views of the above. I was hoping for something along the lines of the ability to design our own deadspace cities complete with dockable stations, pleasure hubs, acceleration gates, etc.
Something like this is what I am trying to ask WH space dwellers over here. Phase Space Concept
If you are trying to drum up support for your terrible wormhole stabilizer idea without anyone from w-space noticing, you picked the worst possible devblog comments thread for that. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
179
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 13:32:00 -
[404] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey.
Mother of god. Keep that idea on your radar. I need that in my life. |
fukier
868
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 13:48:00 -
[405] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey.
man dont you guys just love nanite paste! i mean its like duct tape it can fix just about anything...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
53
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 13:56:00 -
[406] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey.
As long as this doesn't spike the price of nanite paste.
I would think either an alternate new consumable or just have a the repair module be loaded with minerals and use up a portion of them to do the repair. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5111
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 14:01:00 -
[407] - Quote
fukier wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey. man dont you guys just love nanite paste! i mean its like duct tape it can fix just about anything...
I'd propose we re-name it omnigel if our lawyers would let me. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
fukier
869
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 14:12:00 -
[408] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:fukier wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey. man dont you guys just love nanite paste! i mean its like duct tape it can fix just about anything... I'd propose we re-name it omnigel if our lawyers would let me.
might be a copy right issue if you did
http://images.edumart.com/large/AM/HU_12208.jpg
lol At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Liberty Tribal
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 14:53:00 -
[409] - Quote
At this point I feel starebase should keep being worked on with nothing big changes to the game. Keep adding as much changes to make them fill a role! Other big topic, we should have the whole system redone! Why? Can't we make something new out of the redone work, maybe with ships which can just float in ship and we can add on too it to make it one big ship as we add on too it over time. But it comes with risks to build and shoot able like a star base with timers. Hell even give it a jump drive!
I would love to see something like home world days!
P>S. What happen to the idea we can place POS any were in system >? |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2423
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:02:00 -
[410] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:We have 3 problems atm that ccp seem to not want to comment on. The Blue Donut, The Hi-Freq Trading, and The WH Cricket Wars.
Possibly because nobody but you knows what you mean with those terms, and even if they managed to guess, they wouldn't see them as issues.
Cricket Wars? :D
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:06:00 -
[411] - Quote
Roime wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote:We have 3 problems atm that ccp seem to not want to comment on. The Blue Donut, The Hi-Freq Trading, and The WH Cricket Wars.
Possibly because nobody but you knows what you mean with those terms, and even if they managed to guess, they wouldn't see them as issues. Cricket Wars? :D
Apologies.. I misspelled Krikkit. Krikkit Wars refers to this..
|
Deornoth Drake
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:11:00 -
[412] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey. How about repair structures similar to POS guns? |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:15:00 -
[413] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:One little thing I would like to see as well, well one of several is a distance counter showing how far out a gun, ecm, ect.. is from the tower when you are anchoring, just to make it easier.
Also just a little marker in the manage screen to show what percentage of full a guns ammo is. I rather like these suggestions :) |
Midori Amiiko
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:17:00 -
[414] - Quote
Expectation management is difficult in oneself--I commend your attempts to manage the expectations of others.
I like how the new storage facilities keep people from stealing stuff, but not from destroying it outright by unanchoring the module. That was a sincere sentiment. I know at times that they are indistinguishable from sarcasm. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:17:00 -
[415] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I'd propose we re-name it omnigel if our lawyers would let me.
lmao, and I'd be right up there with you about that! |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:20:00 -
[416] - Quote
Roime wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote:We have 3 problems atm that ccp seem to not want to comment on. The Blue Donut, The Hi-Freq Trading, and The WH Cricket Wars.
Possibly because nobody but you knows what you mean with those terms, and even if they managed to guess, they wouldn't see them as issues. Cricket Wars? :D For Shame! Go back to your Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy!
P.S. the Cricket Wars would be ******* hilarious if done in eve! |
Liberty Tribal
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:44:00 -
[417] - Quote
We don't need nano past! Can we just get higher repair bonus on the carriers... just for repairing the star-bases... stations... |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:47:00 -
[418] - Quote
Deornoth Drake wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey. How about repair structures similar to POS guns?
Repair mechanics could use an overhaul..
POS should have a repair module, that can repair remotely. The same module should be linked to Station repair function, and it should all be time based. So you got effective capacity repair per minute based on type of slot and how many slots you rented.
In empire it would be price based and POS owner would rent the slot to the station. In null the price could be set to price based on alliance, corp or public levels. A standing based modifier would be in effect in empire(npc) and price would go up according to how active a station is used, like office rental fees.
Similar POS slot rental should be used on all functions, invention, research, copy and production.. So effectively players take over ALL of these aspects. Exception would be 0.9 and 1.0 sec systems which would maybe have NPC POS that was super effective and gave the same number of slots as we have now. ALL other systems would only have player slots.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:51:00 -
[419] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Deornoth Drake wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey. How about repair structures similar to POS guns? Repair mechanics could use an overhaul.. POS should have a repair module, that can repair remotely. The same module should be linked to Station repair function, and it should all be time based. So you got effective capacity repair per minute based on type of slot and how many slots you rented. In empire it would be price based and POS owner would rent the slot to the station. In null the price could be set to price based on alliance, corp or public levels. A standing based modifier would be in effect in empire(npc) and price would go up according to how active a station is used, like office rental fees. Similar POS slot rental should be used on all functions, invention, research, copy and production.. So effectively players take over ALL of these aspects. Exception would be 0.9 and 1.0 sec systems which would maybe have NPC POS that was super effective and gave the same number of slots as we have now. ALL other systems would only have player slots. You evil, greedy bastard :P I love it! |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 15:58:00 -
[420] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: You evil, greedy bastard :P I love it!
There are more details in other posts.. I am trying to collect them all into a full suggestion with all the details.
POS PI AND STATIONS
PDH Concept
Lobby thread for MD an Industrialist
Please share any thoughts and ideas.
|
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 16:05:00 -
[421] - Quote
1) definately has potential, but I can also see it being a coding nightmare to set up. 2) not worth coding in since you'd still have to have POS only storage set ups when in systems without stations. 3)The biggest flaw here is how easy it is to set up scams for selling corporate shares, it'd garauntee any stock market constantly crashing. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1233
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 16:13:00 -
[422] - Quote
It's a good starting list, but is still missing some key issues: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2683275#post2683275
- Remove the need of granting the Factory Manager role to people in order for them to make use of the POS labs/arrays. Instead, allow us to grant usage of the labs based on the 14 "titles" in the Corp UI. That would mean that players could no longer cancel other players jobs easily and would make running a "research" division much easier. Which might improve the particulars of null-sec industry.
- Change how job cancellation works. If a job gets cancelled partway through, you should get as much progress as was made on the job within that time. In the case of BPO research, the number of ME/PE points accumulated by that point in time, rounded down. Plus a refund of any unspent per-hour fees. The main reason for this is to open the door for allowing player-owned towers to provide public research. If the customers are assured of at least getting partial credit on their jobs instead of all or nothing, then there's less potential for outright griefing and theft of the fees. Fees should be placed into an escrow and then paid out to the tower owner every N hours (whenever the job gains a new level of ME/PE or output).
- Fix CHAs to allow containers to be fully used (withdrawing of contents, not just deposit boxes). They got the job halfway done last December, since we can now deposit into containers, how about fixing the other half?
- Add audit entries for corporate hangars / SMAs so you can see who took/deposited what.
- Add corporate tabs to the SMAs.
- Re-introduce the faction towers as BPC drops from exploration / loot / pirate faction stores. Make their recipes rely on taking an existing tower and then adding existing resources to it. Those resources needed should be a mix of moon-goo, PI products, gas mining, ores and salvage. Use it as a chance to slightly increase demand for the resources that nobody seems to want.
- Add a XL and XXL tower size option, which can only be anchored in low/null. Fuel consumption / PG / CPU / etc should be 2x and 4x that of the existing large tower. With the proliferation of super-caps, existing large towers are mere speed bumps.
- Add smaller SMA, which is about 1/4 the existing SMA size and lighter on PG/CPU usage.
- Add larger CHA variants (4M m3 and 10M m3) which are competitive with the LSAA on size vs PG/CPU usage.
- Change towers so that they unanchor if not fueled, but give owners the option to mothball towers where they only consume 10% of the normal fuel blocks per hour (but still consume charters at full rate). If you want to keep a tower at a moon, then you should need to fuel it regularly. At 10% rate, that means mothballed towers could run for 10 months or so, which is not that bad. Increase the warning time on tower fueling to 7-days instead of 1-day, with notifications starting as soon as 7-days prior to "out of fuel", but decrease interval to be only every 6 or 12 hours on the warning mails.
- Allow lab/array fees to be paid out of a personal wallet.
- Do something about gas silo mechanics where you have to hand out very sensitive roles to anyone who needs to manage the silos.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 16:18:00 -
[423] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:It's a good starting list, but is still missing some key issues: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2683275#post2683275- Remove the need of granting the Factory Manager role to people in order for them to make use of the POS labs/arrays. Instead, allow us to grant usage of the labs based on the 14 "titles" in the Corp UI. That would mean that players could no longer cancel other players jobs easily and would make running a "research" division much easier. Which might improve the particulars of null-sec industry. - Change how job cancellation works. If a job gets cancelled partway through, you should get as much progress as was made on the job within that time. In the case of BPO research, the number of ME/PE points accumulated by that point in time, rounded down. Plus a refund of any unspent per-hour fees. The main reason for this is to open the door for allowing player-owned towers to provide public research. If the customers are assured of at least getting partial credit on their jobs instead of all or nothing, then there's less potential for outright griefing and theft of the fees. Fees should be placed into an escrow and then paid out to the tower owner every N hours (whenever the job gains a new level of ME/PE or output). - Fix CHAs to allow containers to be fully used (withdrawing of contents, not just deposit boxes). They got the job halfway done last December, since we can now deposit into containers, how about fixing the other half? - Add audit entries for corporate hangars / SMAs so you can see who took/deposited what. - Add corporate tabs to the SMAs. - Re-introduce the faction towers as BPC drops from exploration / loot / pirate faction stores. Make their recipes rely on taking an existing tower and then adding existing resources to it. Those resources needed should be a mix of moon-goo, PI products, gas mining, ores and salvage. Use it as a chance to slightly increase demand for the resources that nobody seems to want. - Add a XL and XXL tower size option, which can only be anchored in low/null. Fuel consumption / PG / CPU / etc should be 2x and 4x that of the existing large tower. With the proliferation of super-caps, existing large towers are mere speed bumps. - Add smaller SMA, which is about 1/4 the existing SMA size and lighter on PG/CPU usage. - Add larger CHA variants (4M m3 and 10M m3) which are competitive with the LSAA on size vs PG/CPU usage. - Change towers so that they unanchor if not fueled, but give owners the option to mothball towers where they only consume 10% of the normal fuel blocks per hour (but still consume charters at full rate). If you want to keep a tower at a moon, then you should need to fuel it regularly. At 10% rate, that means mothballed towers could run for 10 months or so, which is not that bad. Increase the warning time on tower fueling to 7-days instead of 1-day, with notifications starting as soon as 7-days prior to "out of fuel", but decrease interval to be only every 6 or 12 hours on the warning mails. - Allow lab/array fees to be paid out of a personal wallet. - Do something about gas silo mechanics where you have to hand out very sensitive roles to anyone who needs to manage the silos. Fozzie, this is also some damned good stuff you're gonna want to write down if you haven't been already :) |
Stegas Tyrano
GLU CANU Open Space Consultancy
334
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:05:00 -
[424] - Quote
Tshaowdyne Dvorak wrote:Stegas Tyrano wrote:Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be! I think it's cooler to imagine that they're nanites capable of completely disassembling things at a molecular level, moving them, and reassembling them where they need to be. It's like the Star Trek transporter system, but with cool little intelligent nanites doing the work instead of magical beams that are unlikely to ever exist in reality. What do the nanites do when they're not busy moving anyone's stuff around? Maybe they play Minecraft with molecules, building their own little nanite worlds.
....err I was joking but okay :) Herping your derp since 19Potato --á[Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1233
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:13:00 -
[425] - Quote
Torrelus Toh'Kon wrote: 1) Multiple arrays of varying size, e.g. S/M/L. All arrays would have identical number of hangers, but hanger sizes scale with array size.
I'm a big fan of multiple sizes. Not only for the new personal hangar array, but also introducing new sizes for CHA/SMA. We don't care if they all use the same artwork, just add new sizes in the database and give us new item IDs so that we have more flexibility in our POS setups.
CHA is currently 1.4M m3. It is completely outclassed by LSAAs which are 18M m3 and much more efficient at m3 stored per PG/CPU used. The LSAA's only downside is that they have the item stack limit per corporation divisional tab. We need a CHA that is about 700k m3 in size and about 3/5 the PG/CPU of the normal one. We also need a 4-5M m3 variant that is about 2x the PG/CPU of the existing unit and a 10M m3 variant that is 4x the PG/CPU of the existing unit.
Same thing applies to SMAs. There should be a small SMA about 1/3 the capacity of the existing, that uses 3/5 the power/CPU of the existing unit. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1233
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:18:00 -
[426] - 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.
That's only a viable option if you finish fixing containers so that they work properly inside of CHAs.
You fixed containers in the November/December update last year so that we could finally deposit items into said containers, but we still have no way to pull items back out of the containers. Unless we grant "take container" to people, who then have to move the container to their ship, remove the item needed, then put the container back in the CHA. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:30:00 -
[427] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:1) definately has potential, but I can also see it being a coding nightmare to set up. 2) not worth coding in since you'd still have to have POS only storage set ups when in systems without stations. 3)The biggest flaw here is how easy it is to set up scams for selling corporate shares, it'd garauntee any stock market constantly crashing.
1. A lot of the code is already there, you already select slots either personal, corporate or public. changing that would be about making slots optionally public and integrating the rental mechnics.
2. The PDH is the base mechanic, just like corporate hangar divisions is the base for carriers etc.. With one function you can add this to POS also, and fix things while adding features and fixing others. With potential new functions later. Public access to PDH is not entirely impossible, and could work as semi storefront idea (old topic)
3. Scams are part of EVE and always should be there, the thread had a lot of other things except Shares and Loan contracts, I was refering to the more relevant ideas on PI changes and Repair functions etc..
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:44:00 -
[428] - Quote
Well, in regards to that, I'd have to give it back to the Devs, as i obviously don't know eve coding :) |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
3004
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:52:00 -
[429] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:fukier wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Giving it the ability to repair using nanite paste would be wonderful, although I don't think we'd be able to get that in time for Odyssey. man dont you guys just love nanite paste! i mean its like duct tape it can fix just about anything... I'd propose we re-name it omnigel if our lawyers would let me. I, for one, heartily endorse this item...
"Hi... I'm Major Alenko, and Fozzie is my favorite Dev on the Citadel." Go ahead... Get your-áWham on!!! |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1234
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:52:00 -
[430] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote: Well, 75% of currently active members. The longer your pos is up, the more bays full of stuff from not currently active members you're going to get.
CCP is always sending out emails to inactive subscribers, trying to get them to rejoin. Sometimes this works. But, if someone decides to resub, find that their items were all just destroyed by the CEO, well, that resub has a good chance of not lasting very long.
And sure, the upside does outweigh the downside. This is a great new pos module which many people, including myself, are going to put up. It just has one major glaring flaw that's going to effect almost every corp that uses it, unless it gets fixed within a reasonable period of time.
People have been saying that you can tell people to remove their stuff before they unsub. Well, sure, you can ask. From my experience though, this rarely happens. Many times when people let their subscription lapse(from what I've seen), it's after a period of inactivity. They log on less and less often, then one day when they try to log in, they find out that their subscription has ended, and decide to take a break from EVE.
That's why I think a requirement of the new PSH is that:
- When unanchored, it pops out jetcans named after each player who still had stuff within the PSH. - When destroyed, it follows the usually drop rules (roughly 50% of the stacks drop, up to some limit)
By spawning jetcans, you give directors/CEOs a chance to collect everyone's loot and move it back out to k-space or to a set of containers (anchored or placed inside the CHA at the new location).
If lag is going to be an issue then you could:
- Only drop the first 50 member's containers (randomly picked) - Change the PSH unanchor timer so that it takes 6 seconds per jetcan that needs to be spawned, need to empty something with 100 members? 600 second unachor time with jetcans popping out every 6 seconds
Frankly, they need to limit the total capacity of the PSH to about 2M m3 and each player gets a maximum of 27k m3. That would be enough that 75 people could use maximum capacity, or you could support 150-300 players if everyone isn't a packrat. Which also helps with the lag issue when you unanchor or destroy the unit and everyone's stuff comes tumbling out. |
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:56:00 -
[431] - Quote
Meh, just shoot 'em till their dead and let your god sort it out! |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3886
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 17:57:00 -
[432] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: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? I can't go along with the main part of your post.
No one should ever have take access to your personal hanger, whether that be in a station, Outpost, or POS. If they want to include the ability for a director to be able to put things into a personal hanger (like they currently do in stations), that's fine.
It would be a different story if a POS or the personal hanger array itself could not be taken down while goods were in it, but that's not the case. You simply want to be able to access those items (that someone else owns) so that they don't go to waste... but that's not your responsibility. Not to mention the multitude of ways that a take mechanic could and absolutely would be exploited.
However your question about using BP's to build with from your personal hanger is an excellent one, as that could simplify a mechanic that is currently a bit of a pain in the butt. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
101
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 18:15:00 -
[433] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: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? I can't go along with the main part of your post. No one should ever have take access to your personal hanger, whether that be in a station, Outpost, or POS. If they want to include the ability for a director to be able to put things into a personal hanger (like they currently do in stations), that's fine. It would be a different story if a POS or the personal hanger array itself could not be taken down while goods were in it, but that's not the case. You simply want to be able to access those items (that someone else owns) so that they don't go to waste... but that's not your responsibility. Not to mention the multitude of ways that a take mechanic could and absolutely would be exploited. However your question about using BP's to build with from your personal hanger is an excellent one, as that could simplify a mechanic that is currently a bit of a pain in the butt.
If the POS is a corporate entity then access to all parts should be an option for CEO. I do content that maybe a lock down should be possible, but I will refer back to the concept linked above as PDH, where you would get a two division system introduce into the possible mechanic. So there is one personal storage and one personal division, that is usable by corp CEO and Member if right are granted. This would also make it possible to let "lost" items go to impounded and potentially be accessed from a new POS launched in the same location. Based on Moon ID. Thus you might need to negotiate access with new owners.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 18:18:00 -
[434] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:If the POS is a corporate entity then access to all parts should be an option for CEO. I do content that maybe a lock down should be possible, but I will refer back to the concept linked above as PDH, where you would get a two division system introduce into the possible mechanic. So there is one personal storage and one personal division, that is usable by corp CEO and Member if right are granted. This would also make it possible to let "lost" items go to impounded and potentially be accessed from a new POS launched in the same location. Based on Moon ID. Thus you might need to negotiate access with new owners. Ok, this actually has some potential, an impound based on moon id so that future pos's put up with this mod keep the person's 'division' in it so that when you go back for your stuff but a new owner is there to negotiate with them to retrieve it... sure, lots of room for abuse in this, but it still leaves the option up to the individual that owns the stuff, and not the CEO of the orginal corp. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
101
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 18:27:00 -
[435] - Quote
The major benefit is that the same system can be adopted in current stations, and perhaps in future concept Super Caps.
I am still dreaming of a wandering ship with something like this. A true space Vagabond.
One that has no highslots, but tank that makes it practically ungankable, except by Titans. With access to Empire. Basically a chribba flying city.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3888
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 18:29:00 -
[436] - Quote
If you want this system to function properly, and get it in a timely fashion, KISS (keep it simple stupid).
There is nothing what so ever wrong with the items in a personal hanger being lost if the array is taken offline, and absolutely nothing wrong with those items dropping as loot in case of destuction.
These are the risks that SHOULD be associated with keeping personal items in a POS.
You guys are over thinking this. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 18:31:00 -
[437] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:The major benefit is that the same system can be adopted in current stations, and perhaps in future concept Super Caps. I am still dreaming of a wandering ship with something like this. A true space Vagabond. One that has no highslots, but tank that makes it practically ungankable, except by Titans. With access to Empire. Basically a chribba flying city. Yes! Must give Chribba more high sec caps! |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 18:36:00 -
[438] - Quote
Though perhaps give it high slots, but no turret or launcher hardpoints? so it can act as some sort of support? |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
101
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 18:53:00 -
[439] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:If you want this system to function properly, and get it in a timely fashion, KISS (keep it simple stupid).
There is nothing what so ever wrong with the items in a personal hanger being lost if the array is taken offline, and absolutely nothing wrong with those items dropping as loot in case of destuction.
These are the risks that SHOULD be associated with keeping personal items in a POS.
You guys are over thinking this.
Let me get this straight you dont want a boss to be able to access your job located locker, and we are over thinking things?
The reason to allow it to go into some sort of impound is to avoid to many exploit issues. Things like an expensive BPO in a personal hangar, and personal differences makes that one person intentionally destroy the structure. Then dropping things into space is a serious problem. Also what when a corp have tons of members and the structure dies, the potential problems of POS structures dying will clutter space in a way that fighting does not do, there might be some awful lag problems in the wake of something like that. Its not like when many ships in space die, its potentially 100+ ships in one go, and unknown number of items and item types.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 18:54:00 -
[440] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:If you want this system to function properly, and get it in a timely fashion, KISS (keep it simple stupid).
There is nothing what so ever wrong with the items in a personal hanger being lost if the array is taken offline, and absolutely nothing wrong with those items dropping as loot in case of destuction.
These are the risks that SHOULD be associated with keeping personal items in a POS.
You guys are over thinking this. Let me get this straight you dont want a boss to be able to access your job located locker, and we are over thinking things? The reason to allow it to go into some sort of impound is to avoid to many exploit issues. Things like an expensive BPO in a personal hangar, and personal differences makes that one person intentionally destroy the structure. Then dropping things into space is a serious problem. Also what when a corp have tons of members and the structure dies, the potential problems of POS structures dying will clutter space in a way that fighting does not do, there might be some awful lag problems in the wake of something like that. Its not like when many ships in space die, its potentially 100+ ships in one go, and unknown number of items and item types. You already face the potential of these issues with currently existing mods to one extent or another. |
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
101
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 19:00:00 -
[441] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: You already face the potential of these issues with currently existing mods to one extent or another.
Not mine. Converting entries into items in space is a bit different than moving a DB entry to a different state.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 19:06:00 -
[442] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Pelea Ming wrote: You already face the potential of these issues with currently existing mods to one extent or another.
Not mine. Converting entries into items in space is a bit different than moving a DB entry to a different state. I was referring to loss of items due to destruction and too many drops causing lag, etc. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
101
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 19:23:00 -
[443] - Quote
Maybe creating something rather simple.
If destroyed or unanchored. Spawn one wreck. That you salvage to get access to all the loot. The salvage time could be set long so server have time to roll. ?? It can not be the first 50, as suggested it needs to be random on all items to keep things fair?!
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 19:33:00 -
[444] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Maybe creating something rather simple.
If destroyed or unanchored. Spawn one wreck. That you salvage to get access to all the loot. The salvage time could be set long so server have time to roll. ?? It can not be the first 50, as suggested it needs to be random on all items to keep things fair?! Standard item drop chance, same as any wreck, of course, it'd just have to be a new type of named wreck for them to drop into. |
Bellasarius Baxter
Zilog Enterprises
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 22:20:00 -
[445] - Quote
The Pilot hangar stuff sounds good, however I would prefer to have all structures which currently have storage got a Pilot hanger, so that you can use manufacturing arrays, labs, and storage facilities to have your own stuff. Then make it possible to use the pilot hangar as input/output, and you would make a lot of indy CEOs very happy. When using the pilot hangar as input, the payment of rental fees should be taken from the personal wallet, rather than a corp wallet.
That implementation would also enable renting slots at a POS owned by a different corporation than your own.
Comments, enhancements, and thoughts on the above is welcome, as always.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 22:28:00 -
[446] - Quote
Bellasarius Baxter wrote:The Pilot hangar stuff sounds good, however I would prefer to have all structures which currently have storage got a Pilot hanger, so that you can use manufacturing arrays, labs, and storage facilities to have your own stuff. Then make it possible to use the pilot hangar as input/output, and you would make a lot of indy CEOs very happy. When using the pilot hangar as input, the payment of rental fees should be taken from the personal wallet, rather than a corp wallet.
That implementation would also enable renting slots at a POS owned by a different corporation than your own.
Comments, enhancements, and thoughts on the above is welcome, as always.
I love ideas like this, cause atm, I have no reason to have an HS pos, and stuff like this would give me a reason to set one up :P |
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 02:46:00 -
[447] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:You already face the potential of these issues with currently existing mods to one extent or another.
I'd disagree. No POS modules currently allow storage of an unlimited amount of m3. POCOs, which do allow this, do not drop anything when destroyed.
Just imagine if a corp with high member turnover maintains a POS with a PHA for 5 years.
Or, for that matter, imagine if a corp collectively created 3 new chars every day(could be done with trial accounts, or just extra alt slots), and used each new alt to fill a bay in the PHA with shuttles(this would only cost about 880mil for the entire year). You'd fit 80 shuttles into each bay if they're 40k m3 bays. After a year of doing this, if someone blew up the PHA, you'd suddenly have up to 87,600 shuttles spawned in space.
For that matter, fill the bays with frozen corpses. Each bay can hold 20,000 of them.
Hmm, would this crash the server? Or just cause an insane amount of lag? |
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
107
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 02:55:00 -
[448] - Quote
A nice gift for wormhole dwellers, but I saw nothing addressing most of the common concerns on the forums. No mention of a modular pos, for sure. Anchoring and unanchoring a pos will remain a nightmare. Players cannot control their own pos independent of corp, etc. You can constantly tweak really outdated code or you can start fresh with something that makes sense for everyone. I recommend the later. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
474
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 04:04:00 -
[449] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:A nice gift for wormhole dwellers, but I saw nothing addressing most of the common concerns on the forums. No mention of a modular pos, for sure. Anchoring and unanchoring a pos will remain a nightmare. Players cannot control their own pos independent of corp, etc. You can constantly tweak really outdated code or you can start fresh with something that makes sense for everyone. I recommend the later.
Or, you can have a small team work on tweaking really outdated code to solve some common headaches while another team works on the much larger problem of an all-new design and code base. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Vote for CSM 8! |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
306
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 05:10:00 -
[450] - Quote
make sure to code the new POS code to be able to replicate the old pos behaviors. all of them.
because it took way too long for you to finally do what everyone told you to do with the UInventory. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 16:09:00 -
[451] - Quote
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:You already face the potential of these issues with currently existing mods to one extent or another. I'd disagree. No POS modules currently allow storage of an unlimited amount of m3. POCOs, which do allow this, do not drop anything when destroyed. Just imagine if a corp with high member turnover maintains a POS with a PHA for 5 years. Or, for that matter, imagine if a corp collectively created 3 new chars every day(could be done with trial accounts, or just extra alt slots), and used each new alt to fill a bay in the PHA with shuttles(this would only cost about 880mil for the entire year). You'd fit 80 shuttles into each bay if they're 40k m3 bays. After a year of doing this, if someone blew up the PHA, you'd suddenly have up to 87,600 shuttles spawned in space. For that matter, fill the bays with frozen corpses. Each bay can hold 20,000 of them. Hmm, would this crash the server? Or just cause an insane amount of lag? And this is why I was saying about creating a new type of wreck for this mod for the dropped items to spawn within. |
Verlaine Glariant
Amphysvena
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 18:55:00 -
[452] - Quote
CCP, please take a look at Permission system for starbases.
And put modular POS system already. www.amphysvena.org |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 20:42:00 -
[453] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:A nice gift for wormhole dwellers, but I saw nothing addressing most of the common concerns on the forums. No mention of a modular pos, for sure. Anchoring and unanchoring a pos will remain a nightmare. Players cannot control their own pos independent of corp, etc. You can constantly tweak really outdated code or you can start fresh with something that makes sense for everyone. I recommend the later.
There has to be a intermediary step. While CCP could revamp the POS code, it will take them some time.
So if a POS code revamp takes a year.. should they just completely stall out on providing anything while they revamp it?
Is it optimal, nope. Is it Modular, nope.
Does it Help.. good lord yes it does.
Yea I know there is no alliance POS's, abilities to launch personal POS's, set standards or share Manufacturing arrays among the alliances. Those are headaches but people have managed (though they really do need to address the whole manufacturing/job cancelling issue).
The new hanger is a good idea, the Capital array is a good idea. Will it fix the current code.. no.
Will it help people in the interim While they fix the current code.... I believe so. Its not a solution, its emergency aid.
But Lord they need to fix the whole "cancel manufacturing job" issue that's present. BIIIIG problem. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 22:40:00 -
[454] - Quote
Tennessee Jack wrote:So if a POS code revamp takes a year.. should they just completely stall out on providing anything while they revamp it?
Is it optimal, nope. Is it Modular, nope.
Does it Help.. good lord yes it does. I didn't noticed. I just thought an idea, that would really help, out of my head. What they propose is going to be a no-help-for-anyone. |
Sassums
Wormhole Exploration Crew R.E.P.O.
77
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 22:44:00 -
[455] - Quote
So the excuse I keep hearing is there isn't enough time to implement changes before the expansion goes live. This is incredibly annoying. What happened to "planning ahead". Clearly this is a very large and important issue and instead of putting a band aid on it, perhaps fixing it at the source is a smarter idea.
How long will we have to wait before we finally get something that works? Plenty of people have given plenty of suggestions and all we get is "not enough time". Perhaps you should get a team together and dedicated them towards the POS Revamp. Theres an idea.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3898
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 23:32:00 -
[456] - Quote
Sassums wrote:So the excuse I keep hearing is there isn't enough time to implement changes before the expansion goes live. This is incredibly annoying. What happened to "planning ahead". Clearly this is a very large and important issue and instead of putting a band aid on it, perhaps fixing it at the source is a smarter idea.
How long will we have to wait before we finally get something that works? Plenty of people have given plenty of suggestions and all we get is "not enough time". Perhaps you should get a team together and dedicated them towards the POS Revamp. Theres an idea.
Because that's not exactly what they are doing.
The plan to completely rework the code is in motion, but it's a huge task because it affects so many different aspects of EvE. So we have a smaller group working on a short term fix, which forms a handy test bed for the larger changes to come.
The current system already works. The update will make the current system work better. The full redo is being planned out, so that it ends up better than what we have.
What happened to "understanding the situation before offering your opinion"? To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 23:46:00 -
[457] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:The current system already works. That's the problem.
Quote:The update will make the current system work better. No, the update will not change it even a little.
Quote:The full redo is being planned out, so that it ends up better than what we have. We're all waiting for it.
Quote:What happened to "understanding the situation before offering your opinion"? It seems, it was you, who didn't understood the problem. |
Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
90
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:01:00 -
[458] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:The current system already works. That's the problem. Quote:The update will make the current system work better. No, the update will not change it even a little.
So...you didn't read the DevBlog at all, did you? Repackaging items in the POS. Oh look at that, something that is very helpful, at least to those of us in the wormhole, but also to others to a lesser extent. Your argument has already been invalidated just by one of the many changes they are doing. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3900
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:02:00 -
[459] - Quote
If you don't think the changes coming will help out a large number of EvE players, perhaps you should actually read this thread.
If you feel that the current system working while waiting for a complete rework is "the problem" I don't know what to tell you. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 01:41:00 -
[460] - Quote
Lolmer wrote:So...you didn't read the DevBlog at all, did you? Repackaging items in the POS. Oh look at that, something that is very helpful, at least to those of us in the wormhole, but also to others to a lesser extent. Your argument has already been invalidated just by one of the many changes they are doing. That's the ONLY change, that is actually making the life in a POS better. People already pointed to multiple issues that were LEFT OUT of the scope of the blog, including ACTUAL BUGS, rather than missing features. Pointing to a single feature and proclaiming that it's worth all the bugs unfixed is just stupid. |
|
Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
97
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 02:23:00 -
[461] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:Lolmer wrote:So...you didn't read the DevBlog at all, did you? Repackaging items in the POS. Oh look at that, something that is very helpful, at least to those of us in the wormhole, but also to others to a lesser extent. Your argument has already been invalidated just by one of the many changes they are doing. That's the ONLY change, that is actually making the life in a POS better. People already pointed to multiple issues that were LEFT OUT of the scope of the blog, including ACTUAL BUGS, rather than missing features. Pointing to a single feature and proclaiming that it's worth all the bugs unfixed is just stupid.
Okay, you want to keep going with this? Did you read the Dev Blog? Here's another item from there that helps everyone: Moving items between ships/hangars/etc. inside the forcefield without being within 2500m. How about another: Refitting Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers. Oh my, two improvements! And here you only required one, I gave you one, then you said sure, but how about another? I shall one-up you, sir, and give you two for your one. :) Do you wish to continue this game?
Your argument: Debunked yet again.
Sure, there are still bugs, no one is arguing against that, nor are we arguing against having a POS revamp. What we are saying is that we appreciate that there is work being done for the short-term while they continue to design and figure out the long-term fixes. |
Frying Doom
2213
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 08:51:00 -
[462] - Quote
Even though the work is small
To be fair they really didn't start doing anything till half way through January.
I will happily take anything over the nothing it has rotted with for years. Vote Now My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras |
Kblackjack54
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 10:42:00 -
[463] - Quote
While a complete re-work of the PoS operations facet has been long in coming it bothers me that CCP are again trying to tinker with the original code rather than work a full system from scratch as we have seen from past iterations that this only leads to problems as they never really fully test them in situ, we saw the mess that there new 'Tree' system brought for PoS operators and the time it took to sort that one out into the workable brew of work around's it is today.
The ability to name silos and other items was a good thing, but they still did not allow you to sort and group the inventory listing, it still remains a randomized mess.
Operating the tower from anywhere inside the force-field sounds like a good idea when first mooted but is it not the case that CCP indicated that they wished to remove them in past dev blogs, has this idea now been scrapped.
And how does this revamp map into that of modular PoS constructs once indicated, it would appear that CCP is dipping into old code in an attempt to make something out of it that is never really going to work properly and be even more difficult to change in the future.
Having said that my main concern would be that of personal hangar space, this presents a serious problem to Corp operations should they wish to remove the tower at a later date, all items being lost once the construct was dismantled, bit of a nightmare in the making there, will the storage repackage with items inside or will it remain stuck and prevent the tower being un-achored, worst case, hoards of orphaned storage hangars at moons preventing anchoring of new towers unless you rock up with a fleet and blow up the remains of the old ones, stretching things I know but you can see the obvious problems it might trawl up later unless thought through.
Best of luck with this one but we have already shelved long term PoS plans until we see what sort of a monster this one throws at us. |
Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1616
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 11:02:00 -
[464] - Quote
Lolmer wrote:Tonto Auri wrote:Lolmer wrote:So...you didn't read the DevBlog at all, did you? Repackaging items in the POS. Oh look at that, something that is very helpful, at least to those of us in the wormhole, but also to others to a lesser extent. Your argument has already been invalidated just by one of the many changes they are doing. That's the ONLY change, that is actually making the life in a POS better. People already pointed to multiple issues that were LEFT OUT of the scope of the blog, including ACTUAL BUGS, rather than missing features. Pointing to a single feature and proclaiming that it's worth all the bugs unfixed is just stupid. Okay, you want to keep going with this? Did you read the Dev Blog? Here's another item from there that helps everyone: Moving items between ships/hangars/etc. inside the forcefield without being within 2500m. How about another: Refitting Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers. Oh my, two improvements! And here you only required one, I gave you one, then you said sure, but how about another? I shall one-up you, sir, and give you two for your one. :) Do you wish to continue this game? Your argument: Debunked yet again. Sure, there are still bugs, no one is arguing against that, nor are we arguing against having a POS revamp. What we are saying is that we appreciate that there is work being done for the short-term while they continue to design and figure out the long-term fixes.
Soooo, doing 4-5 small things to the pos system. Not really changing anything, not really fixing any of the major bugs. Not doing ANYTHING to the fu*ked up permission system. Yes this really makes the whole thing worthy as expansion material. We'll just forget the ideas of the community. What have been said about pos's from ccp at various fanfests. Let's not forget that ccp knows very well they have fu*ked up on this one. Just read the disclaimer ^^
"Due to old code, we wont be delivering as we promised" |
Zarnoo
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 16:07:00 -
[465] - Quote
So what gets me, is that CCP says it's difficult to change the outdated POS code. I understand the difficulty of changing operational code, and adding functionality without breaking what it still needs to do.
So my thought is.. why bother.. Add a new set of code for new POS's, and just like when they changed the fuel, allow the two types of POS to co-exist for a short period to allow people to transition. "But what about all my old pos mods" I hear you say, well that's easy too. CCP provides a supply of seeded, free, "conversion" blueprints. You haul your control tower, corp hangar, sentry gun, whatever it is, to a manufacturing facility, run it through the conversion BP, and what comes out of the other end is the new equivalent of whatever the module is (this may take a combination of mods, depending on the new feature, but would be easier than building the new mod from scratch, and would not lose your original investment).. Then on D-Day (when they switch off the old code), any unconverted mods would still be in game and could be unanchored, but would not be operational until converted. All POS blueprints would automatically be converted at the same time (like they did with probes).
Since POS's affect everyone in game, whether it's because you fly a T2 ship which is manufactured from Moon goo, or you need somewhere to hide when you siege your rorqual, I believe POS's are one of the critical game mechanics, and their overhaul is way overdue.
Just me 2c worth...
Z |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3901
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 05:01:00 -
[466] - Quote
Quote:Since POS's affect everyone in game, whether it's because you fly a T2 ship which is manufactured from Moon goo, or you need somewhere to hide when you siege your rorqual, I believe POS's are one of the critical game mechanics, and their overhaul is way overdue. Which would explain why:
1: It's taking a while to rework, as it touches on so many critical aspects of the game and is therefore very complicated. 2: The rework is being planned carefully, and will require a total rewrite of the system. 3: They are fixing what they can now to make life easier until the large project is done. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
612
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 05:29:00 -
[467] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Since POS's affect everyone in game, whether it's because you fly a T2 ship which is manufactured from Moon goo, or you need somewhere to hide when you siege your rorqual, I believe POS's are one of the critical game mechanics, and their overhaul is way overdue. Which would explain why: 1: It's taking a while to rework, as it touches on so many critical aspects of the game and is therefore very complicated. 2: The rework is being planned carefully, and will require a total rewrite of the system. 3: They are fixing what they can now to make life easier until the large project is done. ^^ This.
It wouldn't suprise me at all to know that these "seemingly" small changes are simply CCP's way of digging into the old code to really start to figure out how it works while not breaking anything "big" and giving us a carrot at the same time.
I'm looking forward to these updates -- even if it's small ... it's better than we've had for a looooong time with POSs. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
106
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:01:00 -
[468] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Since POS's affect everyone in game, whether it's because you fly a T2 ship which is manufactured from Moon goo, or you need somewhere to hide when you siege your rorqual, I believe POS's are one of the critical game mechanics, and their overhaul is way overdue. Which would explain why: 1: It's taking a while to rework, as it touches on so many critical aspects of the game and is therefore very complicated. 2: The rework is being planned carefully, and will require a total rewrite of the system. 3: They are fixing what they can now to make life easier until the large project is done. ^^ This. It wouldn't suprise me at all to know that these "seemingly" small changes are simply CCP's way of digging into the old code to really start to figure out how it works while not breaking anything "big" and giving us a carrot at the same time. I'm looking forward to these updates -- even if it's small ... it's better than we've had for a looooong time with POSs.
I think its a very probable fact. I was listening to Seleene on EVE-U the other night, and NDA aside it sounds like a lot is in the air and some HUGE changes are coming. Not the type with the shinies, but the type that really matters
Especially exciting is that they all CSm and CCP devs alike seem to keep mentioning economy in relation to mixing things up and incentives to pvp.. Having been singing THAT song a LONG time I think now might be the hour they go ahead and actually do it..
Eve University podcasts
|
Praxximus
Wormhole Exploration Crew R.E.P.O.
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:59:00 -
[469] - Quote
I've been playing this game for 3+ years now and I'm STILL not used to this. I played WoW for a long time and it seemed like in that game (as in so many others) everytime they'd come out and say "we're changing so and so" the general response was usually "OMG WTF? THIS IS BULL***T THEY'RE NERFING US AGAIN!!
Much more often than not though in EVE, as is the case with this devblog I just kind of read each item and go "oh sweet!!!"
I live in WH's so I've had some frustrations with POS's and it's nice seeing some items that I've specifically been annoyed with being addressed in here. It sucks when you're trying to quickly switch ships to go jump into a PvP engagement and you have to slowboat over to your damn hangar so you can get the ship you want. Wait what? I don't have to do that anymore? Nice!
Then its a pain in the ass trying to set up guns and ECM mods on your POS because you have to zoom out really far (unless you're a dumbass and actually fly outside the shields to install the things..."hi look at me, I'm a defenseless hauler come shoot my ass!) and that green box gets so teeny tiny that it becomes impossible to do anything with it. What's that? You're making the little boxes scale up when you zoom out??? Awesome!
And then of course there are the POS's that have 15 SMA's because of all the guys who own half a dozen capital ships a piece and need a hangar for each one. Hold on...you're saying we can have CSMA's in our POS's now? Haawww dilly!!!
I could go on, but you get the point ;) Well done CCP! |
Minerus Maximus
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:04:00 -
[470] - Quote
Previously I apologize for the google translation
Quote:Ships and containers cannot be repackaged since that could be used to overflow the array. I strongly disagree with the fact that the ship repackaging overflow the ship assembly array. Remember that in advanced ship assembly array for construction T2 ships are used repackaged T1 ships as the incoming component. In W-space this leads to the necessity of the production of T1 ships on the same POS as the T2 that is very inconvenient and not always possible. If you don't want to allow ship assembly arrays to repackaging ships - go ahead. But advanced ship assembly arrays must have ability to repackaging ships. |
|
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
615
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:14:00 -
[471] - Quote
Minerus Maximus wrote:Previously I apologize for the google translation Quote:Ships and containers cannot be repackaged since that could be used to overflow the array. I strongly disagree with the fact that the ship repackaging overflow the ship assembly array. Remember that in advanced ship assembly array for construction T2 ships are used repackaged T1 ships as the incoming component. In W-space this leads to the necessity of the production of T1 ships on the same POS as the T2 that is very inconvenient and not always possible. If you don't want to allow ship assembly arrays to repackaging ships - go ahead. But advanced ship assembly arrays must have ability to repackaging ships. What is being referred to is this:
I have a container with 500 items in it. My hangar array already has 700 items in it. Knowing that I have a 1000 item limit, if I'm allowed to repackage the container, all of the items will end up in the hangar, which now is at 1200 items, thus, overflowing the array.
The same goes for ships. Repackage a ship, where do the modules go? Into your local hangar.
A proper implementation of this should be: a) Do I have enough room in the hangar / array for the items & modules in the ship / container?
If yes: b) Repackage container / ship, modules & items to into the hangar
if no: c) Do not allow the container / ship to be repackaged. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
151
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 02:29:00 -
[472] - Quote
Sorry if this is already answered (I didn't read the entire forum thread, been AFG for a week) but I wanted to put in 2 cents on the size of the Personal HAs. In wormholes, many people use the CHA to store PI goods that are moving between planets or surplus to balance across manufacturing chains. This takes up a fairly significant amount of space.
Currently I'm taking up just a bit over 55,000 m3 in my CHA. This includes an array of containers designed to either optimally fit a Mammoth or a Prowler, along with 20,000-30,000 count of four "Basic Commodities". It would be nice to get at least 60,000 m3 of space. Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planet Authority James Arget for CSM8! |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
663
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 09:43:00 -
[473] - Quote
"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars."
"If a member leaves the corp, his or her items are left in the structure but cannot be accessed unless the player rejoins."
I hate to talk negatively about CCP developers but this just seems like either laziness or incompetence.
Corp theft is a legitimate part of eve gameplay and this change effectively removes it... Unless the number of players per personal hanger is limited and the fitting requirements are so high that only one or two of this structures are feasible, effectively forcing multi-user pos' to use a corp hanger... but then we are back to square one.
The second quote is just dumb and further highlights the need for directors and CEO's to have access to personal hangers.
In short; do a proper job. Is my bitter vet membership card in the mail? |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 09:52:00 -
[474] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:"Corp directors have the ability to see what members have items in the hangar, but do not have the ability to take or place items from/in the hangars."
"If a member leaves the corp, his or her items are left in the structure but cannot be accessed unless the player rejoins."
I hate to talk negatively about CCP developers but this just seems like either laziness or incompetence.
Corp theft is a legitimate part of eve gameplay and this change effectively removes it... Unless the number of players per personal hanger is limited and the fitting requirements are so high that only one or two of this structures are feasible, effectively forcing multi-user pos' to use a corp hanger... but then we are back to square one.
The second quote is just dumb and further highlights the need for directors and CEO's to have access to personal hangers.
In short; do a proper job.
The state of the game as it stands now is totally unrealistic and bended unfairly.
An employee can access the Boss' safe, if the Boss is stupid enough to mess up, but the Boss is unable to see what is in the employees locker, or empty it upon firing him.
Why is corp theft defended by devs, but the reverse is not allowed?
This is basically why I believe a 2 division system is needed for players. One that is truly personal, and one that can have access states depending on rights. When joining a corp those rights settings are shared between player and CEO. Also CEo should not be able to view in the truly private division hangar, only the corp/public one.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5175
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:04:00 -
[475] - Quote
Update on our current progress:
The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made. Taking your feedback so far into account, the Personal Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable. Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions. The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is desired. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
309
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:16:00 -
[476] - Quote
"usable version"... meaning it works to the extent you can change t3 subsystems on it already? or is this still a technical hurdle to be overcome? |
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:17:00 -
[477] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made. Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable. Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions. The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is welcomed.
Awesome, thanks for the update!
Is there any chance of a rebalance of manufactering plants on a pos? - It does not make much sense to have a 1.1 multiplier on making tech 2 stuff, ect.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5178
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:21:00 -
[478] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:"usable version"... meaning it works to the extent you can change t3 subsystems on it already? or is this still a technical hurdle to be overcome?
T3 subsystem swap is a separate story that has not been completed yet. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Beaver Retriever
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:25:00 -
[479] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is welcomed. Feedback: this structure should be named 'Super-Duper-Large Ship Maintenance Array' instead. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
309
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:26:00 -
[480] - Quote
err 2 quick questions about the change to pos mod handling...
do you have to be inside the shield to do so or @ 0m to the shields (but can still be outside) ?
if you're unable to go in due to the pos having a private pw can u still access and use the mods? (anchor / unanchor / etc..) |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
3566
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:29:00 -
[481] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made. Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable. Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions. The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is welcomed.
Thanks for the update, that all sounds great. 50K m3 per person sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially because people can either anchor another PHA or just use a CHA. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5178
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:31:00 -
[482] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:err 2 quick questions about the change to pos mod handling...
do you have to be inside the shield to do so or @ 0m to the shields (but can still be outside) ?
if you're unable to go in due to the pos having a private pw can u still access and use the mods? (anchor / unanchor / etc..)
You must be a slight ways inside the bubble. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:34:00 -
[483] - Quote
Awesome to hear things are moving forward at a, to a bitter vet, impressive speed.
I seriously think you should discuss the issue of capacity of storage in all EVE-¦s game mechanics.
As i see it its really going against the fundamental difference between EVE and other games.
If things arent moving, there is no need for limitations, except for a server/db load argument, or the issue of players being able to hoard huge amounts of assets in bunkered down locations. The latter is actually a positive thing, since if game mechanics exist to obtain knowledge of such vast resources location, then its a lot more strategically interesting. Using time sinks like in PI delay is much more valid, and these should be considered as queue-able function. So when moving things basically via npc/server-side mechanic its more like timers in anchoring and onlining. Especially if mechanics would allow almost batch like queueing a lot of the click fest would feel less frustrating. It a horrible comparison, but it would be more like farmville and still retain the balance functions.
Maybe we need to consider having a spying and thus scanning functionality specifically for hangars? That would be a rather huge game changer, and ofc some sort of countermeasures would be needed.
The potential added strategic element would however make it a valid concept to consider.
Also could you please comment on the issue of take roles towards corp.. I think its time ccp looked at this and upgraded to a bit more realist functionality.. The hangar mechanics have been fundamentally unchanged for quite a lot of years..
|
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
201
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:37:00 -
[484] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:err 2 quick questions about the change to pos mod handling...
do you have to be inside the shield to do so or @ 0m to the shields (but can still be outside) ?
if you're unable to go in due to the pos having a private pw can u still access and use the mods? (anchor / unanchor / etc..) You must be a slight ways inside the bubble.
Is this change going to affect SMA's as well or do we still need to get on top of them? Artctura for CSM 2013 |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
541
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:38:00 -
[485] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:err 2 quick questions about the change to pos mod handling...
do you have to be inside the shield to do so or @ 0m to the shields (but can still be outside) ?
if you're unable to go in due to the pos having a private pw can u still access and use the mods? (anchor / unanchor / etc..) You must be a slight ways inside the bubble. So if we ram ourselves into the shield and quicky try to access something before we bounce back, will it work? |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:43:00 -
[486] - Quote
How soon can we expect to test these new nice things on Sisi?
Also can parts of it be added to TQ sooner than others? I am thinking the range access thing specifically..
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
309
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:43:00 -
[487] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:err 2 quick questions about the change to pos mod handling...
do you have to be inside the shield to do so or @ 0m to the shields (but can still be outside) ?
if you're unable to go in due to the pos having a private pw can u still access and use the mods? (anchor / unanchor / etc..) You must be a slight ways inside the bubble.
glad to hear it Fozzie, Team Five-0 kicking ass and taking names yet again! \o/ |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5181
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:44:00 -
[488] - Quote
Artctura wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:err 2 quick questions about the change to pos mod handling...
do you have to be inside the shield to do so or @ 0m to the shields (but can still be outside) ?
if you're unable to go in due to the pos having a private pw can u still access and use the mods? (anchor / unanchor / etc..) You must be a slight ways inside the bubble. Is this change going to affect SMA's as well or do we still need to get on top of them?
In the current version it does not affect range required to refit from SMAs. We are considering changing that but undecided atm. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
202
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 13:48:00 -
[489] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Artctura wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:err 2 quick questions about the change to pos mod handling...
do you have to be inside the shield to do so or @ 0m to the shields (but can still be outside) ?
if you're unable to go in due to the pos having a private pw can u still access and use the mods? (anchor / unanchor / etc..) You must be a slight ways inside the bubble. Is this change going to affect SMA's as well or do we still need to get on top of them? In the current version it does not affect range required to refit from SMAs. We are considering changing that but undecided atm.
Thanks. I personally think the 3 big things that were missed (At least as far as I saw) are:
- Refitting on an SMA from anywhere within the shield.
- Allowing shield access based on standings, in addition to corp/alliance. Similar to the way fleets can be created.
- Queuing the online/offline functions. I know this one is more complex and requires some additional tweaks to prevent it from becoming overpowered, but I'd definitely like to see it.
Artctura for CSM 2013 |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
211
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 14:15:00 -
[490] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made. Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable. Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions. The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is welcomed.
CCP Fozzie, for what its worth, I really like these changes and am looking forward to their eventual release. But also, don't forget the vision of the original "Flogging the dead horse" POS thread.
o7 I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1058
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 14:46:00 -
[491] - Quote
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! "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 14:47:00 -
[492] - Quote
Hi,
Also if that will be possible to make some modification on the laboratory.
Make one module you call master laboratory (or the name you would like). When you need more slot, you add the slave laboratory.
Advantage : When you search your laboratory you see only the master laboratory (the slave add only some slot to the master).
That will be very useful. Because now it's really a lot of individual laboratory for nothing.
PS : If some people would like more than one master. it's still possible to put 2 or three master with different right.
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
217
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 14:58:00 -
[493] - 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!
Just to clarify my understanding. Canceling other members jobs will become restricted to directors only. If you have the Factory-Manager role, you will be able to still cancel your jobs. If you do not have the Factory-Manager role and you are not a director, then you will not be able to cancel any jobs, including your own.
Is this the correct interpretation? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4541
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 15:07:00 -
[494] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:As usual your feedback is welcomed. But not exceedingly simple yes or no questions, apparently. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5183
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 15:22:00 -
[495] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:As usual your feedback is welcomed. But not exceedingly simple yes or no questions, apparently.
Mainly because the answer isn't yes or no. We can't make the call on subsystem swapping in carriers and other ship bays until we are further along with the process for that story. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1061
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 15:35:00 -
[496] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote: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! Just to clarify my understanding. Canceling other members jobs will become restricted to directors only. If you have the Factory-Manager role, you will be able to still cancel your jobs. If you do not have the Factory-Manager role and you are not a director, then you will not be able to cancel any jobs, including your own. Is this the correct interpretation? Correct "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
217
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 15:37:00 -
[497] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote: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! Just to clarify my understanding. Canceling other members jobs will become restricted to directors only. If you have the Factory-Manager role, you will be able to still cancel your jobs. If you do not have the Factory-Manager role and you are not a director, then you will not be able to cancel any jobs, including your own. Is this the correct interpretation? Correct
Sounds good to me. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 15:53:00 -
[498] - 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!
Could it not be based on ejection access?
So if a job is started from hangars the person trying to cancel does not have rights to the job is not cancelled?
Note this ties into the solution suggested about Personal Hangars being accessible by CEO, and potentially the idea of differentiating between a truly private and a corporate private hangar.
Something along these lines would create a lot of "hack-like" solutions to current flaws and long wanted features?
With the new UI making 2 different types of personal hangars should be a lot easier then it was before? Or is the old code too borked for such workarounds?
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
125
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 16:01:00 -
[499] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:As usual your feedback is welcomed. Will we be able to run jobs from inside of private hangar? Like researching BPOs, etc. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
833
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 16:28:00 -
[500] - 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!
that's one of the biggest, but still of many things that stop people from doing large scale industry in corps.
fixing that will change something, but don't expect it to fix everything We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Malcanis - CSM 8 |
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
185
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 16:44:00 -
[501] - 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!
This is a good first step. This won't affect the ability to deliver other people's finished jobs, will it? |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1066
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 17:20:00 -
[502] - Quote
Good question. I'd imagine that delivering a finished corp job should still work for anyone with the FM role "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
ArmEagle Kusoni
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 17:25:00 -
[503] - Quote
What about a new angle for roles/permissions;
Currently everything is controlled top (corp) - down (player). With the addition of player storage, why not introduce player controlled permissions?
I have multiple accounts/alts living in the same POS, owned by my corp. They share some ships, but mostly items (modules, loot). Currently I need my corp to give me access to a weirdly named section in a Hangar. Why not let me specify other players that can access my player storage?
Sure, that opens a huge loophole where you use a lot of alts to give you access to many times 50k storage. But perhaps you could make it so that you actually combine the storage of 'friends', but make it (exponentially) diminutively rewarding.
Roles: There are two reasons I don't have my own POS; The cost vs. defense (which is decently guaranteed now). And the ridicule that I need permission from my corp to get one (role management) and that a 'director' can take it away if they please. But the crappy role management system at the same time is limiting me in this POS, making me want to have my own. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
165
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:15:00 -
[504] - 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!
Yes. Please do exactly this. vote steve https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=7933451 |
Stickyhand
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:20:00 -
[505] - 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!
This one fix would make large industrial corps a reality. Please do this. It has been a blight on industrial corps since day one. Not to diminish the other changes being made but this one fix is vastly more important than all the other upcoming pos changes combined, as it makes a whole new path in eve a possibility. |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:21:00 -
[506] - 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 would support this. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:36:00 -
[507] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Good question. I'd imagine that delivering a finished corp job should still work for anyone with the FM role
Again would it not make sense to base it on eject access.
If you do not have access to the eject location you should not be able to..
This way you also avoid potential abuse, and the person using the facility does not need to worry about cancelling without the correct rights, since he could eject to his personal hangar.
Before the question if this could be abused, not if CEO and Execs could always access all hangars, including the personal one.
This type of thinking would aslo make it easy to let corp and alliance owned slots be more freely available without hassle over who gets what access..
In future iteration the role of managing the order of a queue would be useful, but not cancelling the job. This way prioritizing internally would be easy, but without needing lots of complicated managerial work..
|
Jivlain Pollard
The Red Circle Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 19:01:00 -
[508] - 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!
That would be brilliant. If you can find a way, please make it so! |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 19:55:00 -
[509] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress: ...
The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. Shouldn't this be "X-Large Ship Maintenance Array" for parity with the existing "X-Large Ship Assembly Array"? |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 20:35:00 -
[510] - Quote
Jivlain Pollard wrote: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! That would be brilliant. If you can find a way, please make it so!
Oh good lord Please! |
|
Maude FreeLight
The Red Circle Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:19:00 -
[511] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:For all you players asking about the roles for cancelling jobs (and this applies to regular station jobs also) I'm going to have a look and see if there is something we can do about it. Take this with a hefty slice of Expectation Management Pie, but one simple possibility I'm thinking of is restricting the ability to cancel corp jobs to director roles only. With just the Factory-Manager role, you'd still be able to cancel your own corp jobs, but not those corp jobs belonging to your corpmates. What do you think about this idea? Be aware this is a very specific, focused fix to an problem that has come up a few times. Please don't feature-creep on me, or there's simply no scope for it happening!
Will this prevent someone from putting a structure offline while jobs are running? I'm not sure on the details but what I've been told is if a structure is offlined while jobs are running those jobs get cancelled. (Feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong) |
Frying Doom
2282
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:20:00 -
[512] - Quote
Two step wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made. Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable. Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions. The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is welcomed. Thanks for the update, that all sounds great. 50K m3 per person sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially because people can either anchor another PHA or just use a CHA. What they have finished so far has sounded great and the fact they they are continuing to work as people give them more ideas is awesome.
So once again thank you Two Step for making this happen and
Thank you CCP Fozzie and the rest of the CCP staff working on this. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
RangerSmurf
Pistols for Pandas
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 23:36:00 -
[513] - Quote
Can we please have some form of alliance module/item storage? Like the corp hangers that have the option to be allowed for alliance, but it does not function for them? |
Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
152
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 00:06:00 -
[514] - Quote
While I might like a bit more space 50K is doable.
One other thought for us wormhole dwellers. Most of us have alts, and while we don't want other people stealing our stuff we do want to be able to have our alts all pull from the same hangar (I have two characters in the hole that do PI, and they share a bin of "extra materials").
Today with a CHA they can share easily, but everyone else has access. While the PHA addresses that risk it removes the utility for alts. Will there either be a way for CHAs to have more granular permissions or for PHA owners to enable other characters (i.e. alts) to access them by positively adding access? In essence what I'm thinking of here is the POS equivalent of a station trade or pickup contract.
If this is too much for Odyssey I get it, but if so it'd be nice if some manner for wormhole in-POS transfer between alts existed. Thanks. Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planet Authority James Arget for CSM8! |
Katsuo Nuruodo
DarkMatter-Industries Talocan United
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 00:48:00 -
[515] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made. Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable. Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions. The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity. As usual your feedback is welcomed.
Sounds good to me. Thanks for working to improve POSs.
I'm still hoping that you'll be able to add in director or CEO access to PHA's sometime this year. |
Frying Doom
2283
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 02:21:00 -
[516] - Quote
RangerSmurf wrote:Can we please have some form of alliance module/item storage? Like the corp hangers that have the option to be allowed for alliance, but it does not function for them? Im not to caring about that but alliance bookmarks would be nice. I know not really a POS thing, but helpful none the less. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
203
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 03:00:00 -
[517] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:RangerSmurf wrote:Can we please have some form of alliance module/item storage? Like the corp hangers that have the option to be allowed for alliance, but it does not function for them? Im not to caring about that but alliance bookmarks would be nice. I know not really a POS thing, but helpful none the less.
Agree, though the creation could be a bit of a pain. Generally the holding corps don't have that many people in them for obvious reasons.
Also, increasing the limit on corp bookmarks.
But now we're threadjacking again, and I'd think it would be better to get a response from CCP in a different thread about these issues.
I will say though, that there does seem to be an overwhelming consensus on how broken the industrial side of POS's are and I hope that if anything does get dropped from the initial release, it isn't things that address that. Artctura for CSM 2013 |
DoToo Foo
Foo Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 03:47:00 -
[518] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:For all you players asking about the roles for cancelling jobs ... restricting the ability to cancel corp jobs to director roles only. With just the Factory-Manager role, you'd still be able to cancel your own corp jobs, but not those corp jobs belonging to your corpmates. ...
Stabase fuel technician would be a better role for this than director. I might want to set up someone to trust with my POS, but not give them full director permissions to access everything (including other wallets).
A Stabase fuel technician can already stop everyones job simply by making the POS offline. If I trust them with that much permission, I could also trust them to stop someone's job; but I would not need to give them permisison on everything corp related.
|
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 06:17:00 -
[519] - Quote
Hi master plan and fozzie.
Now the production in post is really a nightmare.
Because you make the copy on advanced laboratory, you make the invention on the laboratory. and you build and different structure.
My idea would be to make a need module.
Industrial laboratory.
What is the particularity or this module, you add inside the upgrade.
Advanced laboratory upgrade (you add the same number of slot then now) Laboratory upgrade (you add the same number of slot then now) etc ...
Same far all module.
Now in you pos. You have only one structure for the prod. it's only the upgrade you put inside modify what you can make with them.
With the same hangar in your pos you can make copy, invention, production.
You see only one structure like station. |
Frying Doom
2284
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 06:51:00 -
[520] - Quote
As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
123
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 09:17:00 -
[521] - Quote
DoToo Foo wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:For all you players asking about the roles for cancelling jobs ... restricting the ability to cancel corp jobs to director roles only. With just the Factory-Manager role, you'd still be able to cancel your own corp jobs, but not those corp jobs belonging to your corpmates. ... Stabase fuel technician would be a better role for this than director. I might want to set up someone to trust with my POS, but not give them full director permissions to access everything (including other wallets). A Stabase fuel technician can already stop everyones job simply by making the POS offline. If I trust them with that much permission, I could also trust them to stop someone's job; but I would not need to give them permisison on everything corp related.
Again using hangar access as the fundamental feature seem so much easier.. and would resolve things in POS in a much more general way..
That way the fuel technician would be an overall access to the fuel bays everywhere. More local rights could be granted using existing features like "based at" etc.. This way you could create roles that had access to fuel depending on say region, or only in personal system (based at) .. even more details could be added as functionality later on. So ranges like constellation, regions, system, etc..
A lot more and a lot easier.
Also you might even want to consider adding some range to access fuel bays and tower from just outside the shields, thus differentiating between managing and gaining access to the actual assets inside.. This would be especially useful in regards to alliance access, and the concept mentioned of a storage that can be alliance based accessed. The towers could simply get a storage that worked like the fuel bays..
|
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
165
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 09:45:00 -
[522] - Quote
DoToo Foo wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:For all you players asking about the roles for cancelling jobs ... restricting the ability to cancel corp jobs to director roles only. With just the Factory-Manager role, you'd still be able to cancel your own corp jobs, but not those corp jobs belonging to your corpmates. ... Stabase fuel technician would be a better role for this than director. I might want to set up someone to trust with my POS, but not give them full director permissions to access everything (including other wallets). A Stabase fuel technician can already stop everyones job simply by making the POS offline. If I trust them with that much permission, I could also trust them to stop someone's job; but I would not need to give them permisison on everything corp related.
I disagree; a person may be given access to add fuel to a wormhole POS, but that doesn't mean they should as a result have access to cancel all the corp jobs in highsec NPC stations.
Whilst this has come up in a POS thread, it applies to all industry, not just POS jobs. (And personally I am more interested in preventing cancelling station-based corp jobs than POS ones, although the POS ones are important too).
Even in POS jobs, starbase fuel tech can't cancel jobs; taking the tower offline pauses the jobs, you need to unanchor or destroy the labs/arrays to actually cancel the jobs; so someone with Config Starbase Equipment can do that (as well as unanchoring and stealing your POS).
In the absence of a new "job canceller" role which is not going to happen, Director is the right choice. vote steve https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=7933451 |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
185
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 11:59:00 -
[523] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Good question. I'd imagine that delivering a finished corp job should still work for anyone with the FM role
All good then. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 15:32:00 -
[524] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
617
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 15:49:00 -
[525] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5.
This is the the thread that you're looking for. Bump it and let's get an easy itteration on refining into June's expansion! HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Frying Doom
2287
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 22:46:00 -
[526] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5. The reason I said 100% was due to the coding difficulty of tying in all the skills or for that matter just referencing the NPC stations refining function.
As I am hoping for something short and sweet, 100% or if necessary alter its anchoring requirements to include refining efficiency 4 or 5. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:53:00 -
[527] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5. The reason I said 100% was due to the coding difficulty of tying in all the skills or for that matter just referencing the NPC stations refining function. As I am hoping for something short and sweet, 100% or if necessary alter its anchoring requirements to include refining efficiency 4 or 5. Skills already have an effect on the POS refineries, they're just hard capped at 35% or 75%. The math is somewhere. |
Frying Doom
2290
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 00:01:00 -
[528] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As you are working on POS can you change the refining arrays so they are better than NPC stations?
A POS owner pays for his POS, an NPC station user doesn't pay for refining. In honesty I think 100% is good. IMO remove the 75% cap, and set the base refine to be something such that you reach 100% with all relevant refining skills (on the person who starts the refining process) to 5. The reason I said 100% was due to the coding difficulty of tying in all the skills or for that matter just referencing the NPC stations refining function. As I am hoping for something short and sweet, 100% or if necessary alter its anchoring requirements to include refining efficiency 4 or 5. Skills already have an effect on the POS refineries, they're just hard capped at 35% or 75%. The math is somewhere. Are they?
The text just says
"Refining yield efficiency does not apply to ice ores, which are always refined at the maximum efficiency the operator is capable of." And the refining yield multiplier says 0.75 x
So it has the ability to read the Ice processing skills but I am not sure I would say it has the ability already for ore processing skills.
If it does then great, set it to a base 50% same as NPC stations, if not set it to 100%.
Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
124
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:01:00 -
[529] - Quote
On the whole topic of refining and yields.. CCP should consider flipping the script and adding a time sink to refining.
If it took time to refine both at stations and POS, and POS had base 50% and thus max yield on max skills, then a whole player to player driven market would develop. The profession of refiner and recycler would make much more sense.
Public free markets and self sustainability without downside will promote p2p interaction that is not just shooting stuff.
NERF NPC...
|
T RAYRAY
Percussive Diplomacy Samurai Pizza Cats
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 01:34:00 -
[530] - Quote
i used to live in a WH and think the personal hangar space is a good add for player stufz security...
the cold-hearted side of me wonders how many long term corp theft operations just went into overdrive knowing the golden years of the loot pinata that is the CHA and 'joint storage' will soon be not-so-golden...hmmmmm
|
|
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
230
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 01:52:00 -
[531] - Quote
I'm still thinking they need a much more extensive overhaul than this. A viable design that I would call 'based on T3' if it didn't predate them by years,
These are all very nice patches of problems that have existed for years, and been ignored for years, but I say lets toss the whole thing out and take up the better of the two plans rather than waste time patching this thing, again.
I know there's a new version of it, but here's the thread from the old forum:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=391410
The Most Interesting Player In Eve. |
Frying Doom
2306
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 01:54:00 -
[532] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:I'm still thinking they need a much more extensive overhaul than this. A viable design that I would call 'based on T3' if it didn't predate them by years, These are all very nice patches of problems that have existed for years, and been ignored for years, but I say lets toss the whole thing out and take up the better of the two plans rather than waste time patching this thing, again. I say yes to modular POS. I know there's a new version of it, but here's the thread from the old forum: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=391410 So what do we do for the next 5 years until that is partially completed? Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
db Deckard
Loc-Nar Support Services Rura-Penthe
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:43:00 -
[533] - Quote
You have a small POS user community because of the poor POS functionality. Today POS authorizations are directly related to Corporation authorizations and roles. There are a few modules that when switched to alliance access that actually work, ship maint array. At the core of the problems is the linkage to auths.
Array use problems: Currently to register a job in a manufacture/research array you have to put a bpo/bpc in the array corp hanger at the POS with any materials, and you have to have either anchoring or pos fuel corp auths. This causes all kinds of problems and forces corp leadership to only grant access to the trusted few. For simple jobs requiring no additional materials one can put the job in an Local Station Corp Office hanger and register the job from there.
Recommended changes: 1) Break the relationship between corp auths and POS. Allow players with access rights to modify the POS configuration to grant access by player/corp/alliance. 2) Do not require Fuel Tech or Anchoring auths to register jobs 3) Allow jobs to be registered from authorized players local station personal hanger. Allow the selection of the completed job to be delivered to the origin hanger. Currently if I put a copy job in a local office hanger the BPO will return to the office hanger but the copy will be in the hanger at the array.
-db
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
435
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 13:42:00 -
[534] - Quote
db Deckard wrote:You have a small POS user community because of the poor POS functionality. Today POS authorizations are directly related to Corporation authorizations and roles. There are a few modules that when switched to alliance access that actually work, ship maint array. At the core of the problems is the linkage to auths.
Array use problems: Currently to register a job in a manufacture/research array you have to put a bpo/bpc in the array corp hanger at the POS with any materials, and you have to have either anchoring or pos fuel corp auths. This causes all kinds of problems and forces corp leadership to only grant access to the trusted few. For simple jobs requiring no additional materials one can put the job in an Local Station Corp Office hanger and register the job from there.
Recommended changes: 1) Break the relationship between corp auths and POS. Allow players with access rights to modify the POS configuration to grant access by player/corp/alliance. 2) Do not require Fuel Tech or Anchoring auths to register jobs 3) Allow jobs to be registered from authorized players local station personal hanger. Allow the selection of the completed job to be delivered to the origin hanger. Currently if I put a copy job in a local office hanger the BPO will return to the office hanger but the copy will be in the hanger at the array.
-db
Quoted for emphasis. I haven't used the more advanced aspects of a POS for 3+ years due to OpSec. Love my corp and not really interested in doing my own thing, so that's the way it must be in my case. There are many thousands of cases where players new to corps won't have a chance in hell in getting roles to do POS-related stuff, too.
It is the CCP-designed mechanic which has inherently suppressed POS use, not the will of EVE subscribers. +++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark GÇ£SeleeneGÇ¥ Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith. |
Jireel
I ain't got me ground legs yet
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:10:00 -
[535] - Quote
CCP PLS |
Sassums
Wormhole Exploration Crew R.E.P.O.
77
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 00:22:00 -
[536] - Quote
For such a large issue, and the huge voice from WH dwellers the lack of changes and upgrades to the POS's are disappointing. A few lousy changes?
This barely addresses anything many from WH space have asked for. POS and Corp permissions are a disaster and still are in need of updates to increase corp security. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 02:27:00 -
[537] - Quote
o/
I had a talk with some guys from my corp and there is one think we do not understand. This new hangar will remplace the old one? If yes, isn't 50k of space a bit low? |
Frying Doom
2313
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 03:13:00 -
[538] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:o/
I had a talk with some guys from my corp and there is one think we do not understand. This new hangar will remplace the old one? If yes, isn't 50k of space a bit low? No they already explained that the old one will still exist. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 12:17:00 -
[539] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:bloodknight2 wrote:o/
I had a talk with some guys from my corp and there is one think we do not understand. This new hangar will remplace the old one? If yes, isn't 50k of space a bit low? No they already explained that the old one will still exist.
Thank a lot o7 |
Charles Sandford
Mosquito Alley
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 15:10:00 -
[540] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update on our current progress:
Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change. . I appreciate the increase but we can still use much more space.
Why do you need to limit personal storage to less then 4% of what we have today for each array.
Mining, PI, and a hauler spawn can generate large amounts of personal volume.
A 500,000 m3 limit creates a larger loot pinata to encourage conflict. At the same time it provides adequate storage for personal needs.
If you are trying to force us to use shared hangers and deal with corp theft, at least give us a tool to fight against corp theft like inventory logging.
Thanks. |
|
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. |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5745
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 18:18:00 -
[571] - Quote
Latest Update:
Private Hangers in the 50k size are completed and will be on SISI when it comes up today available for testing. The arrows for placing structures in starbases now scale with your zoom level so that they should never be too small to use. This is also on SISI. The features I listed previously as completed (with the exception of the X-large Ship Maintinance Bay change which I missed putting in this specific build) are on SISI ready for testing. We are in the process of investigating changes to what roles are required to cancel corp jobs in a Starbase. I can't promise that it will make it into Odyssey but we'll do our best. At this point is is looking less likely that we will be able to get the T3 subsystem swapping into the first Odyssey release. Team Superfriends may or may not be able to have the feature polished in time for Odyssey 1.0, we'll keep you updated as new information becomes available. We unfortunately will not be able to get Private SMAs into the initial Odyssey release. It is still something we want to do, possibly in a point release. Let us know what you think about the implementation of the completed features on SISI and we'll be continuing to work hard to fit everything we can into the expansion. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Liner Xiandra
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
187
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 18:22:00 -
[572] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Latest Update:
We are in the process of investigating changes to what roles are required to cancel corp jobs in a Starbase. I can't promise that it will make it into Odyssey but we'll do our best.
GÖÑ |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
3710
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 18:26:00 -
[573] - Quote
Awesome, glad to hear that most of the stuff made it. Private SMAs in a point release would make many people very happy... CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
358
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 18:33:00 -
[574] - Quote
Allow us to get stuff in and out of silos without the need to offline the silos PLEASE Test 1, 2, 3... |
Sala Cameron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
88
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 18:43:00 -
[575] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The arrows for placing structures in starbases now scale with your zoom level so that they should never be too small to use. This is also on SISI.
I APPROVE |
Urban Trucker
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 20:17:00 -
[576] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Latest Update:
We are in the process of investigating changes to what roles are required to cancel corp jobs in a Starbase. I can't promise that it will make it into Odyssey but we'll do our best. We unfortunately will not be able to get Private SMAs into the initial Odyssey release. It is still something we want to do, possibly in a point release.
Those... and life will be Much Much better (this is a quality of life concern, which should be looked at more indepth (and quickly). |
Dheeradj Nurgle
Hoover Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
366
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 20:33:00 -
[577] - Quote
Did we ever express our undying love for you? |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 23:28:00 -
[578] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Latest Update:
The arrows for placing structures in starbases now scale with your zoom level so that they should never be too small to use. This is also on SISI.
It might be a minor point, but the arrows for huge modules like the CSAA and XLSMA are bigger than the screen now... |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 13:58:00 -
[579] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:Allow us to get stuff in and out of silos without the need to offline the silos PLEASE
^^^ This.. It would help a lot with security since you no longer would need to give people Starbase Management roles just so they can use the reaction arrays. |
Silvonus
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
44
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 15:48:00 -
[580] - Quote
- Please seed the "Personal Hangar Array" and the "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array". Can't test them if we can't buy them.
- The handles for the CSMA (and so I would suspect eh XLSMA) are ridiculously huge.
- Accessing Items in CHA or the POS stick itself works from anywhere inside POS shield, well done!
- If outside shield and trying to access CHA, pop up gives old message ("must be within 3km of CHA")
- If you open a CHA tab and move outside the forcefield, you cannot move anything in or out of it, but you can see actions that other people take (moving items in and out).
- Not sure if it is intended or not, but you cannot refit or board or store a ship from anywhere inside the forcefield and must still be within 3km of a SMA.
- You can view contents of SMA from anywhere in shield, so when you try to open the SMA and board a ship, you no longer auto-approach to get in range
- Repackaging works. I have not tested with large volumes yet, but it seems to be all good.
- Cannot repackage ships. Not sure if intended or not.
|
|
Prinzessin Leia
Nefarious. Disavowed.
18
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 07:48:00 -
[581] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Latest Update:
At this point is is looking less likely that we will be able to get the T3 subsystem swapping into the first Odyssey release. Team Superfriends may or may not be able to have the feature polished in time for Odyssey 1.0, we'll keep you updated as new information becomes available.
Let us know what you think about the implementation of the completed features on SISI and we'll be continuing to work hard to fit everything we can into the expansion.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
You stated that Subsystem swapping is done by adding the Subsystems to the Allowed-to-fit list on CHA-¦s. I had to laugh so hard as I-¦ve seen this statement on Fanfest and now it-¦ll maybe not on Odyssey? Really?! Add something to a list?!
I-¦ve said to my corp that I-¦ll bring in ma Loki as soon as I can swap Subsystems. ATM I would have to bring 3 multi-billion-worth Lokis to get what I need just because I-¦ve to refit these ******* things that were realeased in the WH expansion years ago and stilll not working as intended...
Shame on you once more! |
Max Goldwing
Homeworld Republic The East India Co.
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 09:18:00 -
[582] - Quote
Prinzessin Leia wrote:You stated that Subsystem swapping is done by adding the Subsystems to the Allowed-to-fit list on CHA-¦s. I had to laugh so hard as I-¦ve seen this statement on Fanfest and now it-¦ll maybe not on Odyssey? Really?! Add something to a list?! Its probaly a bit more complex than addinig to a list, since you cant remove a subsystem to get a empty slot where you can place a new subsystem, they have to be replaced and any incompatible modules+the old system have to be returned to somewhere (maybe cargo hold, but would require enough free space for the subsystem). |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5775
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 11:49:00 -
[583] - Quote
xttz wrote: It might be a minor point, but the arrows for huge modules like the CSAA and XLSMA are bigger than the screen now...
Yup that's a bug that should be fixed soon.
Prinzessin Leia wrote: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
You stated that Subsystem swapping is done by adding the Subsystems to the Allowed-to-fit list on CHA-¦s. I had to laugh so hard as I-¦ve seen this statement on Fanfest and now it-¦ll maybe not on Odyssey? Really?! Add something to a list?!
I-¦ve said to my corp that I-¦ll bring in ma Loki as soon as I can swap Subsystems. ATM I would have to bring 3 multi-billion-worth Lokis to get what I need just because I-¦ve to refit these ******* things that were realeased in the WH expansion years ago and stilll not working as intended...
Shame on you once more!
I said adding the subsystems to that list was ONE of the things that would be needed. Allowing the actual subsystems to be swapped in the hanger itself is much more complicated. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4931
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 12:49:00 -
[584] - Quote
Max Goldwing wrote:Prinzessin Leia wrote:You stated that Subsystem swapping is done by adding the Subsystems to the Allowed-to-fit list on CHA-¦s. I had to laugh so hard as I-¦ve seen this statement on Fanfest and now it-¦ll maybe not on Odyssey? Really?! Add something to a list?! Its probaly a bit more complex than addinig to a list, since you cant remove a subsystem to get a empty slot where you can place a new subsystem, You can, but that involves using the fitting manager to fit your T3 using a subsystem that you don't have. E.g. if I want to remove the electronics subsystem, I simply have to load and autofit a saved fitting that includes an electronics subsystem that I don't have with me. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
62
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 14:58:00 -
[585] - Quote
I know it's too late for this release, but I'm gonna try and sneak in some ideas for a later Odyssey patch...
Can we get a review of Starbase weapons please? Specifically:
a) Starbase Defense Management is very much a relic of 2007. The UI forces you to control/drop one module at a time (which often takes longer than the enemy needs to run away), and there's no grouping of similar modules. Plus you need at least 15 modules to be effective in a fight which means 3-4 characters with the right roles + skills in the right place at the right time. Being able to group up weapons then control 1 group per level of the skill would be a step in the right direction.
b) Starbase weapons have never been reviewed in line with ship balancing changes. Most still do levels of damage on par with ship hitpoints in 2005. Ewar mods take the best part of a minute to lock many subcaps, during which time the target has easily moved out of range or off-grid. And the less said about Hybrid or Missile weapons the better...
c) We could really use something that acts as a threat to supercaps. Starbases used to tear up unprepared dreads and carriers, now they just get swept by fighter-bombers in under a minute. Bring back scary neuts or give us a counter to supercarrier tides.
Pretty please :) |
LoanWolf Tivianne
Ace's And 8's
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 00:55:00 -
[586] - Quote
i know its like probably way to late to add this but may be it can be considered for later i post here because its rel vent to poses i have been keeping up with the other post on ice and ore and i know that roquals wont be touched any time soon but i was thinking a solution to the problem may be a pos mod to compress the ore and ice you could make it a skill like the roqu to use may be have to have the same skills to fly the roqu just a thought but would make it realy nice to not have to spend 3 bill on a going to be fireworks display yea my spelling sucks so do you go back to work school teacher your not wanted here |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5821
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 10:33:00 -
[587] - Quote
xttz wrote:I know it's too late for this release, but I'm gonna try and sneak in some ideas for a later Odyssey patch...
Can we get a review of Starbase weapons please? Specifically:
a) Starbase Defense Management is very much a relic of 2007. The UI forces you to control/drop one module at a time (which often takes longer than the enemy needs to run away), and there's no grouping of similar modules. Plus you need at least 15 modules to be effective in a fight which means 3-4 characters with the right roles + skills in the right place at the right time. Being able to group up weapons then control 1 group per level of the skill would be a step in the right direction.
b) Starbase weapons have never been reviewed in line with ship balancing changes. Most still do levels of damage on par with ship hitpoints in 2005. Ewar mods take the best part of a minute to lock many subcaps, during which time the target has easily moved out of range or off-grid. And the less said about Hybrid or Missile weapons the better...
c) We could really use something that acts as a threat to supercaps. Starbases used to tear up unprepared dreads and carriers, now they just get swept by fighter-bombers in under a minute. Bring back scary neuts or give us a counter to supercarrier tides.
Pretty please :)
Considering the cursing I've been hearing from across the room from Veritas whenever his code somehow intersects with starbase weapons, things like grouping may be a fairly involved process. However changes to the attributes of the weapons would be a much smaller project and might be something we can get in as a change to the current system in a later patch. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 12:32:00 -
[588] - Quote
Sorry if the question is a repost.. Reading through the last 30 pages I may have missed it, and in all honesty I did skip a few..
As far as the new personal hangar arrays for the POS. How will the security officer role affect them? Ie. Will they be able to see and take from a person's hold as per normal station hangars?
|
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
188
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:59:00 -
[589] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Latest Update:
We are in the process of investigating changes to what roles are required to cancel corp jobs in a Starbase. I can't promise that it will make it into Odyssey but we'll do our best. To be clear does this change apply to all corp jobs as previously posted, not just those in Starbases? I'm much more concerned about the corp jobs in NPC stations - I want to be able to let junior members build their own frigates using locked-down corp BPOs without being able to cancel bigger corp jobs (and that's been a common user story in the threads about this over the years).
The solution you posted earlier about only Directors being able to cancel any corp job that wasn't started by them - whether it's in a POS or NPC station or wherever - looked perfect.
You've got me a bit worried now that it specifically mentions Starbases; I'm really hoping it includes Starbases but is not limited to Starbases.
Also: please please please do implement it -- |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5828
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:29:00 -
[590] - Quote
Ydnari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Latest Update:
We are in the process of investigating changes to what roles are required to cancel corp jobs in a Starbase. I can't promise that it will make it into Odyssey but we'll do our best. To be clear does this change apply to all corp jobs as previously posted, not just those in Starbases? I'm much more concerned about the corp jobs in NPC stations - I want to be able to let junior members build their own frigates using locked-down corp BPOs without being able to cancel bigger corp jobs (and that's been a common user story in the threads about this over the years). The solution you posted earlier about only Directors being able to cancel any corp job that wasn't started by them - whether it's in a POS or NPC station or wherever - looked perfect. You've got me a bit worried now that it specifically mentions Starbases; I'm really hoping it includes Starbases but is not limited to Starbases. Also: please please please do implement it
I believe that the implementation that Masterplan is investigating would equally affect all jobs. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5828
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:29:00 -
[591] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Sorry if the question is a repost.. Reading through the last 30 pages I may have missed it, and in all honesty I did skip a few..
As far as the new personal hangar arrays for the POS. How will the security officer role affect them? Ie. Will they be able to see and take from a person's hold as per normal station hangars?
Nobody will be able to take from another character's personal hanger. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
744
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 15:12:00 -
[592] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Soko99 wrote:Sorry if the question is a repost.. Reading through the last 30 pages I may have missed it, and in all honesty I did skip a few..
As far as the new personal hangar arrays for the POS. How will the security officer role affect them? Ie. Will they be able to see and take from a person's hold as per normal station hangars?
Nobody will be able to take from another character's personal hanger. What about see? |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 15:22:00 -
[593] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Soko99 wrote:Sorry if the question is a repost.. Reading through the last 30 pages I may have missed it, and in all honesty I did skip a few..
As far as the new personal hangar arrays for the POS. How will the security officer role affect them? Ie. Will they be able to see and take from a person's hold as per normal station hangars?
Nobody will be able to take from another character's personal hanger. What about see?
I can see into your hangar right now... wish I didn't |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 19:09:00 -
[594] - Quote
We really need that personal ship maintenance array. In whatever shape and/or form, it needs to show up ASAP. |
Onyx Asablot
Legion Of Patriots Invictus Void
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 19:47:00 -
[595] - Quote
Sorry if this was answered but what was the intent behind the 50K amount of space on the private hangar array? Essentially why not more space. That does seem limited from observation but I will check it out on SISI. Also will there be simular intent when designing and implementing the private ship maintenance array?
Legion of Patriots CEO http://lop.eve-kill.net http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Educational_organizations#Legion_Of_Patriots |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 20:47:00 -
[596] - Quote
It was the middle ground. Unless you have ore or PI, 50000 seemed about right.
Nothing is stopping you from anchoring 2 of them.
But yea, secure private sma storage = happy eve community. |
Silvonus
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
48
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 09:18:00 -
[597] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Private Hangers in the 50k size are completed and will be on SISI when it comes up today available for testing. Current Personal Hangar storage size on Singularity is 1,400,000m3. You might need to adjust some numbers. |
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Tribal Band
48
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 12:29:00 -
[598] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ydnari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Latest Update:
We are in the process of investigating changes to what roles are required to cancel corp jobs in a Starbase. I can't promise that it will make it into Odyssey but we'll do our best. To be clear does this change apply to all corp jobs as previously posted, not just those in Starbases? I'm much more concerned about the corp jobs in NPC stations - I want to be able to let junior members build their own frigates using locked-down corp BPOs without being able to cancel bigger corp jobs (and that's been a common user story in the threads about this over the years). The solution you posted earlier about only Directors being able to cancel any corp job that wasn't started by them - whether it's in a POS or NPC station or wherever - looked perfect. You've got me a bit worried now that it specifically mentions Starbases; I'm really hoping it includes Starbases but is not limited to Starbases. Also: please please please do implement it I believe that the implementation that Masterplan is investigating would equally affect all jobs.
Fozzie... i <3 you so much right now. FINALLY these changes arrive. This means personal pos's will be allowable in corps building T2/supers without fear of some newbie idiot (or a spy) trashing months of work. SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack |
Alacrity Fitzhoughs
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 14:32:00 -
[599] - Quote
Silvonus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Private Hangers in the 50k size are completed and will be on SISI when it comes up today available for testing. Current Personal Hangar storage size on Singularity is 1,400,000m3. You might need to adjust some numbers.
That is what I am seeing also. Bug? |
Loan--Wolf
Ace's And 8's
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:33:00 -
[600] - Quote
so much for the sandbox idea |
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
665
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:46:00 -
[601] - Quote
The cool thing about POS was the ability to steal from others, backstabbing ftw. R Tape loading error |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5876
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 14:25:00 -
[602] - Quote
Alacrity Fitzhoughs wrote:Silvonus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Private Hangers in the 50k size are completed and will be on SISI when it comes up today available for testing. Current Personal Hangar storage size on Singularity is 1,400,000m3. You might need to adjust some numbers. That is what I am seeing also. Bug?
It's the correct size as of today's sisi patch. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
693
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 14:31:00 -
[603] - Quote
CEO's still don't have access to these personal hangers i see... FAIL! Is my bitter vet membership card in the mail? |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
6
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 15:29:00 -
[604] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:CEO's still don't have access to these personal hangers i see... FAIL!
Then don't launch Private Hanger Arrays.
The Private SMA's still need to be addressed.
You really want to take Pos's to where they need to be and get people to use the New Capital SMA's in Lowsec and Nullsec and Wormholes....
1) Shrink Ship Maintenance Arrays to hold 14 million m3, just under the size of the Rorqual. This causes the following A) No capital ships can fit in them anymore except the Orca (its 10 million m3) B) Any and all capital ships currently in SMA's will stay in there until launched/boarded, to which they cannot get back inside.
This causes the "Required use" of capital SMA's for all Capital Type ships (hey you fly a capital, everybody will know), no more hiding them inside tiny SMA's
2) Create the Personal SMA's, to fit about 2 million m3 of ships. This would hold roughly 4 battleships for each person (Or multiple smaller ships if they fly such things).
This revamps the concept of the SMA's themselves, allowing people to store more ships with more SMA's provided. Its secure, same concept as the New Corporate Hanger arrays.
Basic questions people will probaby ask.
1) Why use the Normal SMA now? It still provides 14 million M3 of space for those people who are not worried about security (there are allot of family corps), it also provides a method of community ship use (sometimes you do not want to store specific ships in a protected SMA because people cannot get to them when needed). There are still multiple uses for the normal SMA.
2) You nerfed the normal SMA.. its Useless, can't fit a cap in it!!! The SMA is a dated module, and for most purposes, should not have been large enough to secure a capital ship anyway. Most places use these things to hide their capitals (which honestly, is silly). If you have the isk to build a capital, you should have the brawn to store it in a Capital SMA. Will people know where these ships/modules are....
Yep.. that's the point. More conflict, little more fear, more determination, more fights. Time to get these ships in the fight.
3) Why only 2 million M3 in the Personal SMA? I can't fit my 34 battleships in that!! The personal SMA is meant to secure critical ships YOU fly. You want to keep your 8 billion isk Loki protected, you now can. You want to store a bazillion ships, use a Regular SMA, use the Capital SMA, or launch more Private SMA's.
4) I hate your idea!!! Its a Nerf!!! Yea well you can't keep your toy's hidden from prying eyes anymore. Expect allot of explosions in the near future. |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1467
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 18:53:00 -
[605] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Alacrity Fitzhoughs wrote:Silvonus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Private Hangers in the 50k size are completed and will be on SISI when it comes up today available for testing. Current Personal Hangar storage size on Singularity is 1,400,000m3. You might need to adjust some numbers. That is what I am seeing also. Bug? It's the correct size as of today's sisi patch.
Any chance this gets changed to a value that makes it worth using? 50k is obscenely small.
I'm not sure what your idea of the use of this "hangar" is when it's that small. I would think at a bare minimum it should be in the 250k range. You really have to think of the people that actually live out of a POS.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5919
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 18:29:00 -
[606] - Quote
Hey guys, just want to preemptively post here to make sure you all know that no matter what you hear, Personal Hangar Arrays are still in Odyssey. They're on SISI now and they will be hitting TQ on June 4th.
As for the size concerns, we intend these structures to compliment larger volume shared structures like CHAs, and be used primarily for higher value items. CHAs are not being removed or changed as part of this patch, and remember you can always anchor multiple PHAs in the same starbase and access them all from anywhere in the shield.
The Personal Ship Maintenance Array is something we still want to do, but we just didn't have time to get it into Odyssey. I said before, I'm very aware of how helpful it would be to wormholers and we want to make it an iteration on the normal PHA now that we have that structure working and shippable. I can't however promise at this time exactly when we might be able to release a PSMA, as we're still focusing on getting Odyssey as polished as possible. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 18:40:00 -
[607] - Quote
/Phoenix Chants.... When will it be done... When will it be done... When will it be done...
/The Phoenix has nervous breakdown and collapses in his Pod. |
Poetic Stanziel
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
1883
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 19:10:00 -
[608] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:xttz wrote:I know it's too late for this release, but I'm gonna try and sneak in some ideas for a later Odyssey patch...
Can we get a review of Starbase weapons please? Specifically:
a) Starbase Defense Management is very much a relic of 2007. The UI forces you to control/drop one module at a time (which often takes longer than the enemy needs to run away), and there's no grouping of similar modules. Plus you need at least 15 modules to be effective in a fight which means 3-4 characters with the right roles + skills in the right place at the right time. Being able to group up weapons then control 1 group per level of the skill would be a step in the right direction.
b) Starbase weapons have never been reviewed in line with ship balancing changes. Most still do levels of damage on par with ship hitpoints in 2005. Ewar mods take the best part of a minute to lock many subcaps, during which time the target has easily moved out of range or off-grid. And the less said about Hybrid or Missile weapons the better...
c) We could really use something that acts as a threat to supercaps. Starbases used to tear up unprepared dreads and carriers, now they just get swept by fighter-bombers in under a minute. Bring back scary neuts or give us a counter to supercarrier tides.
Pretty please :) Considering the cursing I've been hearing from across the room from Veritas whenever his code somehow intersects with starbase weapons, things like grouping may be a fairly involved process. However changes to the attributes of the weapons would be a much smaller project and might be something we can get in as a change to the current system in a later patch. It's crazy, but have you all considered a POS revamp? Devote 5 - 7 developers to the task ... and even if it takes three expansion cycles, it doesn't stop until it is done.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 19:17:00 -
[609] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:xttz wrote:I know it's too late for this release, but I'm gonna try and sneak in some ideas for a later Odyssey patch...
Can we get a review of Starbase weapons please? Specifically:
a) Starbase Defense Management is very much a relic of 2007. The UI forces you to control/drop one module at a time (which often takes longer than the enemy needs to run away), and there's no grouping of similar modules. Plus you need at least 15 modules to be effective in a fight which means 3-4 characters with the right roles + skills in the right place at the right time. Being able to group up weapons then control 1 group per level of the skill would be a step in the right direction.
b) Starbase weapons have never been reviewed in line with ship balancing changes. Most still do levels of damage on par with ship hitpoints in 2005. Ewar mods take the best part of a minute to lock many subcaps, during which time the target has easily moved out of range or off-grid. And the less said about Hybrid or Missile weapons the better...
c) We could really use something that acts as a threat to supercaps. Starbases used to tear up unprepared dreads and carriers, now they just get swept by fighter-bombers in under a minute. Bring back scary neuts or give us a counter to supercarrier tides.
Pretty please :) Considering the cursing I've been hearing from across the room from Veritas whenever his code somehow intersects with starbase weapons, things like grouping may be a fairly involved process. However changes to the attributes of the weapons would be a much smaller project and might be something we can get in as a change to the current system in a later patch. It's crazy, but have you all considered a POS revamp? Devote 5 - 7 developers to the task ... and even if it takes three expansion cycles, it doesn't stop until it is done.
They are not ignoring it. It is the large elephant in the room.. the VERY large elephant. They have to completely rewrite the code, create everything brand new, then come up with a migrating scheme to get everything over safely without pissing the populous off.
Its like having a Zoo, full of animals, and they are rioting (They do not like the zoo). You have to migrate them to a new zoo system.
Now you can't destroy the zoo and create a new one ontop of it, you'll kill the animals.
YOu have to build a entirely NEW Zoo, set it up perfectly, and then Migrate over the animals one by one to the new Zoo, and make sure they fit and live. Of course there will be some that won't want to go...
(Best analogy I could think of at the time).
They would have to write an entirely new POS system from the ground up. That is equivalent to creating a new game (Basically, they have to write a new Sim City, POS edition, for Eve. Yes its is allot of resources).
To keep the Animals at least Mildly happy though, they have to go through these intermediate steps (Personal CHA, Personal Ship Maintenance Arrays, Manufacturing role fix), just to keep the roaring elephant at bay long enough to start construction of the New Zoo. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
190
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 19:55:00 -
[610] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:YOu have to build a entirely NEW Zoo, set it up perfectly, and then Migrate over the animals one by one to the new Zoo, and make sure they fit and live. Of course there will be some that won't want to go... Well, honestly, if a few Devs could write a VR-based, kickass space combat fighter game from scratch in their free time on the weekends, imagine what a few Devs could do with POSes if CCP actually directed them to do so!
|
|
Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 19:59:00 -
[611] - Quote
While you are at it could you double the rate of fire on all pos weapons. I can't remember the last time a dread died to one. A quick fix to make them relevant again pending a real review of them. They haven't been for years. |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1468
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 20:34:00 -
[612] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, just want to preemptively post here to make sure you all know that no matter what you hear, Personal Hangar Arrays are still in Odyssey. They're on SISI now and they will be hitting TQ on June 4th.
As for the size concerns, we intend these structures to compliment larger volume shared structures like CHAs, and be used primarily for higher value items. CHAs are not being removed or changed as part of this patch, and remember you can always anchor multiple PHAs in the same starbase and access them all from anywhere in the shield.
The Personal Ship Maintenance Array is something we still want to do, but we just didn't have time to get it into Odyssey. I said before, I'm very aware of how helpful it would be to wormholers and we want to make it an iteration on the normal PHA now that we have that structure working and shippable. I can't however promise at this time exactly when we might be able to release a PSMA, as we're still focusing on getting Odyssey as polished as possible.
Perhaps it's just the wormhole group that would find the PHA too small. That's less than 2 ore holds from a retriever. It's only 500 units of P4. If it's just for sleeper loot, then I guess it's fine. If it's anything else, I guess you just have to work with the horrible corp management for roles, and not have many people in your corp.
Would it be possible to have the fittings tweaked to allow them to fit easier in small or medium towers if the volume can't be increased?
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
1884
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 20:57:00 -
[613] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:To keep the Animals at least Mildly happy though, they have to go through these intermediate steps (Personal CHA, Personal Ship Maintenance Arrays, Manufacturing role fix), just to keep the roaring elephant at bay long enough to start construction of the New Zoo. What they are doing now is mostly time-wasters.
They are applying band-aids to old fragile code. The code they are writing now cannot be used when the entire system is rewritten (if CCP ever does that.)
And yes, I know it needs to be rewritten from scratch. Which is why I mentioned the very long development length (three or more expansions). We see no work on POSes in that time period. We'd see it when it was done. And it would take a good long while.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Edward Perry
Ferengi University
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 21:46:00 -
[614] - Quote
A short list, but reasonable changes
I do think there is a huge opportunity to make POS's relevant in Eve again. Hopefully fixing some of these items they will build in more hooks to implement future items.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 00:35:00 -
[615] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, just want to preemptively post here to make sure you all know that no matter what you hear, Personal Hangar Arrays are still in Odyssey. They're on SISI now and they will be hitting TQ on June 4th.
As for the size concerns, we intend these structures to compliment larger volume shared structures like CHAs, and be used primarily for higher value items. CHAs are not being removed or changed as part of this patch, and remember you can always anchor multiple PHAs in the same starbase and access them all from anywhere in the shield.
The Personal Ship Maintenance Array is something we still want to do, but we just didn't have time to get it into Odyssey. I said before, I'm very aware of how helpful it would be to wormholers and we want to make it an iteration on the normal PHA now that we have that structure working and shippable. I can't however promise at this time exactly when we might be able to release a PSMA, as we're still focusing on getting Odyssey as polished as possible. Perhaps it's just the wormhole group that would find the PHA too small. That's less than 2 ore holds from a retriever. It's only 500 units of P4. If it's just for sleeper loot, then I guess it's fine. If it's anything else, I guess you just have to work with the horrible corp management for roles, and not have many people in your corp. Would it be possible to have the fittings tweaked to allow them to fit easier in small or medium towers if the volume can't be increased?
The hangers really meant for specific prized item (your faction mods, etc). Bulk items can generally be maintained in the CHA. Ore thefts much harder to manage solely due to the bulk. There's valid issues with roles though we all agree on that.
Regardless the private sma, the 1 role fix to allow the opening of manufacturing to corps in pos's, and a possible micro freighter would be some great first steps (because right now the deep space transports pretty useless, that's solely a quality of life issue though). Once these things are at least functional, and people can live out of these pos's without second guessing someone "borrowing" their stuff, or boarding their ship and offlining all of their ships equipment because they did not have the skill would be great. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 15:15:00 -
[616] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:xttz wrote:I know it's too late for this release, but I'm gonna try and sneak in some ideas for a later Odyssey patch...
Can we get a review of Starbase weapons please? Specifically:
a) Starbase Defense Management is very much a relic of 2007. The UI forces you to control/drop one module at a time (which often takes longer than the enemy needs to run away), and there's no grouping of similar modules. Plus you need at least 15 modules to be effective in a fight which means 3-4 characters with the right roles + skills in the right place at the right time. Being able to group up weapons then control 1 group per level of the skill would be a step in the right direction.
Pretty please :) Considering the cursing I've been hearing from across the room from Veritas whenever his code somehow intersects with starbase weapons, things like grouping may be a fairly involved process. However changes to the attributes of the weapons would be a much smaller project and might be something we can get in as a change to the current system in a later patch.
I had a thought on this which may save some headaches...
How about anyone with Starbase Defense Management 1 (plus the corp role) can control up to 8 modules (corresponding to F1-F8 as with ships). Then for each level of SDM trained, it improvesmodule scan resolution and/or reduces RoF by a certain percentage. That would mean single characters could use enough modules to be effective in a fight, and still give an incentive to train the skill higher. We can already boost POS modules with modules like remote tracking links / sensor boosters, so it can't be too hard to buff them in this manner.
But most imporantly, please fix the UI so we can assume/drop control of several modules at once. I'm starting to think CCP are heavily invested in some expensive treatment for repetitive strain injury... |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
12
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 19:28:00 -
[617] - Quote
Pos's become somewhat unsiegeable. I don't like saying that I do t like an idea, but Pos gunners is not the most massive issue in eve ATM, cause right now 2 gunners can really fk up a unprepared fleet. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 19:47:00 -
[618] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Pos's become somewhat unsiegeable. I don't like saying that I do t like an idea, but Pos gunners is not the most massive issue in eve ATM, cause right now 2 gunners can really fk up a unprepared fleet.
I'd argue that 2 gunners absolutely should be ruining an unprepared fleet. The larger issue is that prepared fleets walk all over towers without worry, and this wasn't always the case. |
Loan--Wolf
Ace's And 8's
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 06:02:00 -
[619] - Quote
i personally think that dropping 4 or 5 pha's in whs as a good thing i know i come across some i am getting my friends to help bash that pos i want to know whats so valuable you have in there i personally don't keep any thing of great value in my pos some t2 gear for pve and pvp a few ships some t2 some not pos is not ment to be a secure fortress in space its a out post to work out of in no mans land you want all this secure space go to null get sov and build a station like its ment to be in the first place
i foresee a river of tears in big rich corps because the 10 bill in bpos you worked so hard on or that offcer mod you got in a drop you so proudly linked into alliance chat dropped in a pos bash in that securer hanger you was so proud of as for the personal ship hangers same thing don't store a t3 in a pos full of pirates you reap what you sew |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 03:27:00 -
[620] - Quote
xttz wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Pos's become somewhat unsiegeable. I don't like saying that I do t like an idea, but Pos gunners is not the most massive issue in eve ATM, cause right now 2 gunners can really fk up a unprepared fleet. I'd argue that 2 gunners absolutely should be ruining an unprepared fleet. The larger issue is that prepared fleets walk all over towers without worry, and this wasn't always the case.
Well your also talking about different ships. A bunch of dreads will mow a tower over. Now years ago this wasn't much of an issue because you would see them coming. Nowadays......
I suspect more stations going up vs towers. Seems CCP wants to get away in some part from pos's. |
|
Loan--Wolf
Ace's And 8's
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 05:26:00 -
[621] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:xttz wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Pos's become somewhat unsiegeable. I don't like saying that I do t like an idea, but Pos gunners is not the most massive issue in eve ATM, cause right now 2 gunners can really fk up a unprepared fleet. I'd argue that 2 gunners absolutely should be ruining an unprepared fleet. The larger issue is that prepared fleets walk all over towers without worry, and this wasn't always the case. Well your also talking about different ships. A bunch of dreads will mow a tower over. Now years ago this wasn't much of an issue because you would see them coming. Nowadays...... I suspect more stations going up vs towers. Seems CCP wants to get away in some part from pos's.
i would guess it depends on where you reference is pointed at
personally i was told in a deferent post that CCP wants people out off WH space with all the changes as of late im starting to believe that
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 12:03:00 -
[622] - Quote
Wh space is inhospitable. It was done that way purposely. CCP did not think people would live in them. They did not realize that people actually want a place of their own. A place less filled with super capitals, cyno beacons, and local. They created a frontier and people jumped all over it. Now people have to work together and hunt.
That isn't changing, it'll expand. CCP actually screwed up when they made wormholes, but they screwed it in a good way. Well see what happens soon enough. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6002
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 15:36:00 -
[623] - Quote
Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Yuki Kasumi
Some names are just stupid
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 15:51:00 -
[624] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities.
Excellent change! Good work :D |
Fifth Blade
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 16:21:00 -
[625] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities. Outstanding!
Bring on the big Industrial corps! |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
879
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 16:35:00 -
[626] - Quote
Masterplan just made a Lot of people very happy
For those who don't understand the scope of that change: that is a major step towards Corpwide industrial projects We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 16:57:00 -
[627] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities.
Quality improves by +1. Quality of life standing... -9.0 |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
190
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:02:00 -
[628] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities.
awesome -- |
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
633
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:09:00 -
[629] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities.
NEEDS. OWN. DEVBLOG. Ffs. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long overdue. Ty. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:25:00 -
[630] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities.
Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you!
I'm pleased... you might not have noticed
|
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 21:04:00 -
[631] - Quote
Role fix for Manufacturing.. Done. Personal Corporate Hanger Storage.. Done.
Personal Ship Maintenance Array.. the Next immediate challenge!!!
A Transport Ship that can hold 100 to 150,000m3 (and be balanced), the Logistic's Pilots Dream). See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3022374#post3022374 for a relevant example.
Have to put forward a good fix to a bad ship.
Two more things.. just two more...
|
Aluminy
Diversified Holdings
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 23:57:00 -
[632] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities.
so - with this said, can ANYONE deliver said job? or only the person that put in the job and/or directors?
not trying to add more to your plate im just tryin to understand the full scope mate -
thanks a ton! either way this is a great first step |
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 12:20:00 -
[633] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities.
Great work. Now set a team or two to rewrite the complete thing so we can actually have full granularity and a bit better control. I know it's huge amount of work but the sooner you start on it the sooner it will be done. We don't need new shiny for an expansion or two. This is one of the things that is working really badly in eve right now and it needs fixing more than we need new shiny. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6019
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 13:52:00 -
[634] - Quote
Aluminy wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities. so - with this said, can ANYONE deliver said job? or only the person that put in the job and/or directors? not trying to add more to your plate im just tryin to understand the full scope mate - thanks a ton! either way this is a great first step
Anyone with the roles to install a corp job can still deliver any completed corp job. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Zarnoo
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 21:04:00 -
[635] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Aluminy wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities. so - with this said, can ANYONE deliver said job? or only the person that put in the job and/or directors? not trying to add more to your plate im just tryin to understand the full scope mate - thanks a ton! either way this is a great first step Anyone with the roles to install a corp job can still deliver any completed corp job.
And where does the output go ? A shared hangar, or a personal one ? |
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
650
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 15:37:00 -
[636] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Aluminy wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities. so - with this said, can ANYONE deliver said job? or only the person that put in the job and/or directors? not trying to add more to your plate im just tryin to understand the full scope mate - thanks a ton! either way this is a great first step Anyone with the roles to install a corp job can still deliver any completed corp job.
When does CCP Masterplan plan to fix this oversight?
Scenario one: Jim is building a carrier at a corp pos. Bob is building a battleship at a corp pos as well. Bob is a douche. Bob cancels Jim's carrier build. Not cool, Bob. Carrier is lost.
Scenario two, after changes: Jim is building a carrier at a corp pos. Bob is building a battleship at a corp pos as well. Bob is still a douche. Bob is online the moment Jim's carrier job completes, delivers it, and now has a free carrier. Not cool, CCP masterplan. Carrier is lost. |
Zarnoo
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
6
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 15:48:00 -
[637] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Aluminy wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities. so - with this said, can ANYONE deliver said job? or only the person that put in the job and/or directors? not trying to add more to your plate im just tryin to understand the full scope mate - thanks a ton! either way this is a great first step Anyone with the roles to install a corp job can still deliver any completed corp job. When does CCP Masterplan plan to fix this oversight? Scenario one: Jim is building a carrier at a corp pos. Bob is building a battleship at a corp pos as well. Bob is a douche. Bob cancels Jim's carrier build. Not cool, Bob. Carrier is lost. Scenario two, after changes: Jim is building a carrier at a corp pos. Bob is building a battleship at a corp pos as well. Bob is still a douche. Bob is online the moment Jim's carrier job completes, delivers it, and now has a free carrier. Not cool, CCP masterplan. Carrier is lost.
Yeah, that's what I was wondering.. an extension to the personal hangars option would work here, or only allowing players to cancel their own jobs (or directors). Simples ! |
Anti-social Tendencies
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 04:26:00 -
[638] - Quote
I guess I don't get the problem. If you can't trust the folks in your corp, then: 1. Find a better corp or boot those that are not trustworthy. 2. Don't use your corps POS to research or manufacture. |
ZokFotPik
Reconfiguration Nation Existential Anxiety
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 10:33:00 -
[639] - Quote
There is a maximum concurrent operational users limitation of 10 on a SMA. Once opened, ships have to move out of operational range (3km) for others to reship. With the new ability to access the SMA from anywhere in the shield, will people have to move outside the shield once 10 concurrent users are reached? If so, that would obviously be bad. |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
92
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 11:26:00 -
[640] - Quote
A feature I either never found or just can't find:
- how can I center my camera on the current anchorbox? |
|
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Extinction Level Event.
474
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:33:00 -
[641] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, I know that the plan is to go slow with the POS system upgrade, but there are still plans to upgrade it until it becomes as EPIC as the modular POS? I mean, over the next 5 or 10 years?
are these in the to do list? (soon tm list):
- Modular POS (not floating buildings) - Removing the buble force field - Docking in POS - Market inside POS - Clone facility in POS - Jump with POS (Starbase jump drive) - mooring supercaps to POS - Battlestations - Logistic "guns" - Growing endless size POS - POS Construction UI. - POS Cloaking device - POS Jump bridge Generator. - Micro POS (personal level POS) - EPIC POS (Alliance size, Station size POS)' - Art/shape customization in POS
????
o/ Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6158
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:35:00 -
[642] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:CCP Fozzie, I know that the plan is to go slow with the POS system upgrade, but there are still plans to upgrade it until it becomes as EPIC as the modular POS? I mean, over the next 5 or 10 years? are these in the to do list? (soon tm list): - Modular POS (not floating buildings) - Removing the buble force field - Docking in POS - Market inside POS - Clone facility in POS - Jump with POS (Starbase jump drive) - mooring supercaps to POS - Battlestations- Logistic "guns" - Growing endless size POS- POS Construction UI. - POS Cloaking device - POS Jump bridge Generator. - Micro POS (personal level POS) - EPIC POS (Alliance size, Station size POS)' - Art/shape customization in POS ???? o/
We're taking this one step at a time for now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Durzel
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
144
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:00:00 -
[643] - Quote
Is there any plan to make anchored (but offline) POSes slowly decay or anything?
Wormhole space is somewhat unique in regards to removing POSes because in sub-C5 you can't get a Dread in without sticking up your own POS and building one (and who is going to do that unless they're moving in?). As a result there are numerous dead towers just floating around, ruining the landscape :)
Even in C5 and above it's usually not a particularly bright idea to bash a POS for no other reason than just s**ts and giggles because of the risk it represents, and the fact you can only get one Dread safely in and back out to your home again without collapsing the wormhole anyway. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6167
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 21:25:00 -
[644] - Quote
We definitely want to give players an easier way to deal with offline towers, but exactly how has not been decided yet.
One option is that someday we may expand the hacking system to allow you to hack them, but I can not make any promises to that effect. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
197
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 22:23:00 -
[645] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We definitely want to give players an easier way to deal with offline towers, but exactly how has not been decided yet.
One option is that someday we may expand the hacking system to allow you to hack them, but I can not make any promises to that effect.
Makes sense, should be the hardest difficulty of the mini-game, but would be very nice indeed, much better than the structure grind. |
AutumnWind1983
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
53
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 03:29:00 -
[646] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We definitely want to give players an easier way to deal with offline towers, but exactly how has not been decided yet.
One option is that someday we may expand the hacking system to allow you to hack them, but I can not make any promises to that effect.
That would be great. The number of dead towers in wspace is amazing. James Arget for CSM 8! http://csm.fcftw.org |
Lavayar
Russian SOBR SOLAR FLEET
121
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 16:22:00 -
[647] - Quote
IMHO X-large SMA needs visual size reduce. |
Alicina Goodbody
Posique Corp
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 21:39:00 -
[648] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:err 2 quick questions about the change to pos mod handling...
do you have to be inside the shield to do so or @ 0m to the shields (but can still be outside) ?
if you're unable to go in due to the pos having a private pw can u still access and use the mods? (anchor / unanchor / etc..) You must be a slight ways inside the bubble.
Great new feature, but when will be able to view and work with the Blueprints in the POS structures while anywhere within the bubble? |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
628
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 21:47:00 -
[649] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:IMHO X-large SMA needs visual size reduce.
By at least 50% ! HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY The Nightingales of Hades
479
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 05:42:00 -
[650] - Quote
Karsa Egivand wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We definitely want to give players an easier way to deal with offline towers, but exactly how has not been decided yet.
One option is that someday we may expand the hacking system to allow you to hack them, but I can not make any promises to that effect. Makes sense, should be the hardest difficulty of the mini-game, but would be very nice indeed, much better than the structure grind.
I'v read somewhere a idea to send DUST514 into "Infiltrate" missions, to put down the "injuried/offline" POS...
The Dust/EVE interaction in this would be awesome! Imagine the dusties painting target inside the POS, an the ships outside shooting on them!! (an orbital strike from the sides!)
Although it would be better on modular POS, so each victory from the atackers a module is destroyed! Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
589
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 07:37:00 -
[651] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities.
yes this dosnt work.
did it not actually get fixed? OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
209
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 13:37:00 -
[652] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities. yes this dosnt work. did it not actually get fixed?
which bit doesn't work? tested the "non-directors can't cancel jobs that aren't their own" just now and that seems to work, are there holes in this where they still can cancel stuff? -- |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
589
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 17:09:00 -
[653] - Quote
Ydnari wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys CCP Masterplan was able to finish the change to the permissions required to cancel corporation jobs.
After Odyssey, the only people who will be able to cancel a corporation job will be the person who installed the job, and directors of the corp. Factory managers will still be able to install and manage their own jobs, but not cancel jobs installed by others.
This applies to all varieties of corporation manufacturing and research jobs, in all locations and facilities. yes this dosnt work. did it not actually get fixed? which bit doesn't work? tested the "non-directors can't cancel jobs that aren't their own" just now and that seems to work, are there holes in this where they still can cancel stuff?
factory managers can still cancel jobs not there own from the testing ive done. will re look at this to see if another role is effecting it OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
209
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 17:17:00 -
[654] - Quote
Interested to hear your results because I tried it with an alt with Factory Manager and it wasn't able to cancel a research job. -- |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
589
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 17:38:00 -
[655] - Quote
Ydnari wrote:Interested to hear your results because I tried it with an alt with Factory Manager and it wasn't able to cancel a research job.
button shows, but I pressed it and got the you don't have roles... I would feel better if there was no button though...lol OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
209
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 17:48:00 -
[656] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Ydnari wrote:Interested to hear your results because I tried it with an alt with Factory Manager and it wasn't able to cancel a research job. button shows, but I pressed it and got the you don't have roles... I would feel better if there was no button though...lol
Yeah well that's the whole industry UI isn't it, shows buttons or menu options that don't make sense and only lead to errors several clicks later. -- |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
110
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 11:05:00 -
[657] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Alx Warlord wrote:CCP Fozzie, I know that the plan is to go slow with the POS system upgrade, but there are still plans to upgrade it until it becomes as EPIC as the modular POS? I mean, over the next 5 or 10 years? are these in the to do list? (soon tm list): - Modular POS (not floating buildings) - Removing the buble force field - Docking in POS - Market inside POS - Clone facility in POS - Jump with POS (Starbase jump drive) - mooring supercaps to POS - Battlestations- Logistic "guns" - Growing endless size POS- POS Construction UI. - POS Cloaking device - POS Jump bridge Generator. - Micro POS (personal level POS) - EPIC POS (Alliance size, Station size POS)' - Art/shape customization in POS ???? o/ We're taking this one step at a time for now.
If you want to take smaller steps that have a larger positive impact on players, some good options are:
a) Rebalancing starbase weapons as discussed earlier in this thread, to bring them in line with modern ships. Largely a case of tweaking stats rather than any real coding.
b) Extending the existing starbase logs available to GM's to players, allowing them to see which spy is messing with their precious towers. That should help reduce paranoia somewhat when managing large numbers of structures.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
113
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 11:53:00 -
[658] - Quote
Also - Warp Scrambling Batteries (and disruptors) do not prevent use of Micro Jump Drives, meaning it's virtually risk-free to use battleships near towers with one fitted. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 16:37:00 -
[659] - Quote
xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Alx Warlord wrote:CCP Fozzie, I know that the plan is to go slow with the POS system upgrade, but there are still plans to upgrade it until it becomes as EPIC as the modular POS? I mean, over the next 5 or 10 years? are these in the to do list? (soon tm list): - Modular POS (not floating buildings) - Removing the buble force field - Docking in POS - Market inside POS - Clone facility in POS - Jump with POS (Starbase jump drive) - mooring supercaps to POS - Battlestations- Logistic "guns" - Growing endless size POS- POS Construction UI. - POS Cloaking device - POS Jump bridge Generator. - Micro POS (personal level POS) - EPIC POS (Alliance size, Station size POS)' - Art/shape customization in POS ???? o/ We're taking this one step at a time for now. If you want to take smaller steps that have a larger positive impact on players, some good options are: a) Rebalancing starbase weapons as discussed earlier in this thread, to bring them in line with modern ships. Largely a case of tweaking stats rather than any real coding. b) Extending the existing starbase logs available to GM's to players, allowing them to see which spy is messing with their precious towers. That should help reduce paranoia somewhat when managing large numbers of structures. I'll have to agree with this.
Long ago, for those vets still around that remember, a deathstar setup made fleets cringe and they would think twice about coming near one. A properly setup tower could handle several dreads. Now? A couple of dreads can reinforce a large deathstar tower.
+1 to the POS weapon rebalancing. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 18:59:00 -
[660] - Quote
A really simple and maybe entertaining solution to decay would be stacking sensitivity to damage types.
So basically an offline tower would get the reverse of hardener buffs. This would be a nice way of testing functionality of debuff mechanics. So every downtime a penalty to damage types would be added to the offline tower, and the type of environment could make them different. The result being that after a while almost anything could take down a POS with very little effort.
If balanced correctly after say 1-3 months you could 1-shot a POS with even small weapons.
This would also be interesting in case later game development added things like space-weather. Solar flares, Sun storms, asteroid impact, comet shower etc.
A neat way something like this could be integrated would be using real life weather data as the "randomizer" thus making it partly possible to have predictions develop. A rather hard "hack" but within the realm of possibility.
|
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
152
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:33:00 -
[661] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote:xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're taking this one step at a time for now.
If you want to take smaller steps that have a larger positive impact on players, some good options are: a) Rebalancing starbase weapons as discussed earlier in this thread, to bring them in line with modern ships. Largely a case of tweaking stats rather than any real coding. ... I'll have to agree with this. Long ago, for those vets still around that remember, a deathstar setup made fleets cringe and they would think twice about coming near one. A properly setup tower could handle several dreads. Now? A couple of dreads can reinforce a large deathstar tower. +1 to the POS weapon rebalancing.
Bump for POS weapons - Fozzie, please tell us this is coming in Odyssey 1.1.
I saw a perfect reminder of why this is needed earlier this week. While using multiple alts with SDM V trained and faction pos weapons, it was nearly impossible to kill subcaps bigger than frigates.
Back in 2006, before manual pos-gunning even existed, starbases were a threat to even dreadnoughts due to the sheer damage power. Small capital fleets had to draw fire away from dreads by throwing frigates on the field to distract the weapons, or dreads could quite easily explode.
Now we have subcaps that not only have many times the EHP* that dreads had back in 2006, but they can also be easily remote-repped by fleets that commonly field dozens of logi cruisers. POS guns don't do anymore damage, don't track any better, and take ages to lock these targets. Even if you are incredibly lucky and manage to shoot the one battleship who forgets to broadcast for reps, chances are you'll only be able to lock half-a-dozen targets in total before the fleet has achieved their objective (shooting the jumpbridge, TCU, etc).
Please Fozzie, we want our fully armed and operational deathstars back.
*even some cruisers have more EHP than 2006-era Dreadnoughts |
Bruce McRaven
Uncharted Skies Cerberus Unleashed
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:11:00 -
[662] - Quote
Quote:Swapping and fitting Strategic Cruiser subsystems at a starbase
Another fix that significantly affects our wormhole residents, this entails placing the Strategic Cruiser and subsystems inside a Ship Maintenance Array (adding subsystems to the allowed list for SMA storage) and then using a right click menu to access subsystem choice. The reconfigured ship can then be boarded or ejected as normal.
I can't find any more info on the topic but it is not in the patchnotes and as of my testing it doesn't work.
Also it seems like I am not the only one with this problem...
When will you guys get this done? |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
281
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 00:39:00 -
[663] - Quote
xttz wrote:
Bump for POS weapons - Fozzie, please tell us this is coming in Odyssey 1.1.
I saw a perfect reminder of why this is needed earlier this week. While using multiple alts with SDM V trained and faction pos weapons, it was nearly impossible to kill subcaps bigger than frigates.
Back in 2006, before manual pos-gunning even existed, starbases were a threat to even dreadnoughts due to the sheer damage power. Small capital fleets had to draw fire away from dreads by throwing frigates on the field to distract the weapons, or dreads could quite easily explode.
*sigh* I remember the good old days like this. The 'death star' was my baby and one of the few ideas I've had that caught on across the game like wildfire back in the day. 'Lets put nothing but guns and tracking arrays on it and a corp hanger with six months fuel'.
I saw a battleship fleet take down an active POS in high sec. They didn't lose a ship, despite the tower firing every gun it had. This is not working as intended. Where's the risk, after all?
The Most Interesting Player In Eve. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
655
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:58:00 -
[664] - Quote
xttz wrote:Infinite Force wrote:xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're taking this one step at a time for now.
If you want to take smaller steps that have a larger positive impact on players, some good options are: a) Rebalancing starbase weapons as discussed earlier in this thread, to bring them in line with modern ships. Largely a case of tweaking stats rather than any real coding. ... I'll have to agree with this. Long ago, for those vets still around that remember, a deathstar setup made fleets cringe and they would think twice about coming near one. A properly setup tower could handle several dreads. Now? A couple of dreads can reinforce a large deathstar tower. +1 to the POS weapon rebalancing. Bump for POS weapons - Fozzie, please tell us this is coming in Odyssey 1.1. I saw a perfect reminder of why this is needed earlier this week. While using multiple alts with SDM V trained and faction pos weapons, it was nearly impossible to kill subcaps bigger than frigates. Back in 2006, before manual pos-gunning even existed, starbases were a threat to even dreadnoughts due to the sheer damage power. Small capital fleets had to draw fire away from dreads by throwing frigates on the field to distract the weapons, or dreads could quite easily explode. Now we have subcaps that not only have many times the EHP* that dreads had back in 2006, but they can also be easily remote-repped by fleets that commonly field dozens of logi cruisers. POS guns don't do anymore damage, don't track any better, and take ages to lock these targets. Even if you are incredibly lucky and manage to shoot the one battleship who forgets to broadcast for reps, chances are you'll only be able to lock half-a-dozen targets in total before the fleet has achieved their objective (shooting the jumpbridge, TCU, etc). Please Fozzie, we want our fully armed and operational deathstars back. * even some cruisers have more EHP than 2006-era Dreadnoughts
This, this and more of this.
If the only place we have to store ships is at a POS (WH's, station-less low / null systems), that system must be able to defend against an invasion. Obviously a 100 man fleet is going to make short work of a POS regardless of how it's setup.
Let's get these POS systems back to being feared again by small to medium sized fleets.
No more of this single dread coming along and reinforcing a tower .. just because. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
230
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:51:00 -
[665] - Quote
A "minor" thing that would really be nice to see in a coming POS reworking is economic considerations..
POS should go back to being fuel cost dependent according to number of installed units.. This flat rate fuel consumption is really a bad balance and mess up competition..
Also the npc prices for research, production and invention needs to be major nerfed.. so the player driven ones are at competitive levels.. atm the cost of a player slot is around 20k isk per hour, and the npc prices go all the way down to 9 isk per hour.. This is totally unbalanced and turns competition upside down..
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: [one page] |