Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 80 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Afaflix
Caldari Interstellar Operations Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 00:52:00 -
[361]
Great Idea ...
Bump -- Violence is the Diplomacy of the Incompetent. Hari Seldon
(If I can't buy you, I can buy someone who'll get diplomatic on your ass) |
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 03:48:00 -
[362]
Edited by: Jinx Barker on 02/11/2007 03:48:04 Page 13, and not even a pip from the Dev team....
I am pasting a compressed version with links again. So people who are not yet familiar with the notion - if there are any left in EVE that haven't seen this thread - can see it in full glory.
Exhibit A
Exhibit: B
Exhibit: C
Exhibits: D & E (Large File)
Exhibit: F
Exhibit: G
Exhibit: H
Exhibit: I (Fully Realised Modular POS)
|
kattak4
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 04:20:00 -
[363]
This looks so damn cool, it's true the POS of today isn't all that impressive. Making the POS's more customizable in this way would almost as cool as adding planetary aspects(seeing as we're talking huge projects here).
Truly impressive and the 3D demonstartions were well done.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 03:34:00 -
[364]
If not replacing the current pos's then maybe mini outposts or "forts" for the corp lvl, no solv required, in 0.0 and standings in highsec, plus charters, dock able, like outposts, fittings, pos like refining, and research, no bubble, or shield, doesnt show up on the overview, fits 10 to 20 ships, docked, close to the same settings for docking as an outpost. would be cool, but what do i know. ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
ninjaholic
Gallente Burn the Jolly Roger Phoenix Rising Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 03:59:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Jinx Barker Page 13, and not even a pip from the Dev team....
Hmm uninterested CCP are ...
|
Remko Marr
Caldari First And Only
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 19:28:00 -
[366]
Post for 2 reasons...
1. Bump.
2. I think I see a solution to the unanchoring problem posed by this system. With the current system, each module is floating free in space. But with this system, since everything is interconnected, who says they have to be anchored to anything except each other? Couldn't you theoretically just pull something right out of the middle without much interference? Then you can shift the other modules around to fill the gap in the middle (with minimal time delay), or put a new module in it's spot. This should be much less time consuming than actually unanchoring everything surrounding the module.
|
Tar Nictor
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 04:41:00 -
[367]
Ok, I like the whole idea, but lets not have this replace pos's as is but rather, be an addition to the I own a station type thing, again, i think docking would be nice, even if it only allowed a corp hanger when you dock, and no personal hangers. factory slots could be put on it, with incressed cost for building things, im still more of a mini outpost fan instead of the new pos fan, since it would disrupt the current pos's that are up atm.
BTW p4 again, cant let this keep happining,
Please read CCP.
|
Thorek Ironbrow
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 07:13:00 -
[368]
Oh yeah! That's what I always thought POSs were ment to act like before I saw them the other day. I think it would be even greater if they could go commercial. Like appear on your stations list, and have people be able to dock and stuff.
|
UniqPhoenix
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 09:22:00 -
[369]
Edited by: UniqPhoenix on 07/11/2007 09:23:50 10/10 to this thread. Even tho I have only seen a few pics of the current (messy) POSes and don't know much about them, I'd like to add some comments and ideas(some things might be mentioned already):
About 4 bridges/doors on each module: These can be removed and would only be visible when something is connected to it, so if 2 modules are next to each other, they automatically connect. That way POSes would look much smoother. Add a new part, just a bridge. Would also connect to anything around it.
What if there is 1 module only connected from 1 side and the module on that side is destroyed? I think destroyed modules should stay, just not functional and look broken, repairable a bit cheaper then getting a new module. About moving/replacing the module in the middle, maybe a bridge module could automatically replace it?
The turrets look great, you should draw missile launchers too...and CCP should hire you. Just that maybe the turrets should be higher so they could shoot over/below other modules?
3 variations of Control tower - more level requirements=more powergrid and CPU.
Add a new part: repair station? Like in some missions it fully repairs its allies for a minute, it could repair the station automatically, but slowly. This way others can't hit'n'run so easily.
To control your POS, you would have to dock and open control panel which would show a grid (2D or 3D like flattening world map, can zoom and move camera the same way) with all the parts where they are, their shield/armor/hull, and when selected, additional info/controls is shown below the grid.
About current POSes: Keep them where they are for 1-2 months (just change the look of each part and stop players from makeing more away from control tower) and make so that people can rearrange stuff and connect it the way they want, because in 1 week some people would definitely run out of time arrangeing their POSes.
For those who say this is waste of programming time: it is much easier to work on balance after graphics and code is done, then balancing now, updating and balancing again.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 00:20:00 -
[370]
Also it'd be cool if it had a Caesar II function to it, so that the POS changes looks depending on how old and well run it is, not talking the hanging gardens of Babylon, though that'd be cool but small addons to make this hideous feature look cool and distinguish them from eachother some.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
|
high star
EARLS OF MAELSTROM
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 07:51:00 -
[371]
Kicking this back up from page three.
Come on CCP one of the best ideas in this section and still no word from you. This need an answer even if it is no.
Now is the time to give us an update on whether or not you plan to upgrade POS'es as you are upgrading the ships and stations. I know that we will not see it in the next big patch even tho this thread has been around for over a year, but still it does deserve an answer.
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 13:54:00 -
[372]
Bump!
This thread has been seen and looked over several times by the Dev team. It's a very bold and interesting proposal. However any change like this would require a massive amount of development in both programming and artwork. It's not something that could happen overnight.
Having said that, we're well aware of the current state of starbase warfare and it's one of our top post-Trinity priorities for overhaul. Abathur Game Designer "Tux did it!" |
|
Altaree
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 17:01:00 -
[373]
YEAH!!!! A DEV REPLY!!!!!
|
Rod Blaine
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 21:31:00 -
[374]
My 2 cents:
lose the whole module ****e. One module: the tower. with funcitonalities that require input of resources, but no additoinal anchored modules that require graphics, upkeep or anchoring and stuff.
POS warfare needs trimming down, harshly. It's the biggest single turnoff at this time I believe, and nothing short of sweeping change is going to affect that much. [center] Old blog |
Khanak Hryad
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 22:07:00 -
[375]
HUZZAH!!!
/me buys the every dev a beer
EVE Bank |
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 22:30:00 -
[376]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Bump!
This thread has been seen and looked over several times by the Dev team. It's a very bold and interesting proposal. However any change like this would require a massive amount of development in both programming and artwork. It's not something that could happen overnight.
Having said that, we're well aware of the current state of starbase warfare and it's one of our top post-Trinity priorities for overhaul.
Can.. I... have... your.... baby?
Ah, yes, indeed, thank you for replying. However, would you please elaborate on this:
Artwork Issue: Why would it it be difficult to make the modules interconnected. The templates already exist in game, where everything is mapped and accessible to an artist. I mean there is no real need to create separate modules, or to redo entire assembly of modules, use existing templates. (Please bear in mind, I am not an "Artwork" guy, so I am maybe missing something, so I apologize in advance for being dense.)
Programming Issue: The Template for the "Modular POS" already exists in game. Some Angel & Minmatar missions have the "Construction Yards" that closely resemble the proposals in this thread. Further more, they cause significantly less lag in the mission environment, when they are in the "interconnected" state, surprise, surprise.
The Integrated docking for POS can also be "copied" from the current Station Environments, that, I would admit, might require some more programing and coding than usual, but it is not the major issue, and most of us could live without it for quite a while.
Main concern is to make POS: 1) Less Laggy 2) More Useful/Read Better Utility 3) More like a star-base should be, a single structure, that contains vital elements to make a whole. And, even that has a basis in game now, the "Station Services" options that appear as part of the Station, and yet are invisible and can be targeted individually.
And, thanks for giving the thread the gold bars, I think it was long overdue.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 22:47:00 -
[377]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Bump!
This thread has been seen and looked over several times by the Dev team. It's a very bold and interesting proposal. However any change like this would require a massive amount of development in both programming and artwork. It's not something that could happen overnight.
Having said that, we're well aware of the current state of starbase warfare and it's one of our top post-Trinity priorities for overhaul.
Nice, Glade to see the devs give this one a little love, Hope to see it sooner then later, the current pos isn't the wonderful thing I was hoping for, when I first started, I seen myself anchoring a station in the middle of space somewhere, like in the missions, and it be dock able, felt like a nub being 6 months old asking how do you dock on this thing, lol. ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 03:44:00 -
[378]
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 10/11/2007 03:44:36 After 13 pages and more than a year, its nice to see some gold bars present :)
After a year of those old models, and a year's time to hone my conceptualization skills, allow me to present a new Caldari Small tower, featuring two Silos, a coupling array, and a moon miner.
View One
View Two
Enjoy my hastily thrown together in the last two hours concept art
|
Remko Marr
Caldari First And Only
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 05:09:00 -
[379]
Thank you VERY much Abathur, just for confirming that you've actually been paying attention. I'm willing to wait if this could happen someday.
And by the way, very nice new stuff. I like the moon miner design.
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 09:09:00 -
[380]
This is great work indeed! Hope to see this in the future, and hire the man will you! :)
|
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 09:18:00 -
[381]
Originally by: Jinx Barker Can.. I... have... your.... baby?
Are you hot?
Quote: Artwork Issue: Why would it it be difficult to make the modules interconnected. The templates already exist in game, where everything is mapped and accessible to an artist. I mean there is no real need to create separate modules, or to redo entire assembly of modules, use existing templates.
(Please bear in mind, I am not an "Artwork" guy, so I am maybe missing something, so I apologize in advance for being dense.)
I'll try to shed some light on this but your last sentence sums me up as well. I'm not in Art but I have run into this problem before as well when the Design team has come up with an OMGUBER idea. Artwork in EVE, as you've noticed, is serious business. Our company takes a lot of pride in making sure the game you play looks very different from anything else on the market. From a simple 'looks' standpoint, we don't want you to have to play something that looks ordinary or plain.
That aside, the addition of any new object in the game requires significant planning and time. I believe that from proposing an idea to initial sketch to an actual finished model (then implementation, programming mechanics and balancing, etc...) can take between 3-6 months depending on the complexity of the object in question.
So when you see an entirely new ship enter the game, such as the Tier 3 battleships or the Rorqual, it's a pretty big deal.
Quote: Programming Issue: The Template for the "Modular POS" already exists in game. Some Angel & Minmatar missions have the "Construction Yards" that closely resemble the proposals in this thread.
"Closely resemble" doesn't cut it.
Quote: The Integrated docking for POS can also be "copied" from the current Station Environments, that, I would admit, might require some more programing and coding than usual, but it is not the major issue, and most of us could live without it for quite a while.
I learned long ago never to say stuff like, "I'm sure that's not a major issue." around programmers as they tend to get upset and throw things at me. Heavy things.
Quote: Main concern is to make POS: 1) Less Laggy 2) More Useful/Read Better Utility 3) More like a star-base should be, a single structure, that contains vital elements to make a whole. And, even that has a basis in game now, the "Station Services" options that appear as part of the Station, and yet are invisible and can be targeted individually.
All valid points and interesting ideas.
As a designer my view is that what we have here is a game object (starbase towers) that have been in game for years and has had no real revamp in terms of functionality. This situation is very similar to what is going on with Carriers at the moment and why they are under such intense scrutiny.
Starbase warfare as a whole is going to be something that gets a lot of attention in 2008. I cannot say if that means we will be adapting something similar to what is proposed in this thread or going an entirely different route. Rest assured though that we do read these forums and discuss the ideas presented. Abathur Game Designer "Tux did it!" |
|
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 10:18:00 -
[382]
I actually originally devised this idea because I thought, to put it bluntly, that starbases look lame. That opinion really hasn't changed, but Ive gotten a lot more reason to want it; the processes for moon mining, and especially booster production, would be a lot nicer if they could be straight forward in execution, rather than the currently convoluted process of trying to link them - and simultaneously position them in a way that doesn't look awful.
For my vision to be put into place, I think the following things would likely need to be done for this idea to work:
1. Grid placement revamp. The third dimension would be removed, the grids in place would have to be scaled up larger, and some sort of camera system may need to be devised. A panning isometric view would be nice to work with during such setups due to the tried-and-true nature of that orientation. Code would need to be revamped in order to facilitate referencing to the absolute position of the tower, rather than the present absolute referencing for every present module. The positions of modules in grid placements would need to be precise in reference to the tower so that it didn't look messed up, broken, or silly.
2. Mechanics of POSes would need to be rebalanced/reworked; hangars would have to be scalable, which means linking them to other modules attached to the towers. Industrial processes would need to intelligently navigate their ways through the module interconnects. It wouldn't make much sense to shunt moon minerals through the control tower and hangar to reach a refining array and then coupler now would it?
3. New artwork would be needed, as previously mentioned. Theres an awful lot of man hours which go into the creation of that stuff, and keeping it stylistically united is a challenge too.
Its no small task, but I'm glad to hear you guys are working on a revamp. Whether or not it goes in a different direction is still up in the air. But you can imagine I would be pretty psyched if this is where things went
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 14:18:00 -
[383]
You could avoid the need for new models by making the POS more in style to the deadspace complexes. Those are interconnected by walls, junctions and elevators. The POS won't be a solid mass of modules like in the idea of the OP but instead a gridwork of walls with attached modules.
The means and rules by which the gridwork is set up will be more of a programmer work than a artist work which might be a bit less time consuming. It'd be basically a POS-Editor that allows you to add new walls/modules at predefined locations in a certain orientation. The spots where the modules stick together would have to be defined on the models/objects and might need some graphical adjustments.
I think it would help greatly managing the POS if there was a a way to access and change all modules without having to get within a certain distance. Maybe have the player dock into the control tower with the pod to do so.
And while I'm talking about the POS, I'll add two ideas for modules. I'd love to have a warehouse module that can be used by a single player, much like a cargo container. Coordinating the personal effects of people with the corp hangar is rather awkward. Having the corp stuff only in the corp hangars and the personal stuff in a separate location at the POS would make things much more easy.
The second module I'd love to have at a POS would be a repair station. This one could be used to repair shields, armor and hull of a ship and also recharge the capacitor. Only one ship can be served at a time and only one kind of repair at once. This would allow a pit-stop at the POS after combat without having to cycle through the ship maintenance array for fitting repair modules.
Anyways, great to see getting the POS more attention. Curious how it'll turn out in 3-12 months.
|
TorTorden
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 17:00:00 -
[384]
Edited by: TorTorden on 10/11/2007 17:05:42 I's sign off on all parts of this idea, Personaly ccp, stop mucking around with 'walking in stations' and FIX THIS HOPELESS MESS THAT IS POS'S. (sry bout the caps)
One reason why I would ccp might be aprehensive to do this would be the question of how to change all the hundreds of already anchored POS's. Would those suddenly become unanchored and offline, waiting for some corp member to come around and fix ? or just magicaly enter some random preset configuration with the assorted modules ? It's a migraine for sure, on top of the gargantuan task of designing implenting, testing and god knows how much work and manhours something like this means. Personaly again, I think it would be all worth it.
Again ccp this is a good idea, Hire this guy (Evelgrivion). Could we also get a limitied monitoring tool for pos's?
Something simple that won't let us actualy do anything but can show us how much\fuel and if the modules are up and running ?
------------------------------------------------ There is no such thing as good or evil. Just an egotistic struggle for self empowerment. ------------------------------------------------ |
Imhothar Xarodit
Minmatar Wolverine Solutions Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 17:05:00 -
[385]
Edited by: Imhothar Xarodit on 10/11/2007 17:06:28 One problem I see with this POS architecture is a warp-in point.
Right now, you can setup your POS in a way that you can warp in to a certain structure (corp hangar for ours, as example) with any ship of any size from any direction at 0 and you 1. don't get bumped to hell 2. are stil in range of all important POS modules.
Now, with the modular approach that is presented here, it is difficult to find a warp-in that works for all ships and all directions. (Remember, you can land anywhere in the sphere of 1500m around the object). If I warp to the tower of this starbase, I could land inside the strucutres and get bumped out at the speed of light. If I would warp to a specific structure, same could happen. And placing an extra structure 3km away from the cluster just to have a working warp-in is kinda against the idea.
This said, my proposal for this would be to give every tower a warp-in point, that will not bump you around, and is not the centered around the real center of the tower.
Just one thought I got while reading this.
|
Darth Nerf
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 17:08:00 -
[386]
/signed
CCP: this is how a pos should be!
|
mightymadmat
Amarr Equity Corp Phobos Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 18:49:00 -
[387]
\signed several times.....
I love the idea. I run a small POS in my corp and something needs to be done. Mighty Mad Mat
Quote : 0.0 space is ideal for strip mining - think of it in both ways.
|
Ort Lofthus
Wildlands Heavy Technologies FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 02:19:00 -
[388]
An idea to fix the problem with reorganizing the POS when adding new modules or removing old ones: Have a 'POS editor' window avaliable from the control tower where you enter in the new design. A timer counts down for anchoring/unanchoring and at the end of the timer the tower gets reorganized in the new arrangement. Also, 'upgrade' items can be arranged vertically from the module they upgrade. Using the moon miner+coupling array+silo picture provided by evelgrivion, you could have the silos 'upgrade' the coupling array and thus be arranged on the top and bottom of the array. That way its easy to add an upgrade to an existing tower.
|
sg3s
Caldari O.W.N. Corp FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 09:57:00 -
[389]
Yay dev attention! now I don'ty remember if I promised my first born to dev attention or to implementation and can't find the post so we'll have to pass on that one.
As for POS warfare, I did give some additions to this idea wich could possibly make POS warfare alot more "interesting" as it gives you the possibilities to cripple POSes somewhat if you want, wich could be done with smaller ships too I suppose.
Lets hope POSes in the future will become alot more interesting to set up, defend and attack.
|
high star
EARLS OF MAELSTROM
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 11:27:00 -
[390]
Yeah Nice too see the dev's have read this thread.
Now as to reorganizing the pos to add and remove modules, one way to to this would be ot only allow certain modules to fit together ie module assembly arrays to fit to other assembly arrays and the corp hanger and the ship assembly arrays to fit to each other and the Ship Maintenance array and so on. This would negate the need to rearrange the pos every time you add a module. This would also make things easier to change the poe'es we have now to a new type by CCP if or when they change the pos'es to a modular design, as they can have set default formats for pos'es so every every pos in the game would be set to a default depending on what there was in the pos
Another point made was a warp in point. That would be the control tower after all you should be able to be in range of every module on the pos from the CT with this design. the only thing you would have to fly to would be the sentry guns/ missile launchers if they were not fixed to the pos.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 80 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |