| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
22
   |
Posted - 2014.12.19 05:27:46 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote:Coelomate wrote:I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.
For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"
I have no idea what that means, or even could mean. We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve.
So you want us to have to train more alts?
So you want it more inaccessible to solo players?
So you want to make it more tedious for solo builders?
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1653
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 06:23:56 -
[62] - Quote
I completed the relevant sections of the survey. What it boils down to for me is that optimal game play in industry should not be solo. It is at the moment because you need to trust people in order to work together. That would be ideal but in EVE is unfortunately idealistic and impractical - you WILL get robbed.
I don't know how it would work in practice but I would love to be able to effectively hire people to do tasks for me. This wouldn't necessarily require a contract but roles should be fine-grained enough that I don't have to risk assets in order for someone to cooperate with me.
I'd also love for some permissions to exist outside a corp structure. Corps themselves can be limiting in terms of game play. I.e. I shouldn't need to join an indy corp if I want to do a bit on the side when the PvP is quiet.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
KaRa DaVuT
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 07:13:21 -
[63] - Quote
Done. |
Lasse R Farnsworth
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 07:17:00 -
[64] - Quote
To be honest .. even as an ex WH squatter I didn't know the term starbase on first glance. And to be fair you should split an pos survey rom the rest ... Because just an small subset of players know the pain of that alliance 0.0 stuff but an huge group knows the POS PAIN ... |
Cae Lara
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 08:46:51 -
[65] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:"If you could set an automated commission tax when delegating tasks or resources would you use it?"
Please, please, please, don't half-ass this. Allow taxes to be set both per hour of usage (e.g: 0.1mil per hour per manufacturing job) and percentually (e.g: 1% of input value per manufacturing jobs). Implement tax filters, so that different taxes can be levied on different inventory/market groups. Basically, sit down with Steve or some future S&I CSM member, ask them what customization they would love, and implement all that. This feature is an absolute dream if done right.
I wholeheartedly agree, this kind of idea has the potential to turn into something amazing if done right. And I hope a lot of love and care goes into making it usable and effective.
It was worth taking the survey just to find out that CCP is planning something along these lines. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1394
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 09:08:50 -
[66] - Quote
twit brent wrote:CCP Arrow wrote:Coelomate wrote:I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.
For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"
I have no idea what that means, or even could mean. We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve. So you want us to have to train more alts? So you want it more inaccessible to solo players? So you want to make it more tedious for solo builders?
As a solo player and a solo builder, (with 11 accounts), yes, I hope that they add more activities that can be done as a group, or add more functionality for groups to do projects. It doesn't force us to train more alts, it encourages us to you know, play with other people. Something I don't actually have to do much right now. I don't believe tedium should be a factor though. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1394
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 09:18:29 -
[67] - Quote
As for my actual feedback on this survey:
Starbases should have their own thread and survey. They are such a convoluted mess, that forcing us to rate them against other factors makes other issues look less broken, purely by comparison.
Complicated and confusing role system
Clunky interface, especially for gunning
Utterly defenseless against even small (15) capital groups
Unfathomably low scan res (30mm on webs and disruptors, that's a supercarrier with no sebos. 70mm on medium guns (that's about carrier speed)
Mediocre damage with the inability to swap targets quickly (the 1 target limitation really hurts the ability to outswap logi)
Bonuses unfavourable to tower roles:
Caldari towers are the ONLY towers that have enough cpu for advanced reactions, yet gallente and amarr get the silo bonus
Caldari towers have an ecm bonus, which is actually a penalty 50% of the time (it can actually cause targets to be jammed LESS often)
Gallente control tower has no range bonus for hybrid sentries, meaning that you are stuck between enemies outranging (easily) your blasters, or shrugging off the terrible dps of rail batteries that have bad fitting cost. |
Leonis Perthshire
Broke and Famous
Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 09:47:27 -
[68] - Quote
What we can do about the survey is fill it out, no mater how point lest and confusion it is seems, hope CCP will find the relevant info they need.
In my caseI like the fight for SOV but I don like the eternal bashing of structures, it would be cool a fight of a king instead of bash.
GÇ£If you win, you live. If you lose, you die. If you donGÇÖt fight, you canGÇÖt win!GÇ¥ GÇô Eren Jaeger
White Maul
|
|
CCP Arrow
C C P
C C P Alliance
642
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 10:16:11 -
[69] - Quote
twit brent wrote:CCP Arrow wrote:Coelomate wrote:I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.
For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"
I have no idea what that means, or even could mean. We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve. So you want us to have to train more alts? So you want it more inaccessible to solo players? So you want to make it more tedious for solo builders?
We just want to know what players think about it, if most players say no to that question, then that will send a clear message.
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
Sturmwolke
603
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 10:16:28 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote:Coelomate wrote:I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.
For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"
I have no idea what that means, or even could mean. We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve.
Be careful here. EVE is alts online and will always be until the server finally breathes its last.
That said, encouraging the extreme multiplicity of alts use through game mechanics that heavily favors this playstyle is detrimental for the longterm playerbase.
The scaling should be tapered wherever applicable. I'm not a fan of infinite scaling.
|
|
|
Mello Witkacy
GBTeam
C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:40:19 -
[71] - Quote
Just change Sov warfare so small corps and allys will be able to control their own space without need to join big blobs - big blobs NC and Goons killed eve....
for people who don't want to be a part of blob there is only NPC space or WH and thats wrong.
We dont want China serv here - CCP go to WORK !
|
Matcha Mosburger
Manu Fortius
Bleak Horizon Alliance.
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:53:05 -
[72] - Quote
Fonac wrote:Link does not work :/
Just like starbase managment and sov warfare. I feel the first link was very appropriate for the topic.. ironic. |
Matcha Mosburger
Manu Fortius
Bleak Horizon Alliance.
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:01:09 -
[73] - Quote
Kalenn Istarion wrote:CCP Arrow wrote:Coelomate wrote:I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.
For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"
I have no idea what that means, or even could mean. We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve. A "corp production line" concept where anyone with appropriate roles could share in managing production instead of having only player-locked production slots would be something interesting, if that's the sort of thing you're conceiving of. Requiring two players in space to online a structure would be exactly the wrong kind of "co-op gameplay" for EVE. You know what else would be useful, in terms of managing things like corp reactions or marketing or whatever? Limited corp API keys. This is only tangentially related but allowing someone with roles to use an API key to see data related to that role would be useful as hell, specifically in the context of the above-mentioned corp production.
Can't like a second time so +1
This really needs to happen - Limited Corp API Keys. Or at a minimum allow personal keys to see ANY (even Corp) projects started by the API owner. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
The 99 Percent
955
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 20:24:40 -
[74] - Quote
This is the part where I get to say I miss CCP Greyscale. He was the last person to publicly work on any of this as part of the Crius indy rebalance. He solicited a lot of feedback about POSes and stations in relation to industry and actually implemented some suggestions.
As for some of the more ambiguous questions, given that I have experience with sov and POSes, I answered yes to make sure I got to the important questions about sov and POS mechanics. I'll rephrase what I wrote in another thread: too few options, too many mandatory timers, POS/corp roles suck.
For example: you want to tax renters? What about a version of the ESS (setting aside the current bad mechanics) that sends a percentage of the bounties gathered from in-system ratting directly to the owner's corp wallet? To clarify, it doesn't care who owns the system, or who is ratting there. It takes x% and sends it to your corp wallet. Now, was that so hard?
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Vihura
Rave Technologies Inc.
C0VEN
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 14:16:30 -
[75] - Quote
I filled survey but for 90% question I should answer 'I have no idea' I only used POS a little in wormhole, I'm in alliance involved in SOW war but have no idea how its work from management point of view, generally in my opinion survey is bad design because my feed back is in 90% useless. |
Navigation Boy
Decadent Behavior
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 14:43:44 -
[76] - Quote
Wait, by "starbase" they meant POS? Player Owned Station?
I thought they were referring to the capturable stations, the ones that change hands.
Seriously suggest you put 'POS' in brackets, since that's how 99% of the playerbase knows it. My advice is that you can't expect the players to speak your lingo, you have to speak theirs to implement a proper survey.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3457
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 15:44:40 -
[77] - Quote
Houm... I've tried to take the poll twice, and felt terribly stupid doing it. Don't you think that when someone says "no, I don't use structures, no I never used them, no I would NOT use structures even if you changed whatever with them", that should stop asking that person about how to improve them?
I kind of expected, after saying don't use them, never used, don't want to use them, a single last question on WHY don't use them, never used them and don't want to use them. 
Did my best to suggest improvements but really... I never used them so I don't know whether it's necessary to improve ownership or management or whatever.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Generaloberst Kluntz
Isogen 5
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 16:31:34 -
[78] - Quote
Make it easy for a CEO to transfer pos with configs to another Corp.
Make personal SMA.
Make onlining time half of current for everything.
Make it possible to set individual access to SMAs and CHAs for non-members of Corp.
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
Cynosural Field Theory.
1175
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 00:41:51 -
[79] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:I did the survey just to ask for a corporation hangar array that has divisions for each member of the corp. So many ships stolen from POS hangar over the years without a decent way of preventing it. Should be easy to exercise safety if it is warranted.
I get not storing ships in the hangar if they are worth taking, but still. Deploying from a starbase in home system is very useful. Should be possible to do safely. Sharing ships is great, but safely storing ships with only personal access should be possible as well. Should be an option, not a forced thing, as I can totally see that making some of my ships available to corp members is useful for rapid deployment, but some ships that are more expensive are better off in a personal array. They have what you described, called a Personal Hanger, everyone gets their own subset of space that they are granted access to. I think what you were asking for was the same variant of a Ship Maintenance Array, like a Personal Ship Array, right? Just wanted to make that clear.
The place where you keep ships, yeah
shows just how much I have used POSes to be honest...you'd think ships go in a hangar
TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
My ship fits
|
0mni Ca
Hit Squad 420
Almost Awesome.
57
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:02:15 -
[80] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5334396#
My response to the CO-OP question, may not be strictly CO-OP, but would go quicker with more people. |
|
|
Tommy Ork
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 02:57:45 -
[81] - Quote
Done.
Just a quick suggestion that I have put in the survey, for other's consideration.
Quick fix to the "offline to refill your silo" problem:
Ultimate Solution: to be able to refill / empty silo without needing to offline;
Quick Fix: at least, show the reaction timers in the reactors, so that we will withhold offlining if the 1-hr cycle is about to end. (similar to the timer available in planetary interaction)
This means alot, all those reaction industrialists know. Everytime we offline we face the risk of breaking the cycle ... causing unnecessary disruption to the production line. This is totally unnecessary game play ...... |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
235
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 08:51:21 -
[82] - Quote
I noticed there was some discussion about POS anchoring locations and perhaps allowing them to be anchored at locations other than moons. I suppose they could be anchored nearly anywhere, but if not on a moon consider adding a navigational beacon to the overview. That way the current scouting game is not affected and they can still be found without probes using dscan if at a moon, and if someone desires an unconventional location the beacon gives them away. There would obviously need to be some limits, as a POS errected on top of a wormhole or gate would be broken. Getting away from moon limits would affect moonlocking tactics negatively, but it would also allow more people the pride of ownership as well as facilitate some unique views. |
Sor Sparhawk
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 23:26:10 -
[83] - Quote
I quit after a few questions. Since I didn't understand many of them, I think they're not geared towards noobs like me ;-)
If you change the questions after the survey has started, it really impacts the integrity of the data you're collecting unless you keep the them separated. Someone w experience in statistics would be able to help. Are you making sure there's no duplicates in your sample? |
Justice Starcatcher
Asguard Security Service
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:35:30 -
[84] - Quote
Survey needs a back button. I had things I thought of later after reading further questions. |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers
The Methodical Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 13:08:27 -
[85] - Quote
Okay, I say in advance I'm typing this on my phone, and I know that butchers the format of messages when I use EVEGate for mail...so hoping this keeps my paragraph breaks instead of becoming one big block of text. ;)
.
I took the whole thing. I'm in a Corp that's a member of an Alliance that does Sov Warfare and has built an Outpost and owns a few and so on, so I COULD rightly/honestly access all the questions. Here's my feedback here, because the survey is kinda wonky to me. :)
.
The BIGGEST single problem with POSes is the role and Corp tied mechanics.
.
I cannot stress this enough. Due to the nature of Eve, even in a Corp like mine where we have a relatively high degree of trust among the members, people are super cautious. This means that the rigid role system ends up with like three people having actual access to anything regarding POSes. So unless I make my own Corp, this means I will never get involved with the setup or mantenance of a POS. I can donate PI and Ice, I can donate Fuel Blocks, but I cannot online, offline, move, upgrade, or get into the guns on any POS. I can't set a personal POS up that I CAN do these things on. I don't think I can even anchor or online a POS or any structures related to one, even though I have the requisite skills to do all. Nor can I poke my nose in a WH and set up a
POS base of operations - again, unless I make my own Corp or can get the Corp to trust me with ALL POSes it owns. And don't forget that NPC Corp members cannot uses POSes at all, for a similar reason.
.
Before anything else, this is the number one problem with POSes. Not saying there are no other problems, but this is the big one. A more flexible role system, a role system that can be set by POS instead of for all POSes, or having versions of POS that are not tied to Corps (a "Mobil size or something?) would go a looooong way to helping.
.
The other thing is it would be nice to be able to live out of a POS better. I'm not sure the BEST way to make this happen, but I feel like a POS should be a mini-Outpost. More mobile and modular, but not having all the amenities, or having weaker versions of them. Instead, POSes have more specialized niches. Better research or refining yield, or are used for a safe staging location. While these are cool, it doesnmt compare to an Outpost for most purposes. This is LARGELY a due to the role system!
.
Since I've not had the ability to use POSes other than for research jobs or safes, that's the extent of what I can give as feedback.
.
Outposts/Upgrades/iHUBs:
This is all largely the same. The structure is so limited and the ownership and cost so much more these are even more tightly controlled than POSes! I can do no more for any of these projects than donate Trit to building them, basically. But...to me this isn't ASA egregious as POSes, because of the fact that they are more straightforward for the most part (dock, undock, repair, clone), and sorta do their own thing, I guess. Though it would be nice to contribute more to them, too, I just have no idea how. It'd also be nice to be able to set up Station guns. :)
.
Deployables, on the other hand, are in a good place, I think. I'd like to see more varieties of them, like a research post, a reaction post, a small moon mining post, etc. Basically, the things you have to have a POS for now, just smaller and weaker versions. Note that this is LARGELY a because, again, of the inaccessibility of POSes due to the Corp/role system (see a trend here?) Even varied modules like a little dead space pocket generator and the like would be sweet.
.
Industry Co-op:
To me, industry is one of the few things a player can do alone. This shouldn't be taken from solo players. The flipside is, a group should be able to do things together FASTER, but with limitations to prevent swarm/Zerg building. (And I don't mean that as sacrificing your worker drones to build stuff! :p)
.
So as an example, suppose I want to build something with a couple buddies. Would it not be nice to be able to jointly work the project to increase day time or odds of success? Use an exponential decay where people can jointly donate one of their work slots to a project to decrease time or material requirements, or increase odds of a research success. Put caps on it (if, say, I have the "Research Project Management skill to only 3, only 3 people can work on my project, and each one must donate 3 of their research job open slots to the project.)
.
As a person that DOES sometimes play MMOs solo, my overriding principle is always that good design let's skilled and dedicated solo players do the same thing that groups can do, only that groups get to do them faster or more efficiently. In this way, you can reward groups while not punishing solo players. This is a big deal to me with any and all Co-op gameplay SHOULD, in my mind, adhere to this principle (with few note able exceptions - a single pilot downing an Incursion mothership, for example.)
.
It should also be noted that most Industry projects and tasks in the game arenmt really interactive or engaging to begin with. So other than joint projects, I'm not sure what you COULD do to make them more Co-op...
.
Sov Warfare...well, I'm one of those weird people that likes mining and likes shooting at Sov structures. But the timer system is problematic, and the Sov Mechanics are confusing and un intuitive for most players. While I get the necessity of timers, it tends to cause a lot of TZ problems (though the alternative of systems switching hands every few hours across TZs is a little unpalatable). I'm not sure of a good fix with current mechanics - partially because of how convoluted they are.
.
I get the history and why we have Sov now instead of mass POS placement for ownership...but in some ways, I think that might have been better. And the idea of occupancy Sov also has SOME merit. The ideal solution is probably a hybrid of multiple... |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers
The Methodical Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 13:17:49 -
[86] - Quote
...huh. There's a character minor for posts. XD lol, leave it to ME to hit it... ^_^;
Ahem, anyway...
A hybrid system is probably best. It seems that a hub Alliance system with high activity should afford considerable protection against capture. Both the core hub itself and its surroundings - you know, like the Eve influence map (just 3d instead of 2d.) On the other hand, a remote system that sees only rare traffic and has no Outpost and few POSes should be relatively easy for even a relatively sma force to take. So things like Outpost, POSes, iHUBs, and activity should all contribute to holding important systems. But there's little reason an Alliance's fairest flung, must undeveloped system basically has the same protection as its major hubs.
...and as a general rule, hybrids work better and are more flexible than rigidly going all in on any one system anyway.
Uhm...well, I think that about covers it.
TL;DR:
-POS role/Corp system sucks
-POSes should be more like mini-Outposts
-Outpost system is meh
-Deployables are good, add more (and/or rework POS roles)
-Co-op is good, but shouldn't leave solo players out in the cold
-Sob can be grindy, but smaller forces should be able to take space that is held, but not occupied or built up, by the big boys.
-Hybrid systems, more flexibility, these are the stuff of dreams. :)
Thanks for listening/reading and fly safe! o7
|
Ezra Endashi
LightningStrikesTwice
Elemental Tide
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 10:57:11 -
[87] - Quote
For a new player, it should be easier to learn how to set up a small POS, moon harvesting etc. |
gazthenailer
Mortis Angelus
The Kadeshi
113
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 20:25:29 -
[88] - Quote
Fix docking gridrange around the stations.
It's to damn easy to dock up when people are roaming around finding targets.
many times ships lands on bubbles but mange to dock since they land within grid docking range.
/gaz
Mortis Angelus: 10 Years and still kicking, One family One Goal
|
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
450
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 22:49:22 -
[89] - Quote
I tried to channel all the rage and frustration I've had over the years with POS and it's interface in the survey.  |
Burning Furry
Crouching Tiger Hidden Ibis
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 11:16:13 -
[90] - Quote
The biggest issue is the lack of content for anyone who is not corp/alliance management.
Unless you are top tier, then the whole structure debate is redundant as i can do nothing with them anyway.
This is evident in the way that the questions are presented.
"How do you feel about the management of structures?" Dunno. In a large corp/alliance i'm not allowed anywhere near it. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |