Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Arrow
C C P C C P Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:40:18 -
[1] - Quote
Fellow capsuleers.
Team Game of Drones is doing extensive investigation and discovery work for Structures in EVE more specifically Starbases, Outposts, Customs Offices, Deployables and Sovereignty structures.
The Industry survey conducted about a year ago resulted in 24,000 responses in total and had a huge impact on the overall direction and decisions made for the Industry release. We hope you are up for the challenge to help us get an even better turnout this time around. Please take the survey and help us improve the game - Your opinion matters!
http://structures.questionpro.com
Thank you in advance for your help and support o7
On behalf of Team Game of Drones
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
104
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:42:16 -
[2] - Quote
Link does not work :/ |
|
CCP Arrow
C C P C C P Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:44:41 -
[3] - Quote
Fonac wrote:Link does not work :/ Fixed
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1241
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:14:51 -
[4] - Quote
Been looking forward to this!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
170
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:15:11 -
[5] - Quote
I hope you don't mind brutally honest |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1462
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:21:21 -
[6] - Quote
Feedback:
Please drag and rank (1st to 3rd) the following based on what you feel needs to be a good gameplay experience:
I'm puzzled by this question. None of the items listed could ever be what we could consider "enjoyable gameplay" at least so far as the more permanent structures go. It's purely administrative grind, spreadsheets in space stuff, I don't think it would ever be enjoyable... just make it as easy and functional as possible so we can move on to things which are fun. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1241
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:26:27 -
[7] - Quote
I suspect you're going to get quite a few unhelpful responses with the inclusion of "Sovereignty Warfare" in the "Please select which option you feel is _____" section, as I assume you are only really interested in the sov structures (probably the infrastructure hub in particular), whereas most people will parse this as "sov warfare in general."
I could be wrong though! It just felt sort of out of scope for this survey.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Yonis Pserad
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
51
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:33:20 -
[8] - Quote
This is a much needed survey and I'm glad it was created. That said I feel that CCP needs to differentiate between structures (like POSes and POCOs) and deployables (such as mobile depots). I feel that the impact and usefulness of owning a structure (particularly a POS) needs to be increased whereas deployables are currently in a good place, if perhaps a very situation one. POSes right now are a place to farm income or hide a Titan, and all other functions such as living or operating out of one are completely eclipsed by stations, even neutral one. Hopefully CCP can find a good way to move forward with the feedback we've given :)
http://eve.znaor.hr/pimpmydomi/
|
Noriko Mai
1695
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:34:12 -
[9] - Quote
Survey for Dark Opaqe Theme:
Bring Back: 1000000% meh: 0.00000000000% |
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
1080
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:34:48 -
[10] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:I hope you don't mind brutally honest Just try to make it constructive at the same time! :D
I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I--THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY
Youtube: /asayanami
Twitter: @asayanami
The Anthology
|
|
Minchurra
Quovis
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:34:52 -
[11] - Quote
Could you please clarify what "co-op gameplay" means in the context of deploying structures? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
170
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:39:40 -
[12] - Quote
Querns wrote:I suspect you're going to get quite a few unhelpful responses with the inclusion of "Sovereignty Warfare" in the "Please select which option you feel is _____" section, as I assume you are only really interested in the sov structures (probably the infrastructure hub in particular), whereas most people will parse this as "sov warfare in general."
I could be wrong though! It just felt sort of out of scope for this survey.
I answered based on the structure, not sov warfare |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
170
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:41:09 -
[13] - Quote
Asayanami Dei wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:I hope you don't mind brutally honest Just try to make it constructive at the same time! :D
The parts i was most critical of were POS and i am doing the CSM roundtable in an hour, so i can expound there :)
Also, somewhat station upgrades, but based on the answers to my petitions, i may have more insight into how they work than CCP does. |
ian papabear
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
213
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
this is me ranting
.
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5535
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:43:20 -
[15] - Quote
Minchurra wrote:Could you please clarify what "co-op gameplay" means in the context of deploying structures? Sometimes I think interpreting the question is part of the survey. GAH! Feels like I'm back in school.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1241
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:44:25 -
[16] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Querns wrote:I suspect you're going to get quite a few unhelpful responses with the inclusion of "Sovereignty Warfare" in the "Please select which option you feel is _____" section, as I assume you are only really interested in the sov structures (probably the infrastructure hub in particular), whereas most people will parse this as "sov warfare in general."
I could be wrong though! It just felt sort of out of scope for this survey. I answered based on the structure, not sov warfare Yeah, same. It's just potentially misleading, is all.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1485
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:46:43 -
[17] - Quote
Thanks for the survey!
As usual with that kind of activity, I hope you don't only consider the metrics of people currently using the POS system, but also the people that would use the POS system if it wasn't tied to **** corporation roles and if the system itself wasn't so crap :)
ie in my corp : 10+ppl are interested but can't practice POSes atm.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
103
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:49:38 -
[18] - Quote
I answered "no" to the last three questions that said what answers I gave would lead me to additional questions, and then it said the survey was done.
You provided no opportunity for me to actually explain why I don't interact with structures currently, as an individual or for my corp. The reasons why I don't currently do that might have actually been helpful to you. |
|
CCP Arrow
C C P C C P Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:53:28 -
[19] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:I answered "no" to the last three questions that said what answers I gave would lead me to additional questions, and then it said the survey was done.
You provided no opportunity for me to actually explain why I don't interact with structures currently, as an individual or for my corp. The reasons why I don't currently do that might have actually been helpful to you.
Ah, it says "Answer will determine if you get relevant questions or not" so it actually skips to the next section. We will re-word the question to say something like "Does your alliance currently or has it in the past participated..." so that you can also respond if you have things to say even though it doesn't apply to how things are today.
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance
568
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:59:46 -
[20] - Quote
Not a fan of the "Does your alliance own or operate an outpost" or "participate in Sov War" questtion - Yes or no?
Clicking 'no' means you skip feedback.... Disappointing especially if you have participated in those activities in the past and would have valuable feedback.
The outpost thing - only a tiny subset of players in a group operating outposts will have ever even seen the outpost maintenance screen, so alliance 'line members' feedback on that is likely heresay.
I'd also suggest many players are turned off by Sov War because of the poor mechanics (structure grinding) and same stale groups occupying the "best" space since Eve began - you're missing the opportunity to also get feedback from players who perhaps would play the Sov game (again) if it was freshened up and probably only getting the 'line member' veiwpoint (which is arguably only their leaders viewpoint regurgitated) again.
Looking forward to seeing changes to these fundamentals of Eve though. Risk-tanking development is good stuff.
Edit: Ah you're already rewording it according to above post - good - can ignore my disappointment now! Hehe |
|
Sebastien LeReparteur
SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:04:11 -
[21] - Quote
I am really not good on game slangs...
So that survey his very misleading...
Starbases are they POS (i.e control tower) or stations?
Outpost are they player own stations? my 2 isk |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:09:00 -
[22] - Quote
Some of the questions are a little narrow.
How many Starbases does your corporation own?
Which corporation? Altcorp, membercorp or alliance? Because I interact with POS's for all three. |
|
CCP Arrow
C C P C C P Alliance
633
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:09:44 -
[23] - Quote
Sebastien LeReparteur wrote:I am really not good on game slangs...
So that survey his very misleading...
Starbases are they POS (i.e control tower) or stations?
Outpost are they player own stations? my 2 isk
Good point, we can add a short definition with the questions to clarify what each of these names refer to
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1485
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
Starbases = Commonly refered as "POS", the thing with the control tower and the forcefield.
Outposts = Stations owned by corporations.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:12:53 -
[25] - Quote
Sebastien LeReparteur wrote:I am really not good on game slangs...
So that survey his very misleading...
Starbases are they POS (i.e control tower) or stations?
Outpost are they player own stations? my 2 isk
Technically speaking the terms in the survey are the proper terms.
Starbase refers to Player Owned STARBASE. Although they technically aren't own by an individual player, but a corporation.
Outpost refers to the space stations you can dock in, that are deployed by players, one for each race. |
Coelomate
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:19:56 -
[26] - Quote
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. |
Gunz blazing Ronuken
Def Squadron Pride Before Fall
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:21:11 -
[27] - Quote
After some thinking during doing the survey. I think removing the outpost, ihub, etc stuff from starbase options would make running a pos 70% easier! Like a simple check that scans if director player is at A, B,C,D type of structure and that shows the relevant options for her/him and not every structure related option making the menus as fun to navigate like installing this? over complicated gizmo |
Notmo
Boob Heads Black Legion.
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:32:56 -
[28] - Quote
Sorry in advance for giving text based answers in a number field (how many sov structures have you deployed)...
|
|
CCP Arrow
C C P C C P Alliance
633
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:37:14 -
[29] - Quote
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.
CCP Arrow | Director of User Experience | EVE Online | @CCP_Arrow
|
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:40:57 -
[30] - Quote
link gives a "server not found issue" Halp plox? |
|
Noriko Mai
1695
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:49:54 -
[31] - Quote
I didn't understand half of the questions. |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:56:54 -
[32] - Quote
Link works now but some of the assumptions are pretty terrible. for one i'm not in an alliance i'm in CAS. We can't make POSes in CAS so a lot of question are pointles.. the ones about sov warfare asssume we're in alliances but a lot of people are not in alliances. how do i answer questions with bad assumptions do i just leave them blank? |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
753
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:01:46 -
[33] - Quote
That was quite a few questions. Here is hoping you do something about the brokenness of sov combat, poses, and corporation management. |
Aliventi
Hard Knocks Inc.
789
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:03:12 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote:Fellow capsuleers. Team Game of Drones is doing extensive investigation and discovery work for Structures in EVE more specifically Starbases, Outposts, Customs Offices, Deployables and Sovereignty structures. The Industry survey conducted about a year ago resulted in 24,000 responses in total and had a huge impact on the overall direction and decisions made for the Industry release. We hope you are up for the challenge to help us get an even better turnout this time around. Please take the survey and help us improve the game - Your opinion matters! http://structures.questionpro.com Thank you in advance for your help and support o7 On behalf of Team Game of Drones Get the word out. Make a reddit post! |
Sebastien LeReparteur
SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:03:39 -
[35] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Sebastien LeReparteur wrote:I am really not good on game slangs...
So that survey his very misleading...
Starbases are they POS (i.e control tower) or stations?
Outpost are they player own stations? my 2 isk Technically speaking the terms in the survey are the proper terms. Starbase refers to Player Owned STARBASE. Although they technically aren't own by an individual player, but a corporation. Outpost refers to the space stations you can dock in, that are deployed by players, one for each race.
Hey well POS could also stand for player owned structures since the whole towers and etc. are in the deplorable structures market tab...
p.s. Pun intended |
Brisco County
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
108
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:25:18 -
[36] - Quote
what is meant by the question about preferring the use of structures through co-op gameplay? Like some dude with roles has to be there while I use structures? |
Zadus Rejan
Kernel of War Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:34:03 -
[37] - Quote
That took me a while. But some question are a real pain because you simply want to say "THEY4RE ALL FUBAR". |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:49:06 -
[38] - Quote
Poor questions, you force us to give misleading answers. You ask us in a number of places to rank gameplay elements. This jsut tells you we think something is better or worse than something else, which gives the illusion that we think X element is in good shape, when in fact in some of these the players believe they are all in significant trouble. In all honesty 1-10 ratings would have been far more effective.
When you make references to stuff like co-op game play you need to state some semblance of an idea to get a good response, everything in eve is ALREADY INHERENTLY COOP game play due to the nature of this being an MMO, you can set up a pos yourself for example, but someone must build it and the fuel blocks for it, and if someone attacks it you and multiple other persons more than likely will need to defend it. The only true not co-op game play is perhaps industry but only because of the prevalence of alts.
Also even is inherently a game where trust is punished not rewarded, so people want to interact with others only when they must.
In short my suggestion to you is to hire a consultant who has experience in political campaigns, or even better a pollster and have them take your ideas and make them into questions, you will more than likely receive better data that will lead you to better decisions. You may be even able to farm this task out to you marketing department which i presume has done marketing research at some point, similar concept they will have studied this in school.
That said i survived it and answered as best I could, but the structure of it I think is going to make you feel that some areas of the game are in good condition when prehaps they are not. |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:56:58 -
[39] - Quote
The Questions at 33% annoyed me. Most of those things are done by holding corps and starbase people.
Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay? I dont know what this means but if something is co-op and not PVP it is usually not worth doing for me.
|
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
131
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:59:25 -
[40] - Quote
Quote:Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?
What, do people shoot sov structures alone? Is there only one person using pocos? Is there only one person using an outpost? I mean I see POSes being managed by one guy but usually there is a corporation or something behind that? Or at least it will take co-op to take it down.
The UI is still bad.
|
|
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:03:28 -
[41] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Also eve is inherently a game where trust is punished not rewarded, so people want to interact with others only when they must.
If CCP can take anything from this thread please let it be this. There is a reason why everything is done by holding corps. There is also a reason why i would never ever be ******** enough to put my super in a SMA.
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1152
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:03:29 -
[42] - Quote
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.
TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
My ship fits
|
Ryan Rs
Strange Energy The Bastion
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:24:31 -
[43] - Quote
Co-op gameplay means training more alts, right? |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
275
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:33:07 -
[44] - Quote
Done.
Hopefully CCP actually puts this information to good use and doesn't do more stuff like Jump Fatigue (aka Space AIDS).
|
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:34:51 -
[45] - Quote
While I answered the sov related structure questions it's not really related to structures. Sov issues and sov structures need a seperate survey.
Follow me on twitter: @ForlornW
Follow my blog: http://crossingzebras.com/author/forlorn-wongraven
|
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:35:39 -
[46] - Quote
Ryan Rs wrote:Co-op gameplay means training more alts, right? Exactly. WTS 100 PLEX at 1.5 bil ISK each.
Follow me on twitter: @ForlornW
Follow my blog: http://crossingzebras.com/author/forlorn-wongraven
|
Kalenn Istarion
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:56:12 -
[47] - 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.
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.
Try Harder.
|
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
227
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:44:48 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Arrow wrote: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.
To which I hope the universal response is "Please don't make me round up 50 of my closest friends and colleagues to do boring mundane task #47 than can currently be done by one person."
~
|
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 21:19:20 -
[49] - Quote
"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. |
Highfield
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
66
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 21:21:42 -
[50] - Quote
Completed the entire questionnaire, had to answer each and every question.
What I dearly missed was a box with a line like "If we have any questions about your answers, can we contact you?" and some option to supply a character name or other contact info. Even if you don't contact anyone because we're all idiots that's fine, but maybe you see some decent ideas that you'd like to get some more info on and now you can't get it.. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3025
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 21:32:43 -
[51] - 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. You may not want to inject any ideas, but if I do not even understand the question, I cannot give any useful answer. A couple of those I actually answered the "why did you say that?" part with "I do not understand what you are asking." (The two after the co-op one.)
BTW, the easiest way for industrialists to interact is via the market interface. You can put up the part you have done for sale, other team members buy it. You get your ISK for your effort. The issue with using the market for this is everyone else is also using the market, messing up your price structure. Solution: Private markets. A market that works just like the current public market at stations, except it can be set up by any player, corporation or alliance. Access can be restricted to corp, alliance, and by standing.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
34
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 22:05:25 -
[52] - Quote
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.
|
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
238
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 22:19:08 -
[53] - Quote
I had trouble answering the question "please rank these starbase activities' effectiveness" where the activities were "defense, setup, reactions, management" because ranking any of them first would send the misleading message that any of them were effective |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 22:31:38 -
[54] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: BTW, the easiest way for industrialists to interact is via the market interface. You can put up the part you have done for sale, other team members buy it. You get your ISK for your effort. The issue with using the market for this is everyone else is also using the market, messing up your price structure. Solution: Private markets. A market that works just like the current public market at stations, except it can be set up by any player, corporation or alliance. Access can be restricted to corp, alliance, and by standing.
That's already implemented into the game, and what's even better, it doesn't come with any broker's fees/sales tax!! You should be able to find it under Business -> Contracts. And you should be able to view all the data in easy-to-work-with form over at api.eveonline.com/char/Contracts.xml.aspx and api.eveonline.com/corp/Contracts.xml.aspx |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2026
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 23:45:07 -
[55] - Quote
Fonac wrote:Link does not work :/
also link not trusted by eve...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Tarpedo
Incursionista
1435
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 00:35:45 -
[56] - Quote
I've spent 1+ year in WH, could not understand half of questions...
I personally want deployable automated scanner - I hate EVE scanning mini-game with passion so ~1/3 of EVE content is inaccessible to me.
How about bases with nearly infinite defenses and high maintenance cost? I'd pay for safety.
What about temporary siege outposts with capital guns which could be operated by 1-3 players? |
Kossaw
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
109
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 00:36:21 -
[57] - 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.
This was hard to answer. I chose "no" because I don't think we should be ~forced~ into co-op game play e.g. when running a 1 man industrial corp that needs a POS. But the features you suggested for co-op play are a GOOD IDEA.
I also want to add to the voices that have already said you should not be mixing "POS Management" and "Sov Warfare". the criticisms about managing POS Structures and the Station Management interface are entirely separate from our hatred of the current Sovereignty Mechanics. These really are different development tracks - even though I accept there could be similarities in your solutions for these two problem areas.
WTB : An image in my signature
|
Sootsia
High Flyers The Kadeshi
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 00:57:58 -
[58] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Poor questions, you force us to give misleading answers. You ask us in a number of places to rank gameplay elements. This jsut tells you we think something is better or worse than something else, which gives the illusion that we think X element is in good shape, when in fact in some of these the players believe they are all in significant trouble. In all honesty 1-10 ratings would have been far more effective.
When you make references to stuff like co-op game play you need to state some semblance of an idea to get a good response, everything in eve is ALREADY INHERENTLY COOP game play due to the nature of this being an MMO, you can set up a pos yourself for example, but someone must build it and the fuel blocks for it, and if someone attacks it you and multiple other persons more than likely will need to defend it. The only true not co-op game play is perhaps industry but only because of the prevalence of alts.
Also even is inherently a game where trust is punished not rewarded, so people want to interact with others only when they must.
In short my suggestion to you is to hire a consultant who has experience in political campaigns, or even better a pollster and have them take your ideas and make them into questions, you will more than likely receive better data that will lead you to better decisions. You may be even able to farm this task out to you marketing department which i presume has done marketing research at some point, similar concept they will have studied this in school.
That said i survived it and answered as best I could, but the structure of it I think is going to make you feel that some areas of the game are in good condition when prehaps they are not.
EDIT: Additionally alot of these questions only maybe 1000 people in eve can answer jsut due to how few truly interact with outposts especially and to a large degree even ihubs. The number of people who still do not understand basic dominion sov war mechanics is pretty astounding.
I agree that the questions asked, and the choices offered, do not in any way, give you, CCP, the answers to which you desire from us, the players, our actual input, thoughts, ideas. Vigilanta is correct in that the process is flawed.
From my viewpoint, having set and installed Sov structures, (Ihubs, TCU's, SBU's, Outposts, ) as well as installing and running POS's both as a line member, and as management (CEO/Director) there can be much improvement in the way Access/Usage is handled/given/allowed, Access/Usages should be grantable upon / by Alliance/Corporation/Role/Title/Member delimiters..... such as the personal hanger array, should be extended to SMA's and other mods.
|
Abulurd Boniface
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective
145
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 01:16:23 -
[59] - Quote
We're being asked about 'star bases' and 'outposts'. That is going to confuse a lot of people.
In a place where people use their own jargon you might want to be clear about what you mean by showing people 'when we ask you about outposts, [this.graphic] is what we mean by that'.
But that's just me.
I took the survey because we don't get all that many opportunities, although now far more than years ago, to offer direct feedback.
Starbases, outposts, what have you, should be much more useful on a personal level than they are now. Because of poor role management features many people can't get access to these features and their functionality and it just turns them away. I'm pretty sure that can't be the idea.
I'm confident many structures were lost because the people who could have maintained them did not do so because they did not get access to the roles to do so [which is understandable given the poor mechanics] and they just didn't bother with that anymore. |
Andy Koraka
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 01:44:16 -
[60] - Quote
A lot of the frustration that comes with structures is based on either bad UI or broken features. For example we should not have been able to "steal" the anchoring BNI defensive SBUs in HED-GP like 4 times. While mildly amusing for us it's incredibly frustrating for anyone on the receiving end fighting us and a mechanic that's been broken since 2009.
The POS frustration specifically is that aside from a 2,800 word primer on how to turn the thing on, onlining one module at a time drags what should be a relatively brief process out into what's normally an hour+ affair.
Henry Plantgenet wrote:Link works now but some of the assumptions are pretty terrible. for one i'm not in an alliance i'm in CAS. We can't make POSes in CAS so a lot of question are pointles.. the ones about sov warfare asssume we're in alliances but a lot of people are not in alliances. how do i answer questions with bad assumptions do i just leave them blank?
No offense intended but I'm going to be frank, if you've never interacted with the structures in question, other than saying "there's a barrier to entry keeping me from using them" you're basically that guy talking about "bags of sand" . The POS questions assume you're in a player corp because you need to be in one to setup/interact with a Starbase, likewise you need to be in an alliance to interact with Sovereignty structures. That's why the survey had several filters to cut of some of the white noise by asking things like "does your corp own a pos" and "does your alliance participate in sov warfare". |
|
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. |
|
Agent Unknown
Night Theifs DamnedNation
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 19:12:43 -
[91] - Quote
Regarding structures, the permissions system needs an overhaul badly so that corps don't open themselves up to theft just because of a limitation in game mechanics.
I mean, all the large alliances use holding corporations with alts to hold all the valuable structures (sov structures, outposts, POSs housing capital assembly) mostly because of the limitations in the roles system. |
Miss Everest
Elysium Accord
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:40:55 -
[92] - Quote
Am I the only one that got confused between the phrasing "Starbase" and "Outpost".
Everyone I know for years has used "POS" and "Station".
I mean... would it be that hard to say such? Or if you must just say "Player owned station"
Because a POS is NOT a Starbase in any shape or form. And usually a Starbase is bigger then a Outpost of any kind.
in other words Phrasing |
Nina Pappotte
Wayward Chickens
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 15:41:21 -
[93] - Quote
I would like to propose an overhaul to the POS system. The current system was created to fill a need, but does so in a pretty crude way.
The POS is pretty much a substitute for docking. Everything inside the shield might as well be docked, it pretty much is the difference between inside and outside. But unlike being docked, everything is still controlled by a UI designed to fly ships. Also modules anchored inside the shield are usually not much to look at, since they are arranged in a way to make finding the one you're looking for easy.
For those reasons I propose switching from towers with a shield to a station with room inside to build in. Stations would still use the current POS modules, but those that are anchored inside are represented by a slot system, instead of 3d graphics. They would use the same right-hand panel that NPC stations use. Installing them would be to dump them into a specific hangar and select assemble, like we do ships, except that hangar has a maximum volume. I would not replace any existing POS with the new bases, instead let them coexist and phase out the old POS when people stop using them.
Doing this would also mean that the modules would no longer have individual hangars. As a replacement for those, the new bases will need a large standard hanger, as well as a large fleet hanger to make up for the possibility of floating ships in space. This makes several things more convenient, such using a blueprint that was just researched without having to go there and put it from one module to the next. It does however create the need for more complicated corp hangars.
My suggestion is that everyone in the corp has their own individual, but not private hangar (item and ship). Corp roles determine who can access whose hanger, but of course the owner gets to allow others to access their hangar as well. These hangars will log activity by others than their owner, but not prevent theft HTFU. In addition the corp should be able to create and delete corp hangars at will, instead of always having six. Stuff from deleted hangars automatically goes into the master hangar. This means that some people will have access to a ton of hangars, so I believe accessing corpmates hangars should be a different window, toggled on the right-hand menu, and work more like a file browser than a list.
Some stuff just has to have out-airlock components, such as supercapital assembly arrays, supercapital hangars (no shield to park them, right?), moon harvesters and jump bridges. For that reason stations need to have slots for those kind of modules, that attach modules to the outside, on predetermined places, similar to high slots, but bigger. Those modules still are protected by the station shield, but can be attacked if the station goes offline.
Reactions should probably be included in the new industry window, except it would require silos as in- and output location, and of course start continuous cycles instead of jobs.
Without the POS shield you can no longer provide mining boosts or boost the POS shield while being protected. I think the boosts could be accomplished by modules offering the same bonuses as Orcas or Rorquals (the Rorqual module not in high, of course), while they are being manned by a pilot. Skills included. I don't like the shield boosting practice very much, a bases defenses should be determined by its modules. Passive recharge modules or boosting batteries should replace that.
Defenses would stay the same, although an assistant to launch defensive modules to the desired place and anchoring them would be of great help. Especially if it had a queue.
In order to have a full base many corps need multiple towers and warp between them and then it's always a question of what is where. Not even to mine the moons, just to have storage, industrial and defensive capabilities. For that reason I think there should be an extra large station, a mini outpost so to say. It would need to be built up like a POCO, eat lots of fuel, can comfortably fit everything needed for manufacture, research, reactions and hangars, but have an upper limit of onlined defensive equipment, to make it on par with a large POS defense. |
Centurax
Dracos Dozen Unsettled.
58
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 12:37:30 -
[94] - Quote
I have had the pleasure of using Starbase's off and on since they were added to the game and I have probably used them for more or less everything and this means I have had a lot of time to think about them. The following is what I forgot to add to the survey.
Starbase deployment:
There have been several good ideas to replace the current system, I think the front runner was always a modular system, where the Starbase is built out of blocks similar to Lego (for a lack of a better description), having had to deal with deploying arrays all over the sometimes limited are inside a Starbase shield, it would be nice to have an easier to manage system.
With this modular system Starbases could be built from similar elements, (maybe reducing graphics and server loads if that is important) but also means that adding a Lab or Factory means bringing along something like a ship module and dropping it in a slot and then turning it on much easier to do.
It might be good to get away from the small, medium and large tower system and base the fuel usage on the number of modules (Labs. Factories, Storage Hangers) added to the structure determines the number of fuel blocks used, plus adding new elements like solar panels/collectors to possibly reduce or remove the need to use fuel blocks in some situations such as a small storage tower.
Anchoring/Un-anchoring times, for the love of anything you hold dear, please shorten them significantly on the core structure, having to wait an hour for a large tower to Anchor or Unanchor is such a waste of game time. I would say the small tower times for this are almost acceptable, but maybe 5 minutes to anchor the core structure of a Starbase would be reasonable. Onlining weapons might be nice to reduce that to a minute.
Starbase Attack/Defence:
It would be nice to get away from having to deploy hundreds of Combat/EW arrays around the POS shield and thanks to the lack of CPU or Power grid 50% or more tend to be useless or go unused even in a Starbase attack. On a modular Starbase the weapons could be placed in a similar way to ships, however in a similar way to Outposts there would be a subsystem to shoot at to disable the Defence Grid shooting any attackers. To control the weapons grid, when someone with Starbase Defence skill access's the defence grid instead of only using say 4 to 5 guns, they get access to up to 8 guns (which can be grouped) and 8 Electronic warfare modules (maybe the skill can control number of controlled weapons) which are controlled in the same way that we control them on our ships, so the learning curve is cut a little and it gives more flexibility.
Weapons, it would be nice to use the weapons we use on our ships and to get away from the confusing system that is currently used where Small weapons arrays use Medium ammo. It might be useful to have towers that use small guns with small ammo for example. If the person deploying the tower can use the weapon then they can add it, but if possible the person using the Starbase Defence skill they should not need the skill to operate it.
It would be useful if a Starbase could use some Logistics modules or have ship repair, especially in WH space.
Starbase launched Drones/Fighters it would be interesting especially if you could use Logistics Drones to help with ship and Starbase repairs. Being able to assign Fighters in the same way you can from a Carrier could be an interesting use of them especially in situations where the fire power of a Carrier would be useful but the construction and use of a Carrier is impractical or pointless (think C2 -C4 WH's).
Cloning Facilities: In WH space especially, being able to store clones and clone jump are something currently lacking.
Starbase Storage:
Being able to dock with a Starbase to use its facilities and storage would be a good solution but it would also be helpful to still access corp hangers while in space.
There is already a very good system for managing hangers in use with stations, it would be good if Starbases could use that too. Having a central hanger which all factories, labs even reactors can access and take stuff from would make management of Corp Hangers easier. Personal Hanger Space should be scalable to the needs of the individual. However a group hanger would also be a useful addition to this hanger system, where a set group can have access to it and no one else, this would be helpful to multi account users. But the big thing that would be useful in managing hangers in a Starbase would be the use of containers to organise stuff which you can do in a regular station and you miss that the moment you move to a Starbase. (Please note: none of this means that corp theft is no longer viable it just means it is as easy as whatever access you have to a corp hanger).
Other Stuff:
Customizing Starbases, I think if this all arrives at a similar time to Ship Customizing it would be fun to be able to personalise or give corp identity to the structure. Large hologram with a corp/alliance logo would be cool.
It was mentioned in the past, but I would really like to see it happen Starbase cloaking, but it would have to be introduced with whatever anti afk cloaking countermeasures are placed in game. But for WH space it would make life far more interesting.
Move Moon Mining to an independent structure and maybe make it more like PI so it is less of press button receive more ISK than you know what to do with ( I mean bacon) also put Moon Mining in WH's .
Reactions, it might be worthwhile moving them to a factory like process, where there are several build lines, it would simplify the process and maybe reduce the number of structures needed to manage it.
My thoughts on PI would probably require an even longer post, so I will leave it for now.
|
Centurax
Dracos Dozen Unsettled.
58
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:05:09 -
[95] - Quote
Some more Ideas:
Starbase attributes/bonuses could be adjusted using something similar to rigs. If a Starbase has say 4 rig slots the owner could decide what they want the tower to be good at. Bonuses to Factory, Labs, Weapons or Storage.
Being able to fit Repair modules to the Starbase, would also be helpful, should it survive or even during an attack being able to repair the Shields, Armor or Hull would make sense if it can be done by ship, having options to do that would be good, even if the Starbase has to use engineering modules and capacitor to archive this.
Sensor Network, The old system scanner which had been removed, it would be interesting to reintroduce that but maybe using several structures across a system this would give the owners of the system a strategic advantage in defence and maybe give new options for managing fights.
Jump Bridge, Cyno Array and Cyno Jammer, these could all be made an independent structure and maybe a new models that could be armed.
Allowing Starbases to be sold for ISK or transferred like a POCO would introduce a new profession to the game.
Allowing Public or Alliance access to a Starbase facilities for ISK woudl be at times be helpful.
Include a market module to Starbases and contract support that could have a scaled access based on standings, so if the owner wants to create a market tower to sell their products they can. This also allows for inter corp/alliance markets to be easily set up and managed. This could be helpful in many areas, from Highsec systems with no stations to WH space. |
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
51
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 10:38:22 -
[96] - Quote
This survey really deserve some "none" or "all" choice.. such as :
- Please select the option which you are the most happy with in its current form --> none
- Please select the option which you feel needs improved usability the most: --> all ?
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
246
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 16:03:13 -
[97] - Quote
I recently skilled into a t2 bomb launcher only to find that to change ammo loaded at a pos requires cargo expanders as it is not possible to drag the ammo directly from the launcher to the CHA without sufficient open space in the ships cargo. Perhaps there is some trick I am missing but this seems so bad as to be comedy. |
Captain Davison
Malachi Keep Detachments
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 16:33:41 -
[98] - Quote
What I'd like to see is a smaller, completely personal level of POS. Basically, a starter kit/solo kit that could be upgraded into a proper POS at a later date, a homestead type deal.
And also being able to slowly upgrade a POS until you can convert it into a proper outpost/station. |
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
7
|
Posted - 2015.01.23 11:22:47 -
[99] - Quote
Player-Owned-Structures are an area of game content that a great many players never get to use.
- You need a large group. - If you have a large group, AWOX paranoia tends to lead to privileges being limited to a few people. - The Roles interface is a pain (so I hear, I've never had the privilege of using it). - They're expensive to setup, maintain, and defend.
So lets take this in a different direction. How about some "poor man's POS" deployables? When I'm running agent missions, I see all these Large Collidable Object type things, and the gears in the role-playing part of my brain start spinning... "How is it that these dirt-poor NPCs can have all these things at random spots in space, but we rich and power capsuleers cannot?"
Admittedly, my thoughts on what we would actually do with these structures are not deeply developed. But short term, undefended Silos, Cargo Rigs, Shipyards, Habitation Modules, Radio Telescopes, etc may be useful. They don't need to have complex fueling requirements or ownership mechanics. And don't restrict them to limited real estate (moons); players could plunk them down at random spots. Their only defense would be their obscurity and, as a result, they would serve as cheap, short-term structures (days to weeks... maybe hours).
- Ore Silo. Looks like a 'pressurized silo', works like a million m3 Giant Secure Container that only holds ore and can only be scooped up when empty. - Cargo Rig. General purpose, effectively an Enormous Secure Container. - Shipyard. ????? Maybe the Shield-Armor-Haul repair depot that players have been asking for. - Habitation Module. I've always wondered what they looked like on the inside (during the two seconds before I blow them up). Fill it with blackjack and hookers and it might make Walking-In-Structures worthwhile. - Radio Telescope. ????? I've seen many suggestions for various system-wide scanners, remote observation posts, etc.
As I said above, my thoughts on this are not deeply developed. I'll let everyone ruminate on it for a bit. But my point is that there should be a class of structures between small personal structures (Mobile Depots, secure cans, etc) and conventional POSs that are more accessible to the common-man and small corps, even if they're are things that could be knocked down by a single battleship in five minutes. |
Arina Cannith
Entire Service Agency The Obsidian Front
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 12:46:17 -
[100] - Quote
I realy like Colettes idea. Maybe a deployable cargoplattform as a base unit which can be upgraded with the following stuff:
* a factory module (producing everything except ships) * a shipyard (for producing and repairing ships) * a refinery module * weapon towers * ship hangars (like the sma, big enough to store an orca maybe) *a shield module (using fuel to project a 5km diameter pos like bubble and using stront for a reinforce timer)
all production modules should have some kind of drawback (a 10% material or time penalty?) to encourage co-op play but giving us a choise. making them into deployables would have a couple of content creating effects (more stuff in space to shoot at/fight over). it should be big enough to need an indi to transport and place it. i also would make them scannable (yay more content! ) and allow agressing them everywhere (as normal with deployables). |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2323
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 20:16:01 -
[101] - Quote
Kynric wrote:I recently skilled into a t2 bomb launcher only to find that to change ammo loaded at a pos requires cargo expanders as it is not possible to drag the ammo directly from the launcher to the CHA without sufficient open space in the ships cargo. Perhaps there is some trick I am missing but this seems so bad as to be comedy. jet can?
The survey was poorly worded. I often did not have an appropriate answer available, especially towards the end. I lack experience with a lot of these structures because they are difficult to start in on, but at times wasn't sure how to rate my experience. Sometimes it asked if my corp does X with structures, to which I said yes, then it asked me about stuff I couldn't answer.
CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky
Highsec reform thread
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
842
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 19:18:52 -
[102] - Quote
I hope CCP keeps in mind that the current state of (lack of) SOV warfare is due to listening to player input. Any changes that promote the ability to PING FORCES for event should be discarded. Any changes that require active game play to aquire stuff should be put on the table. (Timers = BAD // Active players = GOOD) |
Janeway84
Def Squadron Pride Before Fall
137
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 08:38:04 -
[103] - Quote
Pos gunnery system is horrible to use! I dont know how but CCP needs to rewrite it big time. also for bads maybe a notification if all your guns are offline? |
5mok1ng gun
Moon Of The Pheonix
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 21:03:58 -
[104] - Quote
These are just a few General thoughts on Control towers since doing the surveys
A look at how many guns on a control tower someone can control ( like raising the limit from 5 with max skill to 10 or more ).
Raising the lock limit of the structures from 1 to 2 or 3 would be a nice touch.
General UI improvement would not be bad either.
Target painting Battery ( I see all the other E-War types covered ).
Look at the targeting times of the structures it feels really slow, I don't think I have found a lock quicker than 60 seconds.
Adjust fitting of the external structures ( outside the force field ) by 12.5% to allow for more online defences maybe more or less but some sort of reduction is needed maybe across all structures. |
Anthar Thebess
859
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 11:21:57 -
[105] - Quote
Pos needs fueled super weapon - aka doomsday or something similar. Something that can kill even over tanked carrier , or do heavy damage to super. This weapon cannot attack subcapitals
Right now big blocks just drop capitals supported by supers on every tower without providing any (or minial) subcapital cover. Again imbalance between pos and "slowcats" is to big, while dreads are still balanced and can easily die to tower , because of ~siege.
|
5mok1ng gun
Moon Of The Pheonix
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 20:49:01 -
[106] - Quote
Like an Ion Cannon or something, I like the idea of that. Limited to one per POS or could get to be the only defence seen and have a CPU fitting requirement so if the tower is reinforced it goes off.
Not a fan of it taking out over tanked carriers but I would be a fan of it doing Omni damage with a chance of hitting for twice the damage against its targets best resistance.
Make it so it can't attack sieged / triaged ships, Because of interference created by the use of the mod blah blah....
For the spider tanked carriers neutralizers work a treat but can't use many and have an effective defence I've found because of fitting costs, Maybe Remove fitting costs and make it a hard limit on the number of modules allowed to be fitted to the control tower that scales with size.
I had another idea while going around last night and I was thinking, Wouldn't it be nice if I could use this jump bridge to go to any other within range. Without having to configure the dam things. |
Cassandra Skjem
Big Sister Exploration
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 14:10:04 -
[107] - 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. Many players in my other corporation already use POS in a co-operative manner, but the problem isn't in how they can be used but rather how safe player assets are at a POS. If co-operative gameplay means player X can take my stuff then you are missing what the problems are at POSs.
Not everything revolves around industry.
Is it a tarp?
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2338
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:34:04 -
[108] - Quote
5mok1ng gun wrote:Like an Ion Cannon or something, I like the idea of that. Limited to one per POS or could get to be the only defence seen and have a CPU fitting requirement so if the tower is reinforced it goes off.
Not a fan of it taking out over tanked carriers Howabout something like the ion cannons in Star Wars? (Like the one fired from Hoth at the Star Destroyer in Empire Strikes Back) It could be a weapon that disables capital ships, making them unable to use drones, fire weapons, run logistics, siege, or command modules, warp, jump, lock targets, maintain target locks, or generate capacitor for several minutes. It wouldn't destroy them, but it would remove them from applying strong combat effects temporarily. The ship could use remaining capacitor to run defensive modules and would still be able to receive logistical support, so it wouldn't become an easy kill.
CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky
Highsec reform thread
|
5mok1ng gun
Moon Of The Pheonix
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 17:05:26 -
[109] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:5mok1ng gun wrote:Like an Ion Cannon or something, I like the idea of that. Limited to one per POS or could get to be the only defence seen and have a CPU fitting requirement so if the tower is reinforced it goes off.
Not a fan of it taking out over tanked carriers Howabout something like the ion cannons in Star Wars? (Like the one fired from Hoth at the Star Destroyer in Empire Strikes Back) It could be a weapon that disables capital ships, making them unable to use drones, fire weapons, run logistics, siege, or command modules, warp, jump, lock targets, maintain target locks, or generate capacitor for several minutes. It wouldn't destroy them, but it would remove them from applying strong combat effects temporarily. The ship could use remaining capacitor to run defensive modules and would still be able to receive logistical support, so it wouldn't become an easy kill.
While it could prove interesting the application of all or some of the effects you describe just makes whatever the structure shoots a big useless ship for the poor guy piloting it, I'm still a fan of it doing damage but the application of a hand full of the above effects or all of them does not stand well.
I'm tired of CCP bashing capital ships in one form or another, This fatigue thing as an example commits capitals for far more time than they require to do their role.
Damage from the structure is fine my only fear is they become the one and only defensive module for control towers, Having it knock out abilities of ships I have a problem with.
Neut batteries knock out anything depending on cap just give it time. warp scrams / disruptors stop warping / jumping ECM knock out locks Guns can take out drones
I don't see why we need a 4 in 1 module to do everything that can already be achieved but +1 for creativity. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2341
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 18:06:44 -
[110] - Quote
Well it's a step down from losing the ship. The pilot can still eject if they really feel like getting out of the dead ship to go somewhere and do something.
CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky
Highsec reform thread
|
|
5mok1ng gun
Moon Of The Pheonix
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 22:33:02 -
[111] - Quote
A step down from loosing the ship would be serious damage to the ship that I believe my suggestion brings, What I imagine when I read all the things you propose is an I win button for POS's giving defenders a serious advantage because they don't have to do anything ( If all effects are applied ) but shoot the target.
Nothing should be an " I win " for anything let alone POS defence, With that being said POS defences are lacking. When they are automated they change target way too often and when controlled they lack the firepower to take big targets ( such as capitals ) down with relative ease as they should, Being designed to defend a control tower against such targets.
Maybe a better damage modifier is needed for the large structures, Maybe for all the structures but we don't need a Swiss army structure that does the job of many others.
I'm so against a structure that disables capital ships, making them unable to use drones, fire weapons, run logistics, siege, or command modules, warp, jump, lock targets, maintain target locks, or generate capacitor for several minutes I'm rubbing myself up and down it in the most inappropriate manner imaginable. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2344
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 01:12:57 -
[112] - Quote
I wasn't thinking of an I WIN button, more like an attack that determines its chance to disable the target by the "ion damage" value which would build up over the target's remaining hit points until it is disabled. But there's a ton of ways to balance it, really.
CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky, Tora Bushido
Highsec reform thread
|
5mok1ng gun
Moon Of The Pheonix
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 23:10:04 -
[113] - Quote
Maybe the use of "ion cannon" is not the right word for what I was thinking of, I was thinking a POS structure that did 2 types of damage ( one of them twice the others value ) and then rotates the damage types for the next shot, then the next, and next ( 1st shot EM-Therm, 2nd shot EM-EXP ) so it goes through the entire spectrum repeatedly.
You don't need so many effects that need to be tracked server side and the unpredictable damage of the mod ( and hopefully sufficient power in terms of damage ) should make it a structure to be feared.
I also believe that it should require an operator ( some one manning it ) to function, It should not be automated or if this is unavoidable its affects be half of what they would be if it was manned. |
Alundil
Isogen 5
876
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:05:13 -
[114] - Quote
Allow "entosis-like" module in wspace to "hack" abandoned Control Towers (Starbases/Sticks) and modules.
I'm right behind you
|
Jessy Andersteen
AdAstra. Beach Club
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:33:55 -
[115] - Quote
For the structure use (and for corpo managment) we need individual rights for each action on structure / corporation For exemple: a right for accepting somebody in the corp and another right for expelling. |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 17:05:58 -
[116] - Quote
Hacking offline towers in order to unanchro them will lead to the flooding of the POS market so that shouldn't happen. Hacking the tower after clearing the shields by shooting it should be a thing though. That way, some actual effort goes toward unanchoring it. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2385
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 22:02:15 -
[117] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:Hacking offline towers in order to unanchor them will lead to the massive flooding of the POS market so that really shouldn't happen. On the other hand, hacking the tower after clearing the shields by shooting it should be a thing. That way, some actual effort goes toward unanchoring it. Perhaps a better way to cushion it would be to initially make all abandoned towers start non-vulnerable, and have them all gradually become vulnerable at random intervals. Then all newly abandoned towers after the update would become vulnerable in a standardized period of time.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
281
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 15:44:41 -
[118] - Quote
Will you resize Outpost Construction Platforms from 750,000 m3 to 300,000 m3
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:30:55 -
[119] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:Hacking offline towers in order to unanchor them will lead to the massive flooding of the POS market so that really shouldn't happen. On the other hand, hacking the tower after clearing the shields by shooting it should be a thing. That way, some actual effort goes toward unanchoring it. Perhaps a better way to cushion it would be to initially make all abandoned towers start non-vulnerable, and have them all gradually become vulnerable at random intervals. Then all newly abandoned towers after the update would become vulnerable in a standardized period of time. Given the proposed changes, looks like any derelict tower after the grace period they plan to give before changing to the new system will be cleared out.
Of course, if you don't have to anchor at a moon...
They will certainly need restrictions on proximity to certain objects - like gates, wormholes, and stations. Imagine Jita IV-4 surrounded by player owned stations armed to the teeth. Imagine camping your enemy Outpost with the new POSes? But it would be nice to sit one on top of a wormhole... just saying. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3751
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 10:54:17 -
[120] - Quote
Un-sticking this, gonna need room for the new structure F&I threads. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |