Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |

Soltrac
Emergency Cyno Services SCYTHE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 09:06:00 -
[151] - Quote
What the users want is in this forum post
Keep it alive and make it happen |

Celestis Kudzu
Western Digital Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 15:06:00 -
[152] - Quote
+1 |

Justitia McKingston
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 10:51:00 -
[153] - Quote
+1 |

Jessy Berbers
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 14:23:00 -
[154] - Quote
+1 and yes make stations and POS alot more blurry, or atleast make stations that are player owned consume fuel, and needing active management, so large alliances arent able to hold HUUUUGE swathes of space without any actual effort.
Also allow for POSes to upgrade space to be more useful, as in farm and field concept. |

Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 17:12:00 -
[155] - Quote
*WHACK*
There, I did my part of the dead horse beating!
+9001 too
|

Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
195
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 18:50:00 -
[156] - Quote
Michael Loney wrote:*WHACK*
There, I did my part of the dead horse beating!
+9001 too
"It's over 9000!!!"
...sorry. Couldn't resist... MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |

Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
264
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 19:11:00 -
[157] - Quote
We just need to w8 for the minutes... they are coming soon... and If we dont like it, lets flog CCP =D Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |

Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
71
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 20:31:00 -
[158] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:We just need to w8 for the minutes... they are coming soon... and If we dont like it, lets flog CCP =D Ah. So "Dead Horse" is code for CCP. Love it. Got it. ;) |

Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 23:09:00 -
[159] - Quote
+1 Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here. |

Dacryphile
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 23:57:00 -
[160] - Quote
+1 Flog from me. I left EVE for a few years, and to be honest I was surprised that the old POSes were still here when i recently resubbed. |
|

Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 16:48:00 -
[161] - Quote
I believe there was some mention about getting new starbases off of moons and anchorable in virtually any part of the system. You can anchor it in a safe spot, around a moon, planet, or in the middle of the sun...if you want a nice tan line :) The whole purpose of having the structures anchored to moons is to facilitate in moon mining. We all know that isn't going well in sticking around.
I think CCP really wants to drive home the idea of personalized star bases. These structured are owned and maintained by you and as such you should be free to put them any place you like and make them YOUR starbase. I don't like the idea of allowing smaller star bases to anchor anywhere and larger to just moons, that kind of restricts the freedom involved with the new starbases. I have heard suggestions of small being personal, mediums being corp, and large being alliance star bases. Again, I feel like this restricts the purpose of even owning a star base. If you personally feel as if you can handle and manage a larger starbase on your own, you should still be able to launch and anchor for yourself and not alliance.
I do like the stint about wormhole space though. Wormhole space was designed to be a playground where no one can claim sovereignty and where people can essentially stay for a limited time and then leave. The problem is that since Apocrypha was released, wh space has become congested and populated with settlers who want to stay. As it stands, corps still build capitals in wh space as well as fleets with towers that take forever to knock down. Go ahead and allow sovereignty in wh space. The aforementioned post about super caps is right, they can't go anywhere. I would surmise a good 90% of wh systems are already populated, why not transition into a more permanent status for its inhabitants. Essentially CCP has already took that step by allowing POCOs. You jump into a wh see all the POCOs with the same corp, warp around cloaked and see towers under that corp, and look up on wormhole.es lol its easy to see that corp owns that system even if it doesn't officially say it does.
|

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
424
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 18:42:00 -
[162] - Quote
I thought the point of limiting POS anchoring to moons was to limit the number of available spaces and encourage conflict? http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
71
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 19:26:00 -
[163] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:I thought the point of limiting POS anchoring to moons was to limit the number of available spaces and encourage conflict? If a POS is anchored at a place that some people want it anchored it is likely for many other people to not want it to be there; even if for no other reason than that the POS is helping those people in some way. If a pos is at a stargate defending space by defending the "check point" there will be people who don't want it there. There will be conflict. If a pos defends any resource, there will be conflict. If it is at an asteroid belt, there will be people who don't want it to protect that resource and there will be conflict. When many people don't want the pos there, you will likely see conflict. When any game mechanic allows people to claim a resource that has substantial value or to secure their space, there will be conflict.
If multiple POS are defending a single stargate, then there will be substantial cost in fuel (an ISK sink and profit for miners with increasing fuel prices) for each stargate defended, and cloaky/fast warp (frigs/cruisers) ships will evade them easily. If ships can send probes through the gates and detect enemy POS defenses and camps before committing themselves. Then they can consider force escalations and strategic counters. They can call on allies and plan their entrance through stargates and cynos into the system to take the defenses down.
My conclusion is that there will be more conflict if pos can be placed anywhere. If stargates can be probed, there will be more strategy and multi-alliance teamwork and more large scale conflict.. If POS ownership changes like station ownership, a heavily defended stargate for one side can become a heavily defended stargate for the other side if they prevail. |

Solarais
Dogmatic Citizens Sadistica Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 05:47:00 -
[164] - Quote
Bump..
Come on ccp!! |

tleekett
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 08:32:00 -
[165] - Quote
+1 VERY MUCH NEEDED |

Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 08:37:00 -
[166] - Quote
Also some buff needed - now pos are way to easy targets - especially for a capital fleet. Im not talking about indestructible installation, but something that can take at least one capital during fight.
|

Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:20:00 -
[167] - Quote
Speaking as a WH dweller, the general consensus is that we do not want docking games in any way, shape, or form to be brought into W-space. Feelings about forcefields are a little more mixed, though personally I like mechanic and gameplay options it offers.
The thing is, none of the services (except WiS) require docking up in a station-type environment. Docking takes the player out of multiplayer space where he can interact with other players in space, willingly or unwillingly, and places him in a single-player station environment where he has minimal and restricted interaction with others, and only when he chooses to interact with them. That doesn't sound like the goal and purpose of EVE, though it is essential for places like Jita and other trade hubs or new player systems ... any highly-populated location.
Generally, even though we don't necessarily live in k-space, we do return there from time to time for various reasons. We could have exposure to space barbies on our trips into k-space. Everything else could be accomplished while keeping proximity-based station services in space.
Instead of rewriting POSes to be more like stations, rewrite stations to be more like POSes. Access to whatever services have been installed at the new-POS would be based on proxmity to the POS itself. Perhaps, as soon as you enter the safety of the new-POS forcefield, you have access to all new-POS services. The station environment, then, would be a single-player version of a new-POS that is always within proximity and has every service that is configured for that station.
If everything is going to be based on the new-POS code, please make docking optional and only allow the docking module in Sov space (note: please let W-space remain untamed, unclaimable). So the NPC-controlled new-POSes would keep docking capabilities in High, Low, and NPC-Null, and the player-controlled new-POSes would keep docking in Sov-Null space. Everywhere else would not have that "convenience". Existing conveniences would not be nerfed, and as is now, players would be encouraged to fully-dockable stations to achieve safety, thus being exposed to barbies.
Personally, I'd like to keep forcefields, as it also keeps players present in multiplayer space, yet protects them to some degree. It's a different mechanic that allows different gameplay, and has a clear definition of when you are inside and when you are not inside, unlike the invisible station radius around the various racial stations in k-space today. Even if this requires a new-POS module that is used in place of a docking module, it would be a shame to homogenize this kind of mechanic out of the game.
The modularity of the new-POSes would eliminate countless distance calculations between hundreds or thousands of ships and every POS module on grid, which can be quite a high number, for an overall net improvement to performance. |

unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Transmission Lost
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:46:00 -
[168] - Quote
What is also important for w-space, is that a pos can be found with d-scan . So that the locals can't see any probes. |

Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:47:00 -
[169] - Quote
I think CCP should create an official, Idea deposit for the POS revamp. Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |

Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
72
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:07:00 -
[170] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Speaking as a WH dweller, the general consensus is that we do not want docking games in any way, shape, or form to be brought into W-space. Feelings about forcefields are a little more mixed, though personally I like mechanic and gameplay options it offers.
The thing is, none of the services (except WiS) require docking up in a station-type environment. Docking takes the player out of multiplayer space where he can interact with other players in space, willingly or unwillingly, and places him in a single-player station environment where he has minimal and restricted interaction with others, and only when he chooses to interact with them. That doesn't sound like the goal and purpose of EVE, though it is essential for places like Jita and other trade hubs or new player systems ... any highly-populated location. [lots of words..].
1m off of the forcefield and 2001m off of the station are about the same thing. Movement of 1m closer is all that is needed to be invulnerable That pretty much 1-shot your post right there. If anything, the forcefield is more of a "docking" games issue because it is an aggression-neutral process. I think that last point just took out your pod. Re-group and reply or else concede that thousands of pos horse floggers are right.
|
|

Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
137
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 13:02:00 -
[171] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:(silly) Have you actually fought on POSes? Have you fought on station undock? If you had done both, you would know the differences, which you clearly don't.
|

Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
60
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 14:07:00 -
[172] - Quote
+1
How has this not been done yet? |

Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
276
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 17:26:00 -
[173] - Quote
How about we Wait for CCP a word about the next expansion content and start a riot shooting things if they don't include POS revamp !? Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |

Jacid
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 00:11:00 -
[174] - Quote
POSes defiantly need to be revamped in one form or another, CCP should not take the "its good enough" approach to an aspect of their game that's so important. However a few thoughts that could be added to in to expand the sandbox as it were.
1) Poses and stations are essentially the same thing as in the new system would be for both stations and poses 2) Poses are anchorable anywhere however are only able to go into reinforce mode on moons 3) Pos should be customizable from a 100mil isk ninja pos to a 300billion isk alliance structure of doom and should require an proportional fuel requirements. 4) You must be able to see outside a pos when "docked" and ideally have multiple undock points 5) Pos / Stations are destroyable and drop loot 6) Poses should be claimable if you don't fuel your pos someone else should be able to claim it fuel it and use it as they see fit just as if you were to abandon a ship. 7) Bounties should be collectable on corporate / alliance bounties (if they don't already)
Ultimately a pos is a great way for players to be able to customize their experience make diverse engagements and in general expand game play as they stand now they are a necessity at best..
my 2 cents |

Siobhan MacLeary
BRG Corp Ocularis Inferno
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 08:01:00 -
[175] - Quote
Just wanted to note something here: The Exhibit D/E link in the OP leads to a file that doesn't load. |

Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
285
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:07:00 -
[176] - Quote
Spr09 wrote:oh my god, imagine being able to have dust 514 players run around killing each other in a modular pos like this! ccp would be fools not to make something like this and letting dust 514 people destroy POSs placed by eve players! Imagine if you could detach the modular POS's structural areas, such as corridor/wing A detach from junction A, send all the DUST'ies inside into vaccuum (friend or Foe) and only those fitted for zero-atmosphere combat wouldnt die, THEN the battle continues in the module slowly falling planetside, AND on the outside of the POS trying to break through the airlocks to get inside.
figure EvE players always hate being unable to participate in the battle deciding their assets, so this way they have the option of purging the "infected/infested" corridors/structures by ejecting them into deep space, in order to save the larger structure (but no guarantee of complete purging as zero-G fitted DUST soldiers could go from one module to the next if they are quick enough).
granted soemthing this cool wouldnt be for YEARS into DUST//EvE development, but it could be fun. |

Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
285
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:09:00 -
[177] - Quote
Jacid wrote:POSes defiantly need to be revamped in one form or another, CCP should not take the "its good enough" approach to an aspect of their game that's so important. However a few thoughts that could be added to in to expand the sandbox as it were.
1) Poses and stations are essentially the same thing as in the new system would be for both stations and poses 2) Poses are anchorable anywhere however are only able to go into reinforce mode on moons 3) Pos should be customizable from a 100mil isk ninja pos to a 300billion isk alliance structure of doom and should require an proportional fuel requirements. 4) You must be able to see outside a pos when "docked" and ideally have multiple undock points 5) Pos / Stations are destroyable and drop loot 6) Poses should be claimable if you don't fuel your pos someone else should be able to claim it fuel it and use it as they see fit just as if you were to abandon a ship. 7) Bounties should be collectable on corporate / alliance bounties (if they don't already)
Ultimately a pos is a great way for players to be able to customize their experience make diverse engagements and in general expand game play as they stand now they are a necessity at best..
my 2 cents As far as pricate POS's go, since we dotn want them to be like outposts/stations with docking games, why not give them 4+ "undock points" they can choose from to get the ebst position against the siegers, but they also are susceptible to a dock/undock queue as a POS is not a station and each POS can only hold X pilots and con only dock them so fast. prolly an unbalanced and bad idea, but i REALLY dont want station games in wormholes. |

Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 18:31:00 -
[178] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Andy Landen wrote:(silly) Have you actually fought on POSes? Have you fought on station undock? If you had done both, you would know the differences, which you clearly don't. Meyta: Watching his pod explode and lacking any intelligent response. Me: Laughing my socks off at Meta and drinking the tears. Meyta, "Uh .. uh .. you ever? .. meanie .. you suck .. wahh."
You know, Meyta, I have even lived in whs, too. I clearly know that as soon as you move from 1m outside the pos shield to 1m inside it, you become unlockable. Being thus immune to fire, it is like you are docked, except you can see the space outside (a feature long overdue for stations).
Now try this with stations: Burn away from a station. You will be 0m for a while, and then the distance will count up. Move to 2001m. Can't dock. Back to 1999m. Can dock, aggression and session/station/network permission pending. Can't see outside in space currently and people can't steal your stuff in stations; unlike in pos's. Space up to 1999m can be bumped until dock accepted; unlike pos.
Make pos indestructible like station, or station destructible like pos. The later would certainly reduce the number of stations in Eve, especially in null sec. Make all stations require fuel, except at sun or moon/planet where energy can be harvested from resources or flares. If we just call them all stations, and make the mechanics the same (destructible) and the cost the same (depending on size and modules added), the only issue remaining would be how to make the transition. Give a deadline before all pos are unarchorable and unanchored and then have NPCs buy them back. Players have to buy and bring out the new stations before then to move everything from the old to the new. |

Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
282
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 21:22:00 -
[179] - Quote
From the last December CSM Minutes:
Quote:Unifex stated that what CCP did was spend effort and prototype what would make a good POS system. It would, however, only affect the group of people who manage POSes. Focusing that amount of time and effort on some small singular aspect of the game and delivering only that GÇ£is what will kill the businessGÇ¥.
The atmosphere was notably tense at the point. Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |

Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 06:45:00 -
[180] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:From the last December CSM Minutes: Quote:Unifex stated that what CCP did was spend effort and prototype what would make a good POS system. It would, however, only affect the group of people who manage POSes. Focusing that amount of time and effort on some small singular aspect of the game and delivering only that GÇ£is what will kill the businessGÇ¥.
The atmosphere was notably tense at the point. You have GOT to be kidding us! Here is more evidence of the need to keep flogging this horse. They really don't get it, do they? A system which would "only affect the group of people who manage POSes"? They really don't have the vision that we do.
And call me ignorant, but who is Unifex anyway? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |