Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Esiel
Renegade Serenity The Cool Kids Club
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 20:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
This post is to continue the longest running and best idea ever posted on Eve's Feature & Ideas Discussion Boards. All credit goes to Evelgrivion for this great idea.
Quote:Originally Posted by: Evelgrivion on 2006.09.08 22:54:00 Last Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/05/2011 04:48:41 Images have been replaced. Unfortunately, I lost the originals with the forum debacle, but the ones that were linked are an acceptable substitute. To put it simply, the current POS system is Butt-ugly, lagtacular, overpowered, underpowered, and completely, totally whacky, and fails to live up to the expectations of those who wish to see them for the first time. This proposal at the very least aims to solve the first and last two issues, whilst providing a way for those who do not have 30 billion to blow on a station to get a suitable level of infrastructure for new 0.0 operations. In a nutshell, its a modular POS with most of the functionality of a station, depending on the modules attached. How would this all go together? Today's idea comes with pictures! The heart of the system is a simple interconnecting module. From this modular structure, all modules are referenced, attached, and based within a simple grid system. Exhibit AThe four corridors allow for easy expansion of the station, and scalable infrastructure can grow with the needs of the corporation. or alliance in possession of it. Exhibit BMuch like the current POS system, the heart and soul of the station would remain the control tower. For this example, let me introduce Exhibit C, for a small Caldari styled control tower. Exhibit CFrom this control tower, everything else on the POS is referenced. Instead of giving us exact XYZ coordinates of every module in space, they can be instead referenced to the tower and the layout grid on which it is based. After deployment of the control tower, you can begin adding additional structures to the POS to give it the functionality you want it to have. Allow me to present Exhibits D and E. Exhibits D & E (Large File)Exhibit D is a storage container module; these provide the storage capabilities for the POS. Exhibit E is a refinery module, which would obviously provide refinery capabilities for the station. Up a certain point, additional refinery modules would provide additional refinery efficiency, though logarithmically decreasing with each one while consuming the same amount of poewr. This could allow larger, more powerful, and more expensive designs to have a place in the universe. Up to this point, the accessibility remains the same as it is for the current POS, with one user hovering outside the module at a time. To alleviate the issues inherent in that, I present exhibit F; the hangar module. This system is not limited to 1x1 modules, and "supermodules" are a distinct possibility with this system. Exhibit F -Providing a certain quantity of hangar space (Meters-¦) depending on size (and expense), the hangar module provides an interface to POS management just like standard stations, allowing simple refining, manufacturing, and possibly even clone bays, depending on the modules that you have installed. Put it altogether, and you get a simple POS that is easy to manage, expandable, and ranging in capabilities and expense. In its most basic form, I present Exhibit G. Exhibit GHere is an optional, more contraversial change that this system would make. If CCP wishes, they could integrate much of a POSs defense into this module system; rather than having free floating, invincible guns, large weapons battery modules could be introduced to the station. Presenting Exhibit H. Exhibit H Fully realized, Exhibit I. Exhibit I (Fully Realised Modular POS) While this is just a simple example, the potential is there for leagues more complex and powerful bases than those demonstrated here.
I know other threads have started about this idea but they didn't credit the creator or start with his great idea. If Evelgrivion ever re-posts his idea I encourage everyone to go to his post to continue the thread and let this one die.
Original thread found at http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=391410 |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
18
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 00:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1 |
Sir Substance
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 01:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Already posted here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6552&find=unread |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
63
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 08:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Updated POS by Evilgrivion, basicly the sum of the parts of the years of discussion:
Evelgrivion wrote:[edit]Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/11/2009 14:37:42[/edit] For the past three years, there has been a tremendous show of support for the old GÇ£Flogging the Dead HorseGÇ¥ post regarding a proposed re-design of the Player Owned Structure system. The two biggest reasons for support are that players hate what they look like GÇô a bunch of scrap floating in space, and they hate the interfaces that are used to interact with them on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. Enter the Modular StarbaseAesthetically, people want to see an end to the era of junk floating inside and in the immediate vicinity of force field bubbles. A series of geometrically interconnected structures, such as squares or hexagons, make up the design of the proposed replacement system. The abilities of the facility are enhanced with each newly attached component. Weapons would be placed on extensions to the top and bottom or even the sides of the tower, emerging from the force field. These weapons systems would remain vulnerable to attack like they are today. Strategically, it would be possible to force players to pick and choose between the placement of weapons systems and jump bridges, as the number of available attachment points is limited. Whether or not the design is implemented this way is up to game design, but it is an intriguing possibility. Mechanically, the basic uses of Player Owned Structures donGÇÖt change; they will still serve as industrial complexes and staging areas. However, the management of these facilities is in dramatic need of improvement. The amount of time required to set up a Starbase is obnoxious and unnecessary, and make up a considerable portion of ideas provided in addendum to the original modular starbase concept. The solution to this thorny issue is to introduce an onlining queue, and to allow the anchoring and onlining of more than one module at a time. Either one of these options would be appreciated by those who operate facilities in space. Players desire the ability to freely swap out control towers to upgrade their operations without having to dismantle the entire facility one structure at a time. The ability to freely swap one tower for another has been repeatedly requested by the community. If different sizes of towers remain in use, these features should be implemented. In-situ facility upgrades have also been proposed. To upgrade the starbase, raw materials and blueprints would allow operators to initiate construction of new facilities and operational capabilities directly onto the structure, rather than hauling a complete module from their points of distribution to null-security space. A single, unified interface is desired for the structure. If a docking facility is provided, players would have access to the entire starbasesGÇÖ configuration and settings (based on permissions of course) when inside the base. From this in-structure interface they would organize production chains and initiate manufacturing jobs. Standings would be configured, and other basic functions such as loading ammunition into the weapons systems could be handled from this interface, without making your way to each module and interacting with their separate interfaces. Docking at these facilities would not replenish shields or capacitor, as they are not equipped to do so. If so desired, on site repairs could just as easily remain un-obtainable. However, with the right modules in place, the starbase could serve as a ship storage facility, and could serve as a location for refitting your ship. A Super Capital Mooring Point should be introduced as an optional attachment for the starbase as well. These would allow players to secure their super capital ships within the starbase without making them vulnerable to corporate thieves, but simultaneously leave them vulnerable to capture or destruction by marauding fleets that lay siege to the tower. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Vanessa Vansen
Ore Hogz Rolling Thunder.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 16:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
some ideas I posted ...
|
Xiese
Federal Defence Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 20:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'll keep this alive as it is and was worth it on the old forum and on this new forum |
T'bilisi
Renegade Serenity The Cool Kids Club
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 20:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Is CCP going to do this? |
hellwarz
Rising Thunder
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 21:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Long live the dead horse (hope not to much longer) |
hellwarz
Rising Thunder
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 21:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
dubl post |
Vanessa Vansen
Ore Hogz Rolling Thunder.
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.28 07:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
and there we go again go to 2nd incarnation |
|
Esiel
Renegade Serenity The Cool Kids Club
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.01 02:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
I know people don't like to read but I did post this for a reason and not put it in the other thread. Please read my comments at the bottom of the orginal post.
|
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum
130
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 01:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Don't know which thread should be the main one for this idea, but bumping both to make it happen. |
Mekela
Vinyl Roid
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 23:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bump because it deserves it. |
Eoin Donovan
The Soul Society Pax Romana Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 01:44:00 -
[14] - Quote
Yes, god yes! Bring this in immediatly if not sooner!!!
the only question I would have is how (and this may turn out to be the thing that kills this idea)
How do you implement it?
Its all well and good saying, oh, you can do this and add this and itll all be great,
But what about poses that are already in position? How will they be changed? How would the new system be implemented to existing structures?
The only thing i can think of is to not change existing poses, but any new modules would come in this form (Meaning that people can just take down their existing modules and re-anchor them to obtain the new design)
Or maybe set it up so that the game does all the placement for you. I.E the game assembles the pos automaticly just tacking on one module at a time (although i really cant see this idea being very popular) |
Smofuggra
Creep Factory Interspacial Dynasty
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 02:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
To impliment it is simple really.
When the patch goes live the pre-existing modules will still be running and in place, they'll still be in their configuration left by the builder. When they log in after patch the textures will have update and the player will be given the option to offline and re-align the objects, with a snap-to configiration in place to facilitate faster re-working of the structure. Alternatively if CCP decides to impliment an onlining que for the modules it would also help facilitate faster recovery and additionaly alleviate the mind-numbing hours of onlining modules.
Yes you'd still have to offline everything and re-organize it but at least in this way you can do at your leisure. |
Spr09
Purdue Engineering and Technology Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 02:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
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! |
Eoin Donovan
The Soul Society Pax Romana Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 02:07:00 -
[17] - Quote
Smofuggra wrote:To impliment it is simple really.
When the patch goes live the pre-existing modules will still be running and in place, they'll still be in their configuration left by the builder. When they log in after patch the textures will have update and the player will be given the option to offline and re-align the objects, with a snap-to configiration in place to facilitate faster re-working of the structure. Alternatively if CCP decides to impliment an onlining que for the modules it would also help facilitate faster recovery and additionaly alleviate the mind-numbing hours of onlining modules.
Yes you'd still have to offline everything and re-organize it but at least in this way you can do at your leisure.
Yeah, that was my first option, your just more eloquent than i am
lol |
Smofuggra
Creep Factory Interspacial Dynasty
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 01:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
Third page again?! Unacceptable!!! |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
24
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 01:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
this one is to be supported at least |
Zuteh
Infinite Improbability Inc
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 16:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP need to do this idea right now
Right now!! |
|
Tahna Rouspel
BWE Special Forces
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 17:54:00 -
[21] - Quote
This would definitely be an amazing feature for a Winter expansion. *wink wink*
Ah, if only. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
170
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 23:48:00 -
[22] - Quote
The science and industry windows need a massive overhaul as well.
I wish there could be just one tab created for every designated corp member, and from there you should be able to easily move anything from one module to another, be it BP research, construction or refining.
How long has this modular POS setup been asked for now? [img]http://i53.tinypic.com/bebnf8.jpg[/img] |
Jenshae Chiroptera
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 01:50:00 -
[23] - Quote
I would just be happy with some bug fixes things that are there to work properly. Alliance options and processing ore should take skill level into account not just be a flat -25% no matter what. CSM - Do you think? You see if they ruin high sec and WHs, you are ripping the newbie uterus out of EVE and feeding it to the big alliances. When it is gone, they will starve and die. |
Echo Mande
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 12:42:00 -
[24] - Quote
I'll take a swing at the dead horse.
Regardless of how the final result will look, be it a single structure or the current cloud of modules, changes ought to tbe made to how the various industrial arrays provide resources to players. What I propose is the following:
Instead of the current variety of different lab, manufacturing, shipbuilding, reaction and silo modules, there should be several sizes (call it small to XXL) of generic lab, manufacturing, shipbuilding and reaction arrays, each of which can be tailored to the wants and needs of the players by POS logisticians.
Each of the various arrays would have the capacity to install different types of modules, which would consume grid and CPU while providing one or more slots of one type (or other abilities) to users. Installing slots would take some time, but would not be permanent (uninstall slots to reconfigure the array) or maybe even require materials. For instance, a lab array could install modules to provide ME, PE, invention, copy or reverse engineering slots. Perhaps T1, T2 and T3 manufacturing slots could have their own modules, with 'incorrect tech' production in that slot being at least slower than optimal. The current penalties to POS T2 shipbuilding should be removed. Whether the array's hangar size is dependant on the array size or on the installed modules (perhaps an 'expanded hangar' module could be provided) is something that should be looked at.
Some current modules would be subsumed in the new setup and some new abilities could be added. For instance manufacturing arrays could have the ability to install some different 'refinery' modules (quick and dirty or slow and clean; with percentage cap removed), POS module building modules and even 'ore compression' modules (with a time penalty over the rorq). Similarly the various silos could be redone as modules in the reaction arrays, with each module representing a single silo. Shipyard arrays could have the ability to install ship maintenance array modules, with multiple modules representing a larger SMA.
While the arrays might not have a security requirement, installable modules would. For instance the current sov requirement for capital SMAs would vanish but XL and capital shipyard modules would need respectively sov<0.5 and player sovereignty to install. Moon harvesters (installable in/on reactor arrays) and possibly the entire reactor array would only be allowed in sov<0.4.
Whether these changes should or should not be carried through to the shield, ewar and weapons arrays is a matter for discussion. A large weapons array bristling with small guns has some appeal but might not be terribly efficient.
Commentary is very welcome. |
Xiese
Federal Defence Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 19:31:00 -
[25] - Quote
Untill CCP does something with the POS - Long live the dead horse |
Esiel
Renegade Serenity The Cool Kids Club
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 20:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
I often wonder why I am so determined to keep the dead horse alive. Then I fly out to my POS and I just despise it. I see the potential of how cool it could be, I mean I am here because it is a sci fi sim and the POS just seems so blah to downright crap. So I keep bumping this idea, watching waiting and hoping. |
T'bilisi
Renegade Serenity The Cool Kids Club
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 20:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
found on Page 8, have people given up on the dead horse? |
Eoin Donovan
The Soul Society Pax Romana Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 00:15:00 -
[28] - Quote
never!!! |
Bael Gar
Russian SOBR SOLAR FLEET
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 06:18:00 -
[29] - Quote
Dead horse needs love |
Gremoxx
The Ostrogoths Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 10:26:00 -
[30] - Quote
+1
When I started to play EvE my dream was to put up and run POS..... HOW DISSAPOINTED WAS I !!!!!!
Current incarnation of POS is dull, lacks style, and is mother of all time-wasters in EvE. I mean, for all the hassel of putting up the damn thing you get - Stick with blobs around it.
And why cant you upgrade them with Power mods or CPU mods ???? Or have Clone vat bay ???
|
|
Xhondo Dhoru
Love Me Dead ISKoholics Center of Rehabilitation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 13:22:00 -
[31] - Quote
So many great things that could be done with POS or even just MINOR improvements.
Whatever happened to fuel pellets?
Long live the dead horse! |
Creat Posudol
True Knights Templar Pegasus Coalition
13
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 15:05:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tahna Rouspel wrote:This would definitely be an amazing feature for a Winter expansion. *wink wink*
Ah, if only.
Yea right, because the development time needed for this is about a month? Seriously...
Anything that requires new graphics to be created (this certainly would) will take about a year to be implemented. I remember some Dev confirmed this on the old forums, multiple times even. So even if they did start working on this the moment CCP had their now well known epiphany in summer it will still be at least 9 months before this can/will happen. Considering the graphics people have more likely/obviously been working on the new Tier 3 BCs recently, an optimistic guess would be closer to "Winter 2012".
I absolutely agree though, this idea has to be implemented, POS' are currently just a giant PITA and time sink in such an unnecessary and infuriating way that it isn't even funny anymore. Also a POS should allow docking, if just for immersion sake and provide a home-ish interior feeling once/if walking in stations is worked on again. Whatever you do just stop the free floating nonsene that we have now. Let the current implementation die already, start from scratch. NOTHING is worth saving about the current implementation! |
Lenasha
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 20:55:00 -
[33] - Quote
Seeing as how this thread was started in 2006, I don't know why they shouldn't have had this ready 4 years ago. |
Xhondo Dhoru
Love Me Dead ISKoholics Center of Rehabilitation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 16:17:00 -
[34] - Quote
Up with ye I say, this thread shall not die.
"your corporation can only anchor one control tower per system per day" Wat. POS are no longer tied to sov, and this was in lowsec.
I can see potential for abuse if this is removed entirely. Up it to 3 per corp/system/day. |
How2FoldSoup
Hull Tanking Elitists
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 21:19:00 -
[35] - Quote
Bump for justice |
Hikaru Kuroda
Shimai of New Eden N E X O
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 10:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
This is very needed.
Supporting. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 17:10:00 -
[37] - Quote
+1 |
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae RED.Legion
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
Keepin the dream alive!
Also, supercap moorings! A one supercap per module. Password lock the ships so pilots can leave w/o the infinite storage of station. Stay external, become an anchored part of the structure. |
Mekela
Vinyl Roid
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 21:42:00 -
[39] - Quote
A good idea that deserves to be implemented - and a bump because I don't want it to fade away |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 19:58:00 -
[40] - Quote
+1 FTDH is awesome |
|
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 20:01:00 -
[41] - Quote
+1 FTW! |
Esiel
Renegade Serenity The Cool Kids Club
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 08:57:00 -
[42] - Quote
Why did I do this thread? Besides the obvious one that the modular POS is what should have been created in the first place and I would really like to see it done.
First I would have posted the first day this forum became available however out of respect to Evelgrivion I was waiting for him to post first. (I had good reason to wait as he did re-post the first time they made the new forums before they had to shut them down)
Secondly I would have been happy to let anyone post about this idea if they had done more than just a link. Alot of forum readers are lazy, they aren't going to click a link and they wouldn't see what this idea was about and I am all for more people supporting this even the lazy forum readers.
Finally I felt Evelgrivion should be given props for this, it is his idea, his work and so it should be his credit. (If he re-post I would still encourage everyone to jump onto his thread and dump this one like yesterdays doughnuts) |
Dr Karsun
Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Care Factor
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 10:38:00 -
[43] - Quote
As I did in the old forums, a +1 from me. "Have you had your morning coffee?" -> the Coffee Lovers Brewing Club is recruiting! |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 13:39:00 -
[44] - Quote
its probably his arms are too tired from flogging for years on end esiel.
at any rate thank you for porting this over and i'll bump it for new eyes to read every few weeks or so |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:40:00 -
[45] - Quote
I DON'T SEE WHAT'S WRONG WITH POSES |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:55:00 -
[46] - Quote
crack ************, do you smoke it? |
Mekela
Vinyl Roid
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 22:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
They say they are fixing space stuff but this remains the glaring exception that stares at you in its terrible astectic and horrible interface. The longest running failure of CCP is the dead horse |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 03:17:00 -
[48] - Quote
been a few weeks. time to flog it once more |
Gremoxx
The Ostrogoths Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 12:11:00 -
[49] - Quote
saved from page 4...
CCP should make this top priority for next expansion..
+1 Again and again |
Tenchi Sal
Dust Bunnies 514
38
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 13:22:00 -
[50] - Quote
+1
my wife tried to play EVE with me a while back ago. i had her warp to my POS and when she saw it, her only reaction was
"oh its a floating stick, is that it?" |
|
Wormerling
Starbridge of Pegasus
80
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 19:36:00 -
[51] - Quote
Okay, honestly what the idea is about? If it's only about the look then, well, it is a cool thing to have everything look nice, but probably not the main thing.
IMO, the core elements are functionality and gameplay. In first place, I think all modules should be accesed from one place, because it really doesn't make much sense to struggle with ships being constantly stuck in the forest of modules in a limited space. Then there should be a way to dock to this thing, just because we can dock to the stations. Basically it's all that need to make life so much easier!
Then there are few ideas of mine. I wish EVE had more elements of RTS gameplay. With this regard POSes could be fitted with Very Long Range weapons that could hit stuff system-wide: namely, other POSes. Then I would allow several POSes per moon and actually allowed to put a POS near a planet (I don't see how planets differ so much from moons; I know it is made for the sake of game design but it makes things unreal).
I also wish POSes and other celestial objects were slowly moving towards their trajectories, and belive it's not so hard to implement a little shift of celestial objects during downtime. |
Gorath Vaan
Cause of Crisis
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 11:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
Looks like a great idea... but:
How do the shields work? Is there a POS shield? Do you target specific modules or just blam away at the whole caboose? How do you rep it, module by module, or just point and rep the whole thing at once?
I think this is the seed of a great idea, but needs the details worked out.
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
38
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 02:42:00 -
[53] - Quote
bump |
Kolya Medz
Kolya Inc.
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 05:02:00 -
[54] - Quote
+1 Awesome Idea |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1052
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 12:33:00 -
[55] - Quote
This flogging thing seems to be good (at least regarding POS), so please do not stop!
Do not hold back your comments. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
Zannang
Apprentice Innovations
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 13:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
there's not much we can add after all these years, except that we really want this. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 13:55:00 -
[57] - Quote
I've not read most of the posts in this thread but looked at the original concept and images and hell yes!
I've been using POSs for the past couple of years and I have to admit that the completely separate modules thing is weird. It's the least logical method of building a space based structure ever. I don't like using RL comparisons but the most logical method of constructing a space structure is to make it modular and connected, like the ISS. /RLcomparison
This suggestion not only looks damn cool but it makes more sense from a RP perspective.
I endorse this suggestion with huge great screams of enthusiasm.
CCP - Please make this happen. The changes you've made to POSs have been excellent so far. This would basically make them pretty much perfect. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
718
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 14:10:00 -
[58] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:This flogging thing seems to be good (at least regarding POS), so please do not stop!
Do not hold back your comments.
least it's better than mass rioting in Jita, yeah?
|
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Command Fleet Coordination Coalition
156
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 14:19:00 -
[59] - Quote
Hopefully the "Dead Horse that is by now glue" goes ahead in either this or the next expansion. http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
719
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 14:50:00 -
[60] - Quote
Grideris wrote:Hopefully the "Dead Horse that is by now glue" goes ahead in either this or the next expansion. This expansion is "war" ... so probably not (though, maybe they'll fix corp/POS rol... oh **** it, who am I kidding). The other thing is that the art dept is busy V3-ing the ships.
From the look of things, it'll probably just end up being soon(tm). |
|
Kitt JT
Crimson Empire. Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:08:00 -
[61] - Quote
Well that blue tag up there ^^^^^^ seems to be a good thing.
But yeah. Please do this.
I also would like to know how the shields would work Or if there WOULD be a shield. |
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:22:00 -
[62] - Quote
+1 The pos also needs to be deployable by individual players not for the corp. This allows the player to leave the corp and retain control of the pos, or stay in corp and not worry about directors meddling with his "player owned station" (pos). The pos, when deployed as an individual, will be controlled by the player who onlines it. That player may then grant permissions to specific parts of the pos (on a pos module basis) to individual players, corps, or alliances as desired. IE. the player who onlines it is the owner and may for instance set the corp to be allowed to fuel it, but only he can remove fuel from it, and only he may set the password or set who may enter the pos or offline it. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
720
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:19:00 -
[63] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:+1 The pos also needs to be deployable by individual players not for the corp. This allows the player to leave the corp and retain control of the pos, or stay in corp and not worry about directors meddling with his "player owned station" (pos). The pos, when deployed as an individual, will be controlled by the player who onlines it. That player may then grant permissions to specific parts of the pos (on a pos module basis) to individual players, corps, or alliances as desired. IE. the player who onlines it is the owner and may for instance set the corp to be allowed to fuel it, but only he can remove fuel from it, and only he may set the password or set who may enter the pos or offline it.
yeah, this couldn't be exploited or anything. |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
221
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:38:00 -
[64] - Quote
Kitt JT wrote:Well that blue tag up there ^^^^^^ seems to be a good thing.
But yeah. Please do this.
I also would like to know how the shields would work Or if there WOULD be a shield.
It was a good thing 5 years ago.
Nothing happened.
C. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3364
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:52:00 -
[65] - Quote
Turn a star base into a capital ship that you turn on its 'seige' mode and it deploys everything? and all the modules you have fitted to it will function as the star base's stuff?
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
720
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:33:00 -
[66] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Turn a star base into a capital ship that you turn on its 'seige' mode and it deploys everything? and all the modules you have fitted to it will function as the star base's stuff? various bays and the sorts too?
... what the? I don't even... |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 20:34:00 -
[67] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Turn a star base into a capital ship that you turn on its 'seige' mode and it deploys everything? and all the modules you have fitted to it will function as the star base's stuff? various bays and the sorts too? ... what the? I don't even...
Yeah, what Velicitia said. That's a completely different thing. If that's what you want to suggest please make a new thread. |
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC 0ccupational Hazzard
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:34:00 -
[68] - Quote
Dont see whats so hard about implementing player created ranks
player creates rank
player adds list of available roles to rank
player names the rank
assigns players to that rank Everytime you dont like my comments/posts the terrorists win and your a disgrace to your country. |
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 02:54:00 -
[69] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Andy Landen wrote:+1 The pos also needs to be deployable by individual players not for the corp. This allows the player to leave the corp and retain control of the pos, or stay in corp and not worry about directors meddling with his "player owned station" (pos). The pos, when deployed as an individual, will be controlled by the player who onlines it. That player may then grant permissions to specific parts of the pos (on a pos module basis) to individual players, corps, or alliances as desired. IE. the player who onlines it is the owner and may for instance set the corp to be allowed to fuel it, but only he can remove fuel from it, and only he may set the password or set who may enter the pos or offline it. yeah, this couldn't be exploited or anything.
If you use a pos which was anchored and onlined for an individual and not for the corp, then you deserve to lose anything you bring into it. Get your own pos and use it if you don't trust the owning corp/individual. A POS would be onlined for a corp to take advantage of directorship control and alliance perks like jump bridges, etc. |
JustSharkbait
Methodical Destruction The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 07:13:00 -
[70] - Quote
This would be awesome.
+1 |
|
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
329
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 15:12:00 -
[71] - Quote
Still needs doing, just like it still needed doing a few years back. So, CCP, this still needs doing... Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
722
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 17:43:00 -
[72] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Velicitia wrote:Andy Landen wrote:+1 The pos also needs to be deployable by individual players not for the corp. This allows the player to leave the corp and retain control of the pos, or stay in corp and not worry about directors meddling with his "player owned station" (pos). The pos, when deployed as an individual, will be controlled by the player who onlines it. That player may then grant permissions to specific parts of the pos (on a pos module basis) to individual players, corps, or alliances as desired. IE. the player who onlines it is the owner and may for instance set the corp to be allowed to fuel it, but only he can remove fuel from it, and only he may set the password or set who may enter the pos or offline it. yeah, this couldn't be exploited or anything. If you use a pos which was anchored and onlined for an individual and not for the corp, then you deserve to lose anything you bring into it. Get your own pos and use it if you don't trust the owning corp/individual. A POS would be onlined for a corp to take advantage of directorship control and alliance perks like jump bridges, etc.
OK, so now you set up two large POS in some system, and are cranking out T1 and T2 ships/modules/etc. You get a dec, and just drop corp to avoid it, whilst still cranking said stuff.
you see the problem now?
|
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 07:55:00 -
[73] - Quote
Wholeheartedly agree with Velicitia.
Bump for OP. Awesome idea. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
466
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 12:35:00 -
[74] - Quote
I have a spiked mace, can I use that or is the dead horse too fresh still? Ideas & stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. -á Status: Taking a break |
Velicitia
Open Designs
726
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 14:19:00 -
[75] - Quote
no, you need a cat o' nine tails ... sorry. They can be purchased at the booth over there for 1 ISK.
If you wish to use said mace, Soundwave is over there (he's the guy wearing the $1000 jeans). |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3370
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 14:58:00 -
[76] - Quote
meh just saying the entire thread been discussed to death and thats the only thing New i can bring to the thread, sorry.
|
Carmizan
DOCS RUFF RIDERS Free Beer.
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 15:05:00 -
[77] - Quote
Must agree with Nova Fox
Just to Add CCP read the entire thread and implement the modular POS and the other good ideas in the thread |
Velicitia
Open Designs
726
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 15:15:00 -
[78] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:meh just saying the entire thread been discussed to death and thats the only thing New i can bring to the thread, sorry.
there's not much new to bring ... hence continuing to flog the dead horse. Pretty much, at this point, the thread's purpose it just keeping CCP from forgetting about POS in favour of more $1000 jeans or something. |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 21:12:00 -
[79] - Quote
+1 for the thread and thanks for keeping it alive.
One side thought, with the advent these new Fuel Blocks, now towers have a fixed consumption rate, no matter if the only thing online is a Corp Hanger or in full manufacture/death star mode.
I believe this is an error that should be addressed. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 21:38:00 -
[80] - Quote
Nick Bison wrote:One side thought, with the advent these new Fuel Blocks, now towers have a fixed consumption rate, no matter if the only thing online is a Corp Hanger or in full manufacture/death star mode.
I believe this is an error that should be addressed.
I did think it a bit strange, that. I honestly didn't think there were that many people who played this game who found arithmetic difficult. Must be though for them to feel the need to simplify it that much.
|
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
734
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 21:52:00 -
[81] - Quote
Nick Bison wrote:+1 for the thread and thanks for keeping it alive.
One side thought, with the advent these new Fuel Blocks, now towers have a fixed consumption rate, no matter if the only thing online is a Corp Hanger or in full manufacture/death star mode.
I believe this is an error that should be addressed.
wait, there's a mode other than full-tilt MFG or deathstar (or dickstar, etc)
|
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
184
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 11:20:00 -
[82] - Quote
+1 for the most consistently requested and near universally favoured feature in the last six years.
A few of the things that have happened in the last six years:
The Arab Spring Japanese earthquake/tsunami Death of Osama Bin Laden Global financial collapse End of the space shuttle program The Occupy Protests World population reaching 7 billion
Australian floods Haitian earthquake Vancouver Winter Olympics Eyjafjallaj+¦kull volcano Deepwater Horizon oil spill Swine flu Wikileaks Antimatter first contained 33 miners trapped in Chilean mine for 69 days Apple releases iPad
Australian bushfires North Korean nuclear tests Death of Michael Jackson Mass discoveries of exoplanets
European Space Agency ATV first launched Cyclone Nargis hits Burma Sichuan earthquake Bill Gates steps down from day to day duties at Microsoft Radovan Karad++i-ç arrested South Ossetia War Beijing Olympics Large Hadron Collider at Cern fired up for first time SpaceX Falcon 1, first privately owned spaceship to make orbit India launches it's first lunar probe Mumbai terrorist attacks Bernie Madoff arrested Death of Arthur C Clarke
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Final Harry Potter book released Live Earth concerts held around the world Benazir Bhutto assasinated Death of Evel Knievel Apple releases first iPhone
Turin Winter Olympics Bird flu Last chromosome sequenced by the Human Genome Project Lebanon-Israeli War Pluto reclassified, no longer the 9th planet in the solar system An ex-Iraqi president whose name triggers the profanity filter was executed Steve Irwin killed by stingray
Iceland has had three seperate Prime Ministers Australia has had three seperate Prime Ministers UK has had three seperate Prime Ministers USA has had two seperate Presidents
...and a dead horse has been continuously flogged without interruption. |
Zaotome
Schweine im Weltall.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 13:19:00 -
[83] - Quote
+1 to the dead horse alternatively CCP could tell us something about their ideas how to adress the problems with the current pos-system... |
Velicitia
Open Designs
738
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 13:46:00 -
[84] - Quote
Eyjafjallaj+¦kull volcano <-- CCP was probably to blame here |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 14:37:00 -
[85] - Quote
Wow, how did I not see this thread until now?
Big +1 here! Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1270
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 14:58:00 -
[86] - Quote
Gibbo3771 wrote:Dont see whats so hard about implementing player created ranks
player creates rank
player adds list of available roles to rank
player names the rank
assigns players to that rank
Title assigned roles.
Look into it.
|
Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 15:17:00 -
[87] - Quote
+1 for this idea - long overdue and will improve the Eve experience I am aware of my own ignorance and have checked my emotional quotient - thanks for asking |
Timbuck V
Confrerie de la Lumiere Confrerie de la Lumiere Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:06:00 -
[88] - Quote
+1 to this great idea, "ent+¬tons nous" Keep on flogging,the dev, sorry the dead horse. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:36:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:This flogging thing seems to be good (at least regarding POS), so please do not stop!
Do not hold back your comments.
This idea is superb! It is long overdue and something I included in my feedback form to CCP after the release of Crucible.
Make it so! Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:48:00 -
[90] - Quote
the saddest thing is i read the original flogging thread three years ago, and it had already been flogged for three years before that.
seriously new noob ships? who is asking for that crap?
why is this not a higher priority ? |
|
De Guillaume
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
262
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:25:00 -
[91] - Quote
This is a great idea plain and simple. It needs some fixing but the core is sound.
Poses currently are a total waste of space and more of a burden than a total benefit
+1000000848343434 |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 08:21:00 -
[92] - Quote
My turn to flog the dead horse.
I'm not getting much enjoyment out of it. It's just bones shifting about all over the place as I flog it.
But flog it I must, to keep this thread alive. |
Carmizan
DOCS RUFF RIDERS Free Beer.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 11:23:00 -
[93] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:the saddest thing is i read the original flogging thread three years ago, and it had already been flogged for three years before that.
seriously new noob ships? who is asking for that crap?
why is this not a higher priority ?
All of us that have been promoted this thread from the start have been asking the same question.
Really the only thing we want and need from the dev team at CCP is a simple answer to a simple question.
Are you going to implement this idea and if so when? oh and if not why not?
Every Dev that has posted on this thread and the orginal one has said basically that it is a good idea, but none of them can or will tell us what is going on. I start to think that they do not want to touch the POS and hope that we will get bored of keeping this thread alive.
SO i say to CCP give us an answer. |
Carmizan
DOCS RUFF RIDERS Free Beer.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 11:00:00 -
[94] - Quote
Unashamed bump for this great idea and still no answer |
Velicitia
Open Designs
779
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 12:21:00 -
[95] - Quote
Carmizan wrote:Unashamed bump for this great idea and still no answer
Keep in mind that they were posting pre-incarna... they were forced into implementing ****** things (Incarna, Nex store) rather than cool things (fixed POS, new modules, new ships, rebalanced stuffs).
With Crucible, and the upcoming Inferno expansions ... it really looks like they're getting the right idea again (or at least understanding some of the mistakes they've made). So, perhaps they cannot poast because they'll give away the "big" thing for the expansion -- I mean, they already fixed fueling the damn things... |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 18:57:00 -
[96] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Carmizan wrote:Unashamed bump for this great idea and still no answer Keep in mind that they were posting pre-incarna... they were forced into implementing ****** things (Incarna, Nex store) rather than cool things (fixed POS, new modules, new ships, rebalanced stuffs). With Crucible, and the upcoming Inferno expansions ... it really looks like they're getting the right idea again (or at least understanding some of the mistakes they've made). So, perhaps they cannot post because they'll give away the "big" thing for the expansion -- I mean, they already fixed fueling the damn things...
As much as i want you to be right, the odds are so heavy against this that its not funny. not anymore, not after all these years.
[/i]years[/i ]
While its true that CCP seems to be turning a new leaf in its customer relations departments. its also still true that some things that are bad and recognized continually to be bad. are still bad with no feedback by the people who can fix them.
even the engagement of a conversation in the hypothetical would be a welcomes and extremely useful discourse, so that players could learn about some of the issues blocking this and ccp could better understand what exactly are the problems that need to be addressed.
as to fuel blocks. im not really sure how its a fix. fuel supply is a longer chain now. its only the fuel dump to pos thats easier, everything before that is harder. oh and remember while they were "fixing" it ? lack of communication between CCP and players, (and it seems to a certain extent between CCP personnel) made the entire situation a lot worse then it should have been. considering all the ramp up to it.
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
784
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 19:15:00 -
[97] - Quote
Agreed, it's ccp we're talking about, and communication isn't exactly a strong suit of theirs ... however, with that said, they have been doing things well since crucible (or at least "well" compared to prior to that). It'll take time, but they're at least putting on the facade of trying.
also, forgot "soon(tm)" in my earlier post. Place where appropriate |
Zombo Brian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 19:24:00 -
[98] - Quote
+9001, sounds incredible, and makes the pos actually look like something |
Leto Aramaus
Grimm Hounds
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 23:04:00 -
[99] - Quote
Why?
Why has this not been done, or at least something like this?
I remember this thread had been on the first page of the features and ideas on the old forums for months, or was it even years? And here it is again, back and with just as much support as before
CCP this idea is so blatantly supported by so many players, WHY have you not re-designed the POS system? What's your excuse?
Incarna? Please, I'd rather see WiS abandoned and removed than have resources taken away from improving the space part of our Space game.
New expansions? barf... what have you added? Faction warfare?, lame. Incursions?... ULTRA lame. For how much money you Icelandic trolls make off this game you need to start putting your time and effort into what the PLAYERS want.
Sometimes EVE makes me so mad I could quit, but I won't... for the sparse hope that one day, maybe just maybe, CCP will make EVE a good game.
|
Carmizan
DOCS RUFF RIDERS Free Beer.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 08:11:00 -
[100] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Carmizan wrote:Unashamed bump for this great idea and still no answer Keep in mind that they were posting pre-incarna... they were forced into implementing ****** things (Incarna, Nex store) rather than cool things (fixed POS, new modules, new ships, rebalanced stuffs). With Crucible, and the upcoming Inferno expansions ... it really looks like they're getting the right idea again (or at least understanding some of the mistakes they've made). So, perhaps they cannot poast because they'll give away the "big" thing for the expansion -- I mean, they already fixed fueling the damn things...
While i understand please note that this idea has been around since 2008, and nearly ever conceivable idea has been brought up in that thread, but still there has been no definitive answer from the Devs. They keep trying to encourage more ideas, but no yes, no or we tried and can not do it.
Oh and as to fuel blocks they even got that wrong. They stated that you would be able to load a months worth of fuel in the pos. Well i am sorry but less than 30 days is not a month.
Plus we are not asking for a the Devs for an exact date on implementation (though after 4 years I think we should). We are asking for answer from them as to whether or not they are looking at this with a view to adding it to the game. Surely that is not alot to ask from these guys.
Hell they nerf modules left right and centre after one thread with 2 pages of post crying that they are overpowered, but a thread that has been going for 4 years is ignored.
This is the act of a company that says they listen to their customers. |
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1277
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 14:48:00 -
[101] - Quote
The original thread brought a lot of attention to CCP on the issue. One of the Dev blogs a few months back stated that they had people working on revamping the POS's but not a lot of specifics were mentioned. I assume that the recent fuel block changes are just part of a bigger plan to change POS's.
Somebody should bring this up at Fanfest and ask them directly about it, force their hand.
Would also be prudent for a Dev or two to chime into this thread once in a while and update us with new information if possible as to what changes are coming or if there are any changes to come at all. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Aneroi
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 21:33:00 -
[102] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Somebody should bring this up at Fanfest and ask them directly about it, force their hand.
Would also be prudent for a Dev or two to chime into this thread once in a while and update us with new information if possible as to what changes are coming or if there are any changes to come at all.
This. |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 00:20:00 -
[103] - Quote
700 hours fit into a pos fuel bay
28 days is 672 hours 30 days is 720 hours. 31 days is 744 hours.
2006.09.08 22:54:00 time of long running pos flogging thread origination
2012.03.16 00:20:00 approximate time of this posting
time between them 174101160 seconds 2901686 Minutes 48361 hours 2015 days |
Tarn Kugisa
Modern Mining Industries Space Mongolians
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 02:48:00 -
[104] - Quote
Yes 5Yes Real Caldari Hull Tank (And Win doing so) Support https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=16580 |
Dr Prometheus
Gears of Construction Gears Confederation
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 10:20:00 -
[105] - Quote
Ok bump it back up, and i hope this is the main feature of the new expansion if not; burn them! Dude, where is my Charon? |
hellwarz
Rising Thunder
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:58:00 -
[106] - Quote
They are working on it!!! |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 23:43:00 -
[107] - Quote
Hi! we havent spoken recently, but Id like to keep the dialogue open as we still have some issues to work out. namely, there is still some room for improvement. mostly in the structural areas of your expertise. it seem slacking in cohesion of vision and we, would love some information of how this will be addressed in the future, or if in fact this is being taken into consideration.
Thanks |
hellwarz
Rising Thunder
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:54:00 -
[108] - Quote
ok we we need this off of page 15(16?) right now unthell we have the now poses. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 01:16:00 -
[109] - Quote
Has CCP committed to any specific points of pos mechanics improvements? Do they understand the needs of wormholers regarding poses? Lastly, CCP, you should consider making wormholes sov space. Why not? |
El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 12:49:00 -
[110] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:POS - Player Owned Station. .. When will it REALLY be player owned and controlled, as opposed to corp owned/controlled? Also, a corp of 1-5 characters (being alts anyway) is really just a person working under the guise of a corp, because the pos mechanics won't let it be player owned.
Has CCP committed to any specific points of pos mechanics improvements? Do they understand the needs of wormholers regarding poses? Lastly, CCP, you should consider making wormholes sov space. Why not?
P player O owned S structure
but yeah POS revamp would be nice, but you dont want it to be an outpost, better security options would be nice, like hangers in the maint array for instence |
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
871
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 13:01:00 -
[111] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:POS - Player Owned Station. .. When will it REALLY be player owned and controlled, as opposed to corp owned/controlled? Also, a corp of 1-5 characters (being alts anyway) is really just a person working under the guise of a corp, because the pos mechanics won't let it be player owned.
Has CCP committed to any specific points of pos mechanics improvements? Do they understand the needs of wormholers regarding poses? Lastly, CCP, you should consider making wormholes sov space. Why not?
(lolrp reason) You need to be in a capsuleer-run corporation to anchor the towers, because the NPC mega-corps have already exhausted their licensing with the faction claiming sovereignty over that space. As capsuleers fall under the jurisdiction of CONCORD, rather than any one of the four empires, they are extended rights by those sovereign factions to anchor their own starbases at moons between the 0.7 and 0.5 CONCORD security bands. For systems of CONCORD security of 0.4 to 0.1, there simply aren't enough navy officials to police structured anchored by capsuleers.
(/lolrp reason).
Seriously though, being able to anchor a tower in a NPC corporation would be bad, since the owner could never get dec'd. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 22:42:00 -
[112] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Andy Landen wrote:POS - Player Owned Station. .. When will it REALLY be player owned and controlled, as opposed to corp owned/controlled? Also, a corp of 1-5 characters (being alts anyway) is really just a person working under the guise of a corp, because the pos mechanics won't let it be player owned.
Has CCP committed to any specific points of pos mechanics improvements? Do they understand the needs of wormholers regarding poses? Lastly, CCP, you should consider making wormholes sov space. Why not? ... Seriously though, being able to anchor a tower in a NPC corporation would be bad, since the owner could never get dec'd.
So? War-decs only matter to pos's in high sec anyway, so..
And if I want to be in a player corporation, a player owned station could be owned by the player anchoring it for self. The corp directors couldn't mess with its security, operations, set-up, contents, etc. If the player changed corp, the pos would still be his. He did pay for it and everything anchored with it. He did spend all of the time anchoring, onlining, and fueling it. He did pay for everything that he put into it, including bpos/bpcs, materials, ships, modules, and everything that the pos produces.
Other proposals: Pos towers which are offline for a certain period of time become (or can be) unanchored and can be scooped. No sense in offline, anchored pos's cluttering space for years, as is common in w-space. Pos may be configured to issue keys based on standings or on a pre-set list of authorized pilots to be used in conjunction with a password to set the ship's shield harmonics to enter the pos. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 01:43:00 -
[113] - Quote
Also, allow the pos owner to group batteries together so that they lock and attack the same target together. Make the ECM batteries prefer ships which match their primary jamming type.
Either remove CPU for missiles, or give CPU requirements (even just 1) to all other turret batteries. Not that such a change won't prevent fleets from simply putting all batteries into incap anyway, but no sense bringing undue bias against Caldari weapons systems. We don't see missile launchers going offline when the ship's shields are depleted ..
Add a new pos module (outside pos) for trading which registers goods on the market.
Remove sov requirements for anchoring any pos module.
Give wspace moons valuable stuff to mine with pos's. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
133
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 05:10:00 -
[114] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:So? War-decs only matter to pos's in high sec anyway, so.. Yeah but it's pretty important.
No structure that can be anchored in highsec should be anchorable by any entity that is immune to wardecks and always has concord protection.
Basically these structures would go up but there would be no way to take them down because there would never be a way for people to shoot it down without getting Concorded.
letting individual people own a POS (or any anchorable structure) is a good idea. But if they every go into an NPC corp the POS can't come with them. |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 06:37:00 -
[115] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Also, allow the pos owner to group batteries together so that they lock and attack the same target together. Make the ECM batteries prefer ships which match their primary jamming type.
Either remove CPU for missiles, or give CPU requirements (even just 1) to all other turret batteries. Not that such a change won't prevent fleets from simply putting all batteries into incap anyway, but no sense bringing undue bias against Caldari weapons systems. We don't see missile launchers going offline when the ship's shields are depleted ..
Add a new pos module (outside pos) for trading which registers goods on the market.
Remove sov requirements for anchoring any pos module.
Give wspace moons valuable stuff to mine with pos's.
group pos batteries, yes missiles suck anyways intercorp trading (buy/sell) module is great, (also been suggested before)
no sov in wh so no ihub or tcu, cause how would you remove sov in a wh? where to put sbu?
valuable stuff other then sleepers? and grav sites with abc/m?
|
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 06:39:00 -
[116] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote: Yes! I can hit post too!
Alt corps. learn about them, use them, enjoy them |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1266
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:31:00 -
[117] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Somebody should bring this up at Fanfest and ask them directly about it, force their hand.
Would also be prudent for a Dev or two to chime into this thread once in a while and update us with new information if possible as to what changes are coming or if there are any changes to come at all.
The following part of the CCP Presents! keynote speech from Fanfest 2012 might be somehow related to this topic here. Don't miss to watch it!
CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
Flamespar
Woof Club
363
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 04:34:00 -
[118] - Quote
Each module of a POS should also have an interior space as well, so as you constuct the exterior, you are also constructing the interior.
CCP make it so! I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone. |
NoxiousPluK
Abyssal Frontier Jovian Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 07:44:00 -
[119] - Quote
Oh, good I see this now. I was working on an alike-idea last night, with modulair POS modules.
Like, a 'core' module with a docking bay, wich provides a small fuel bay, basic CPU/PG output, 3 POS structure mounting points and 4 mounting points for defensive structures.
Each module would have sites that could connect to eachother, thus making expanding a POS easy.
One would logically use a core module with a corp hangar and ship hangar module, then expand with a powerplant module that uses also fuelblocks per X time, but makes the PG/CPU output of the POS increase. Then a dedicated fuel bay to store some fuels, defensive structures, personal hangar array, repair facility, labs, etc...
Anyway, a basic painting of the thing (core + corp hangar array) that is far from being done (but after seeing this thread i dont need to work on it anymore):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11684856/EVE/Ideas/Modulair%20POS/Caldari_Core_Hub_Render_00001.jpg
On the right of the 'core hub' you can see a POS structure mounting point, with a corporate hangar array module (not finished painting this) attached to it. Both modules have mount points for defensive structures on top of them.
A lot of parts have not been done, and offcourse the texturing is also not there.
If you guys like, i could continue drawing this stuff, but i guess the OP already had a better idea :) dont want to steal that. |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
644
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:46:00 -
[120] - Quote
The idea that won't die even within those that never heared about it.
Carry on horse, carry on until we beat you right into orbit! - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
|
Morgan Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 11:16:00 -
[121] - Quote
+1 !!! |
NoxiousPluK
Abyssal Frontier Jovian Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 11:39:00 -
[122] - Quote
Does anyone still have the images from the OP?
Edit: nvm, they seem to work again.
Also see my post with an alike-system on the previous page. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:06:00 -
[123] - Quote
Wolodymyr wrote:Andy Landen wrote:So? War-decs only matter to pos's in high sec anyway, so.. Yeah but it's pretty important. No structure that can be anchored in highsec should be anchorable by any entity that is immune to wardecks and always has concord protection. Basically these structures would go up but there would be no way to take them down because there would never be a way for people to shoot it down without getting Concorded. letting individual people own a POS (or any anchorable structure) is a good idea. But if they every go into an NPC corp the POS can't come with them.
Then I propose that CCP allow people to wardec individuals when they are in NPC corps. Even a noob can join a player corp for protection. Or hire mercs to dec the dec'ers and rep the pos. |
Flamespar
Woof Club
364
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:36:00 -
[124] - Quote
Oh. And I also want a dead horse for my CQ I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone. |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 03:40:00 -
[125] - Quote
sooo.. where are we on this? |
Accki
Toxic State Terra Axiom
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 11:43:00 -
[126] - Quote
Bump back to the top,
Was it just me or did the Dev response on page 3 sound like he was taking the **** out of us?
more work, less talking/fanfests untill completed :) |
Skipper Auscent
Altus Ventures
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 23:42:00 -
[127] - Quote
these are cool ideas +1 |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
58
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 00:43:00 -
[128] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:sooo.. where are we on this?
The same place we have been since 2006: devs with their fingers in their ears saying 'We can't hear you, la la la "
I did however, work out a way that POS could be docked with, as a work around to the current issue of POS being non-permanent structures.
Basically the POS becomes two structures. The first structure, which is permanent, is the Concord claim marker, which is an asteroid that the POS is built on. The second, which is the POS tower, is the destructible portion. Once the tower is online, the player docks with the tower (in reality the asteroid) and begins configuring the POS. The individual modules appear on the surface of the asteroid, and as current are either online or offline.
Yes, this does mean that the POS guns, etc, are back inside the shield. However, when the POS is destroyed, all the items players have stored in their hangers there are jettisoned, meaning a larger possible payout in highsec, where players leaving major items in it is more likely. In 0.0 and lowsec, you have dreadnaughts, use them.
Players docked with a POS that is destroyed are launched in thier pods and warp out, and are untargetable if they are not logged in. (yes, this has possibilities for abuse, but they still have to log back in at some point. and may have a long way to go in their pods.)
The reduction in objects however means that lag around POS will be reduced, and also allows that new POS moduals could be created.
Example:
Drone Hive: Proportionate bonus to the drones compared to other POS weapons. Lower power, higher CPU compared to same sized missile battery)
Small: five medium drones. Medium: Five Large drones Large: Five Fighters (yes, that means if you warp out, they chase your ass)
Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomine Tua Da Na Glorium |
xCabalx
Eve Engineering Finance Eve Engineering
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 02:59:00 -
[129] - Quote
Connecting modules to each other (reminds me a bit of X-COM) would be a nice and better sight for every eye in EVE! +1+ |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 13:56:00 -
[130] - Quote
Ship hangar array should work like station ship hangar. Each player sees the ships that they docked with and have access to nothing else. Unless they transfer that ship to the public section. POS control should completely rest with the pos owner, which initially is the player that anchored the pos. That player can transfer control/pos ownership to another player. The pos owner would have access to all ships, of course. Same with the corp hangar array. All pos modules come together to act like a station with the player docked to it in their CQ managing their own assets and jobs. |
|
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:23:00 -
[131] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Ship hangar array should work like station ship hangar. Each player sees the ships that they docked with and have access to nothing else. Unless they transfer that ship to the public section. POS control should completely rest with the pos owner, which initially is the player that anchored the pos. That player can transfer control/pos ownership to another player. The pos owner would have access to all ships, of course. Same with the corp hangar array. All pos modules come together to act like a station with the player docked to it in their CQ managing their own assets and jobs.
I can only guess you mean Corp CEO when you say "owner", and mean people with the correct roles to transfer and move things between hangers.
oh btw bump. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Ships to goo calc - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=107898 |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 22:22:00 -
[132] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Ship hangar array should work like station ship hangar. Each player sees the ships that they docked with and have access to nothing else. Unless they transfer that ship to the public section. POS control should completely rest with the pos owner, which initially is the player that anchored the pos. That player can transfer control/pos ownership to another player. The pos owner would have access to all ships, of course. Same with the corp hangar array. All pos modules come together to act like a station with the player docked to it in their CQ managing their own assets and jobs. I can only guess you mean Corp CEO when you say "owner", and mean people with the correct roles to transfer and move things between hangers. oh btw bump.
If the pos was anchored for the corp, then yes. I am asking CCP to allow the pos to be anchorable for the individual as well, so that the owner would be the player that anchored the pos, or whoever he transferred ownership to. I would not allow roles for transferring ships between hangars, but if someone has the role to offline the ship maintenance array and unanchor it, then all ships would pop out and be accessible by anyone in the pos, of course. So, on second thought, even allowing the pos owner to move ships out of personal areas of the hangar is a bad idea. So by access and control, I guess what I really mean is view only, or unanchor first and then have access, and control. But if players put their ships in the corp area of the array, then anyone can access and control them.
Might add in something about pos charters for high sec only being given to players anchoring for a player corp. |
NuclearSunset
TooLEGIT.
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 08:21:00 -
[133] - Quote
+1 |
Clara Xavier
Orion's Fist Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 19:15:00 -
[134] - Quote
Yes. I am 100% ready to be flamed out of the forums. Bring it girls!
So eveyone says "OMG POS's are terrible and need to be revamped, etc... etc...". I have an option that I think would really make a lot of people very happy.
1. New POS Modules:
Personal Hangar Array (Lower CPU, Powergrid than Corporate Hangar Array, Lower storage and not tabbed based on corporation) Personal Ship Maintenance Bay (Lower Powergrid than Ship Maintenance Bay, Lower storage, maybe take away the fitting option aka require a regular SMA for ship refits)
2. Access Control Lists.
This is partially implented in theory. If you access the management window of a POS you can go to the Structures tab then the Access tab and you can set Corporation Roles that have 3 basic functions for using a POS mod. Those include: View, Take, Use. My main issue with this is that they are tied to corporation roles. This creates major security issues if you want to lock down how ships or resources are stored or used because it because a corporation wide item (with the exception of tabs within a CHA.
Currently the only way to bypass this is strictly control Config Starbase roles in a corporation and setup a unique POS per access group (or person) and give them there own tower with a password only they know.
So If I have your interest I will explain a little farther. In the computer world we have these things called access lists. Access lists are populated with a unique ID that represents a user or group in a system or directory (AD, LDAP, local users/groups). Why not take that system and adapt it how corporation roles are allocated (like titles almost currently) and how functions of a tower are controlled.
Ok that was a lot. Let's look at this piece by piece. Let's go back to our tower and under the Access tab. Imagine instead of having the basic options of Config Starbase, Starbase Fueling, Alliance, and Corporation you could go one step further and specify a list of groups or corporation members to have that function? OMG that would be great right. I would also like a little UI redesign so you could specify more than 1 user or group per View, Take, Use role. This would allow a high degree of granularity if necessary or still give the blanket option that a CEO could have a Directors or Everyone group that he just drops in to allow more generic access to something.
3. Ok so what does that have to do with #1 and new POS modules again ...
So we implement some stuff that can use less grid (aka therefore a few of them per small tower). And each wormholer or remote system liver can be given permissions to his one little piece of storage that is sizeable enough to actually make life decent along with the piece of mind that his **** won't go walking off to any random person in the corporation with no logging.
4. O s**t he said "logging"
Wouldn't it be great to have logging on POS modules if you wanted. CCP says o well don't risk what you can't lose. This is 2012 and your users are intelligent. You can implement systems that keeps say the last 24 or 48 hours of access to a POS module. Make it an option that has to be explcitly turned on for all I care but give us the option. Purge the data without a backup after the said small window as well. At least give leadership a leg to stand on when trying to identify a thief.
5. Some Minor Adjustments.
A. You are able to refine items in refining arrays.
This would allow trash loot to be refined in a POS and provide those few alternate minerals a remote corporation might need to produce replacement ammunition or drones without relying on mining alone. (I'm neither for or against adjusting the refinement amount. Personally I think with max skills you should get at most 80% in a POS and 100% of ice).
B. Allow the production of all types of everything in a POS
In particular I only know of not being able to build POS mods in a POS. This would greatly help a corporation or small group of players getting themselves established in any space. It's easy to sneak a BPC around. It's not so easy trying to sneak 20 medium gun batteries, 2 warp disruptor batteries, 2 stasis web batteries around. If there is any other things you can't produce in a tower fix it so you can. That is the only one I now of right now.
C. Allow POS services to be rented out easier.
Tie production and research modules to the new Personal Hangar Array and also allow research to be started from a persons local hangar. This would secure blueprints to a person. It also would allow corporations to have a unique tax on research or production services that may not otherwise be available. This would be amazing across the board. Imagine if you could have a research POS that instantly can be rented out to pubbies in high-sec looking for a slot. You set the price. If they're willing to pay for it so be it otherwise they wait for a slot to become available. In 0.0 - lowsec it simply allows a player to accomplish something they would already be able to do but with theft security that normally requires a lot of layers to effectively protect against. All in all if you have a director level spy I think it should still be able to access stuff like this via changing a tower password, cancelling the job and taking from the array or the corp hangar ins station or however you would have secured it before.
D. Can T3's refit in POS's yet? I'm not in a position to test this at the moment.
6. Final and mostly un-related gripe. Take sov mechanics away from Starbase Config and give them new roles.
In Closing ...
All in all I don't think a complete POS replacement is necessary just a major dose of TLC. I also do not think that you need to implement some nature of psedo outpost that needs to be probed down by hostiles. POS's are annoying enough for an alliance of any size to bash and they are relatively easy to setup and affordable to run even the most remote of systems. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 19:21:00 -
[135] - Quote
There have been many many threads on this topic I don't think we need another. Plus CSM has said CCP has what they want to do in mind and ask speculation be kept to a minimum, and comment when the prototype data is presented. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1909550#post1909550 Drone Improvement Ideas |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
390
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 19:25:00 -
[136] - Quote
Please use any of the 5+ other POS revamp threads to propose your idea. Your proposal will still be out there for evaluation and we can keep the boards clutter free for any other ideas other players have. Starting a new thread for something that's already so well discussed serves very little purpose, unfortunately.
Thread locked for redundancy. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Lieutenant Community Communication Liasions (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
2198
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 20:13:00 -
[137] - Quote
Thread was automatically locked for inactivity and now has been unlocked again. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
155
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 22:12:00 -
[138] - Quote
I have written some things rellated to the new POS system, maybe a good place to harvest some Ideas. Please take a look!
[Discussion] - New POS System (Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) [Discussion] - New POS System (Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) |
Souisa
WESCORP 2.0
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 04:32:00 -
[139] - Quote
This suggestion was 6 years ago. And it was a damn good one. Nothing has really changed since tho. What the hell are CCP doing? ... |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 18:42:00 -
[140] - Quote
To start with they should just sticky this, or better yet find the original and sticky that. A lot of good thought went into this, and i dont think I've ever seen an idea with more universal support from freaking everybody. |
|
Bael Gar
Russian SOBR SOLAR FLEET
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 22:43:00 -
[141] - Quote
Too long without posting |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 12:24:00 -
[142] - Quote
I love this. So much better than the current system.
I know that CCP are talking about having POS's that can be made to look like anyhting, but IMO that will just end up with a load of giant dicks in space. Look at spore!
Awesome sauce to the OP +1 |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
56
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 17:43:00 -
[143] - Quote
Upcoming changes with Retribution expansion are good, but that kind of changes to POS would be amazing ! *Yelling "Manticooore !" on teamspeak* |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
51
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 23:16:00 -
[144] - Quote
bump hurry the f up CCP |
Beta Miner
COBRA Logistics Outer-Haven
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 00:17:00 -
[145] - Quote
+1 |
Dreadful Bride
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 22:45:00 -
[146] - Quote
After doing searches for what people would like from the POS revamp I decided to put in what i would like rather than spending weeks going through it all. So here is what I like from what I`ve read and what if come up with.
Existing Modules
Control Towers to be Power Cores that supply PG/CPU and have fuel and stront bays that stack without penalty. Armor will stack without penulty but shields will have a stacking penalty. Each Core will use fuel depending on size and 1 charter per hour in hisec. You can dock or anchor once at least 1 core is online which will be like docking in an NPC station and allows access to station functions. POS modules can be linked to the tower but not onlined if more than a set number of links away from a Core. I like the idea of limiting deep space POSes to Small or Medium at most or any combination like 2 Smalls = 1 Medium anything larger than that will have to be anchored at a moon.
Ship Maintainence Array allows ship switching only if there is enough space to store the ship you are leaving. The storage space will be a Corp Ship hanger that will only be acessable if you are granted the correct roles the storage will stack without penalty. The array will be reuired to switch subsytems on T3 ships.
Corp Hanger Array will stack without penalty and still work the same way it is now.
Maufacturing/Science Arrays will add slots for what they allow to be built and their storage will add to the Corp Hanger for the station without penalty. I would like a POS to offer repeating production/copy/invention jobs if the materials are there to support it. Each Slot can be set to allow Corp Member, Corp, Alliance or Public access with varying charges Corp Member access is for private jobs by the corp members and allows corps to charge its members for private jobs.
Refining Array could use a few changes for Anchoring in hisec then each array will require 1 Charter per hour for 0.5 2 for 0.6 and 3 for 0.7. For the refining amount I would suggest a new skill that has high requirements and a high price tag it would only be as effective as an NPC station at level 5. I would keep the time for the refining to be finished but possibly have 2 or 3 refineing lines this means for a hisec pos you would need 2 or 3 arrays to be able to feed production lines.
Moon Mining I have not done Moon Mining so the only suggestion i can think of is converting the silos, transfer arrays etc into a Materials Warehouse where the storage capacity stacks without penalty.
POS Weapons/Ewar I think that a weapons control array would help here where you can control limited groups of identical weapons or ewar. For each level of starbase defence you can control 1 array if there is no one controlling the weapons then they behave in their current random manner. Each weapon controlled by an array must have identical ammo type and amount. the control array has to be within a number of links from a core but the weapons can be placed as they are now to cover a range of defence. When a pilot activates an array they are shown an outside wiew of the station. I`m unsure wether these should work as a group or have the choice of single weapons.
New Modules
Member Hanger Array is a stackable hanger for member usage with an option for lockout by someone granted the proper roles if someone is hogging all the space this will allow them to remove but not place items in their hanger.
Ship Repair/Module Repair Arrays these arrays allow access to repair functions similar to NPC stations. These modules should have a high PG/CPU cost so that running them will either force the powering off of other arrays or onlining another core.
Medical Facility Array will allow clone facilities probably best to have this lowsec and below or have a charter cost like the refining array. If the array should go offline then any stored jump clones will be lost and Medical Clones moved to the nearest NPC station.
Targetting Array each POS should have a limited targetting ability these arrays are to increase the number of targets a pos can aquire up to the pilots maximum and the targets are pooled between the controlling pilots.
Logistics Arrays can provide support to pilots that are not docked or anchored. These modules should be similar to capital modules and each one counts towars a pilots Starbase defence limit and the towers targetting ability.
Alliance Array will provide access to alliance members and limited access to POS services depending on how the access is set up. Each array will have a small hanger similar to the Member Hanger.
Open Array is like an Alliance Array but for members of the public.
Starbase Jump Drive has been suggested but i see it only being outside of highsec for a single powercore POS the cycle starts by pulling in any weapons or other external modules.
Starbase Destruction
Should the starbase defences and armor be overcome then the modules will become acessable through starbase hacking something that will require a new skill and a new high slot hacking module I see similarities to how the ice miner works cycle wise. You will need to hack each module to see what has been dropped in it with ship arrays holding random ships, corp arrays with corp property and personal with pilot property for the hacking purpose manufacturing and science arrays are treated as corp arrays |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
219
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 02:12:00 -
[147] - Quote
Dreadful Bride wrote:After doing searches for what people would like from the POS revamp I decided to put in what i would like rather than spending weeks going through it all. So here is what I like from what I`ve read and what if come up with.
Most of the community is willing the same thing.... And most of it is in the last CSM minnutes and the last CSM letter to CCP... Take a look at this tread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=143764&find=unread Please read this! > New POS system ( Block Built - Starbasecraft) Please read this! >-á[Debate] - ISK SINK |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
64
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 07:28:00 -
[148] - Quote
Did I mention that I want Player Owned Starbases? I mean it, I want Player Owned Starbases. Literally, make them Player Owned. For Corp Owned Starbases (COSs), we already have stations. And let wormholers have their own COS's (stations). Since stations are tied to the next issue of sovereignty, let's get into that a little too.
Let wormholers have sovereignty AND stations (COSs) too, already. What else are they going to do with sov (besides feeling a sense of ownership in their unknown system)? Build supers? Fine, let them. The supers will never make it back into known-space and the wormholes will have an ISK sink and will be very happy to sink their ISK there. Make the wormholers happy; why not? Worried about increased challenges to wormhole invasion (as if that is really a big deal ..), then fine, add a wormhole stabilizer module for the command ship. More toys for wormholers, I say.
Since POSs have defenses, it makes sense that players should manage CPU and PG with stations, I mean COSs, in building defenses and other structures. The time required to take a POS should probably be similar to the COS, AND the ability to take the POS instead of destroying it should follow the mechanics established by the station/COS.
Lastly, allow COSs in sov space to be anchored at stargates, planets, and asteroid belts for basic defense, logistics, and other roles. The corporations did after all earn their sovereignty over that space so they ought to be able to defend key parts of those systems as desired. Remember, every defense structure is not just a deterrent to smaller groups, but also a target for larger groups. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Guild of the Faceless Men
53
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 02:46:00 -
[149] - Quote
bump because CCP cannot let this go auto lock. which i am sure they would love to happen |
Infernatil
Gravity Core
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 05:20:00 -
[150] - Quote
BUMP,
Keep it alive people |
|
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? |
|
Dacryphile
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:01:00 -
[181] - Quote
+1 flogg |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 23:32:00 -
[182] - Quote
The Pos should be modular capital ship-like structures, player owned, complete with cyno drive, and without limitations on where it can be. If 10 pos could be cyno'd to a system, they could really make a dynamic universe. The station fills the role of a stationary corp controlled base, while the pos is mobile and player controlled. The easiest part is making the pos player anchorable and controlled already.
The pos rework should be really easy: Just make the towers into new capital-type ships which do not have to have pilots in them and stay on grid when pilots sign out, and translate the pos arrays into fitable modules. |
Chaotic Mind
Rennfeuer Curatores Veritatis Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:34:00 -
[183] - Quote
The horse shall be flogged |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
355
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 14:43:00 -
[184] - Quote
Flogged the horse shall be. Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
183
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:08:00 -
[185] - Quote
flogging the horse more cause it seems to just be the thing to do thses days. |
evilliun
Exploring Eagles
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 21:43:00 -
[186] - Quote
Abso-floggin'-lutely. Beat the dead pile of rotten organic matter back to life again. Flog it until someone realizes that the small part of the community isn't as small as they would like to believe.
And, no, it won't be fixed if one complex, awkward pos system is replaced with another. Follow the Eve ship fitting model and make the pos work for the community so that we all want to use it. Make the pos relevant to Eve, useful to the players, and mobile. |
joshua mckayne
Laststar Industries Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 09:58:00 -
[187] - Quote
+1 flogging the dead horse |
Stegas Tyrano
GLU CANU Open Space Consultancy
202
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:23:00 -
[188] - Quote
The dead horse has long ago rotted and disintegrated into particles. These particles were then absorbed by plants such as grass, which were then eaten by yet another horse. This new horse has also died, and we are flogging this one.
+1....again...maybe... [PROPOSAL] INGAME ADVERTS FOR PLAYERS |
Cari Cullejen
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc. Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers
18
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 06:02:00 -
[189] - Quote
This GOING to happen, we just need to bug CCP to make it happen faster! In love with CCP Sunset, and maybe-áCCP t0rfifrans :3 |
Thorian Crystal
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
7
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 18:13:00 -
[190] - Quote
Yes, please.
Problem is though, that if I need to make my own corp just to have a POS, it wouldn't be that easy after all. The POSes seem to be modular even now, just not interconnected modules. But I need my own corp... |
|
Omendor
Cult of the Fluffy Bunny
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 20:27:00 -
[191] - Quote
+1 |
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
49
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 23:45:00 -
[192] - Quote
I like it a lot and for the role of a POS.....they should offer better quality services and faster then busy stations can offer. It always bothered me that you have instant and perfect refine at stations and that dedicated hard to fit, costly POS structures are slow and inefficient. The same logic should be applied to everything else industrial a POS does really, which make them something worth going for combat wise!
And please do not restrict to 0.0 only, give POS real pervasive role! |
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
49
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 23:47:00 -
[193] - Quote
Thorian Crystal wrote:Yes, please.
Problem is though, that if I need to make my own corp just to have a POS, it wouldn't be that easy after all. The POSes seem to be modular even now, just not interconnected modules. But I need my own corp...
In other words, the POSes are kind of not POSes at the moment but COSes (corporate owned stations), even though players own corps, but still. To have a real POS (player owned station) the station would have to be personal. After that you could still grant accesses to individual players and or corps and or standings etc...
Agreed, and it would also be nice to offer public services...for that however we might need to have the option for shields like stations and ships use...instead of a large bubble! |
Amyclas Amatin
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 02:56:00 -
[194] - Quote
As long as we get to burn or loot everything on POS destruction...
Indestructible outposts are something like a bad joke from a realism perspective. In EVE, everything player-made must be player-destroyable!
Otherwise, any plans to expand on POSes are most welcome. |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
88
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 22:22:00 -
[195] - Quote
Anyone heard any commitment from CCP on fixing this THE WAY WE WANT? I have already let one subscription expire, and I am losing patience with the other two. I am sure many players have either crossed that bridge or are approaching it. We need a solid time/date commitment or it will continue to be put off indefinitely.. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1231
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 16:53:00 -
[196] - Quote
No new news that I've heard of. Basically, back in December CCP said "it's too hard to revamp".
I'm still kind of hopeful that we'll see some low-hanging fruit harvested for the summer expansion, otherwise I'm going to let half a dozen accounts lapse in disgust. It's not like there aren't (probably) simple things that could be done to address the glaring weaknesses and issues in the current system:
- Remove the need of granting the Factory Manager role to people in order for them to make use of the POS labs/arrays. Instead, allow us to grant usage of the labs based on the 14 "titles" in the Corp UI. That would mean that players could no longer cancel other players jobs easily and would make running a "research" division much easier. Which might improve the particulars of null-sec industry.
- Change how job cancellation works. If a job gets cancelled partway through, you should get as much progress as was made on the job within that time. In the case of BPO research, the number of ME/PE points accumulated by that point in time, rounded down. Plus a refund of any unspent per-hour fees. The main reason for this is to open the door for allowing player-owned towers to provide public research. If the customers are assured of at least getting partial credit on their jobs instead of all or nothing, then there's less potential for outright griefing and theft of the fees. Fees should be placed into an escrow and then paid out to the tower owner every N hours (whenever the job gains a new level of ME/PE or output).
- It should be possible to do copy jobs using alliance POS towers, have the copies delivered to the location of the BPO.
- Fix CHAs to allow containers to be fully used (withdrawing of contents, not just deposit boxes). They got the job halfway done last December, since we can now deposit into containers, how about fixing the other half?
- Add audit entries for corporate hangars / SMAs so you can see who took/deposited what.
- Fix CHAs to allow items to be repackaged.
- Add corporate tabs to the SMAs.
- Fix SMAs and T3 ship reconfiguration.
- Re-introduce the faction towers as BPC drops from exploration / loot / pirate faction stores. Make their recipes rely on taking an existing tower and then adding existing resources to it. Those resources needed should be a mix of moon-goo, PI products, gas mining, ores and salvage. Use it as a chance to slightly increase demand for the resources that nobody seems to want.
- Give us an XL and XXL tower size option, which can only be anchored in low/null. Fuel consumption / PG / CPU / etc should be 2x and 4x that of the existing large tower.
- Add smaller SMA, which is about 1/4 the existing SMA size and lighter on PG/CPU usage.
- Add smaller CHA that is competitive with the CAA on size / PG / CPU usage.
- Add larger CHA variants (4M m3 and 10M m3) which are competitive with the LSAA on size vs PG/CPU usage.
- Add a "personal CHA" where players can rent slots like lockers of a size about 25-50k m3/slot. If they don't pay every 30 days, it gets locked and only someone with roles can access the contents. Make it a limited number of slots such as 25 or 50 slots.
- Change towers so that they unanchor if not fueled, but give owners the option to mothball towers where they only consume 10% of the normal fuel blocks per hour (but still consume charters at full rate). If you want to keep a tower at a moon, then you should need to fuel it regularly. At 10% rate, that means mothballed towers could run for 10 months or so, which is not that bad. Increase the warning time on tower fueling to 7-days instead of 1-day, with notifications starting as soon as 7-days prior to "out of fuel", but decrease interval to be only every 6 or 12 hours on the warning mails.
- Do something about gas silo mechanics, not sure what.
- Allow "alliance" CHAs / SMAs to be anchored at the tower, which would let 2 corps in an alliance share tower facilities.
- Allow lab/array fees to be paid out of a personal wallet.
|
Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 17:13:00 -
[197] - Quote
Do it. |
Deornoth Drake
tipiwhenua tuarangi
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:54:00 -
[198] - Quote
Check out some ideas of that thread
How to improve a nomadic lifestyle |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
353
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 06:42:00 -
[199] - Quote
How much more flogging can this horse take? MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
He dares
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 13:19:00 -
[200] - Quote
The only time ill ever +1 for thread necromancy |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1658
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 19:51:00 -
[201] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:How much more flogging can this horse take? Eight on its side. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Bud Austrene
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 21:25:00 -
[202] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Thread was automatically locked for inactivity and now has been unlocked again.
Surely, this could mean the horse might not be dead. Yes I am an alt. I see no reason to make it easy for bullies and greifers |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 01:27:00 -
[203] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote:Updated POS by Evilgrivion, basicly the sum of the parts of the years of discussion: Here it is: [EDIT]: I remember that In another iteration everything of the POS was placed on the bottom as low as possible to allow for more movement of ships and capitals without being bumped by everything. But this summary should do: Evelgrivion wrote:[edit]Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/11/2009 14:37:42[/edit] For the past three years, there has been a tremendous show of support for the old GÇ£Flogging the Dead HorseGÇ¥ post regarding a proposed re-design of the Player Owned Structure system. The two biggest reasons for support are that players hate what they look like GÇô a bunch of scrap floating in space, and they hate the interfaces that are used to interact with them on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. Enter the Modular StarbaseAesthetically, people want to see an end to the era of junk floating inside and in the immediate vicinity of force field bubbles. A series of geometrically interconnected structures, such as squares or hexagons, make up the design of the proposed replacement system. The abilities of the facility are enhanced with each newly attached component. Weapons would be placed on extensions to the top and bottom or even the sides of the tower, emerging from the force field. These weapons systems would remain vulnerable to attack like they are today.
I like this idea quite a lot. I've lived in a wormhole for over 2 years, and the most annoying thing about it is the POS system. I've heard that the pos bubble is a particularly nasty piece of code and CCP really wants to get rid of it, but living in a wh, it's something that I find is actually essential. Being able to do things as beneign as fleet alaign, look at our ships (orbiting the pos with a MWD is our version of ship spinning), bump each other when bored, and look at our ship and the space that we live in is something that I see as tied to living in a WH.
Living in a wh, information is the single most important thing, and the current pos setup (read: seeing ships in the bubble and not being able to dock) is great for gathering information. I'd hate to see the day when docking games enter into WH life. I love the modularity of this idea, and hopefully the modularity will help with pos security and role dilineation. A pos upgrade would probably be the single biggest thing you could do to improve WH life. I think pos thefts should be a result of weaseling your way into a corp and getting roles, not because we have to lump access to things together like some mutilated tool.
Also, fuel use based on the # of modules would be great too. |
Cealis Naarker
Explorers Incorporated
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 11:09:00 -
[204] - Quote
Please make this come true!
Pretty please, with sugar on top, revamp the [redacted] POS-system! |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 12:18:00 -
[205] - Quote
"Soundwave commented, the POS system itself would only affect a small portion of the community..." from the CSM minutes. I'd like to check into this thread stating this small portion of the community for more years than I've been playing is still waiting Soundwave. The POS system affects anyone who lives in WH's, Null, and anyone who likes the idea of doing industry. You should really consider that more people are affected by POS's than I believe your metrics to indicate.
I'm a newish character, living in Null, and I support POS changes for everyone. |
Banana1x
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 02:09:00 -
[206] - Quote
Just came across this. Such a clever and expansive idea.
+1 |
Carniflex
StarHunt
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 14:39:00 -
[207] - Quote
I remember supporting this thread back in 2006 (post 97 in the original thread and many many after that) up through years thereafter in the old forums. When the old forums went down it was the single thread I regretted most of losing.
It has been close to 7 years now, CCP. Perhaps it would be a time to let the poor hore rest a bit? eh ? So coould you please take, for example, the group working on walking in stations and put em to work on this thing until its done. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
507
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 16:39:00 -
[208] - Quote
Since the concept of "anchor anywhere" has been broached, what would appropriate anchoring rules be for these beasties? http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1672
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 17:19:00 -
[209] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:Since the concept of "anchor anywhere" has been broached, what would appropriate anchoring rules be for these beasties? 1) Not near an NPC station or stargate, say at least 1000 km away. 2) Some other keep out distances from moons, customs offices and planets. 3) Not to near each other 4) Only the smaller sizes in high sec, (up to about a large POS) and the largest size can only be in player held space. 5) The current standing based requirement is a pain. You essentially buy a corp with the standings, put up the structure, then invite your members. If you want to do another structure, you kick everyone but a no-standings CEO and a "shill" member who has standings. This sort of meta-gaming is not nourishing game play. I propose you just pay a one time anchoring fee to the NPCs, maybe reduce-able with standings. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
507
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 18:17:00 -
[210] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: 1) Not near an NPC station or stargate, say at least 1000 km away. 2) Some other keep out distances from moons, customs offices and planets. 3) Not to near each other
One of the CCP devs mentioned a vision of effectively "villages" of these. That implies a clearance of some tens of km but not more than that.
Combined with some heavy grid-fu that could lead to some interesting (and possibly server-breaking) results.
Vincent Athena wrote: 4) Only the smaller sizes in high sec, (up to about a large POS) and the largest size can only be in player held space. 5) The current standing based requirement is a pain. You essentially buy a corp with the standings, put up the structure, then invite your members. If you want to do another structure, you kick everyone but a no-standings CEO and a "shill" member who has standings. This sort of meta-gaming is not nourishing game play. I propose you just pay a one time anchoring fee to the NPCs, maybe reduce-able with standings.
The standing based requirement is a pain, but it does put a rather effective brake on planting POSes in 0.7 systems since the normal procedure is to only have one cycle of tower planting for a corp due to the immense pain involved in replanting. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 22:46:00 -
[211] - Quote
+1 for the dead horse/POS |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
288
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 01:59:00 -
[212] - Quote
I'm definately not one to let a good horse flogging pass me by so here's my +1
Despite my concerns over moving high-sec industry to player-owned structures, I too am fascinated by the idea of the modular POS. In fact, I think maybe interlocking several of these together could become the future of starbases. There would have to be a set number able to be added to a single structure, (or would they?) but in a modular system we are only limited by our own imagination. Instead of a single modular POS, if a corp attached all their anchor-anywhere POS's together, players could build modular cities. And that intrigues me. Does the future hold player-run casinos, brothels, and merchant shops? Under the current system, it's not really feasible as your investment can be taken down by just about anyone. The average high sec resident may wonder who wants to live permanently in a POS if you can lose all your stuff at any time? But if multiple POS's were anchored together in a giant space cityscape, amplifying their ehp, and thus their relative safety, the idea moves into the realm of possibility. I think even risk-averse industialists would be more likely to inhabit such a dwelling. And just imagine shopping at a massive player-built city anchored above a red giant star. If WiS ever becomes reality, would you dock in that city - spending all your isk on poker, booze and hookers? Or dock there to assassinate someone else who is playing poker with a hooker? Fun ideas to play with ffs. But if this were made reality, I'd like to see cities able to be attacked without warning in exchange for their massive ehp.
Attention citizens! Evacutate New Mos Eisley! This is not a drill.
Sounds like fun.
YK
Oh, and I totally enjoyed the shield impact effects and flaming ship demonstration in the link provided by CCP Phantom earlier in the thread. Very, very cool! "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Angelic Resolution
The Arcanum
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 13:53:00 -
[213] - Quote
Bump!
+1 for POStarbase/Outpost Industry to rival/be on par with Stations.
Labs are better, why not refineries etc? |
KiithSoban
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 16:03:00 -
[214] - Quote
+1 |
Metellus Titurius
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 16:14:00 -
[215] - Quote
Angelic Resolution wrote:Bump!
+1 for POStarbase/Outpost Industry to rival/be on par with Stations.
Labs are better, why not refineries etc?
Because cost. That's why. Stations eggs are billions and billions of isk to purchase, not to mention you need to titan bridge a freighter out to where you need to deliver it just to set it up (without the staggering amount of risk of jumping a station egg through gates in null sec). POS's are meant to be small outposts not something that makes stations irrelevant.
The modular idea definitely gets a +1 but all this nonsense on making the POS's as good as stations is ridiculous. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
607
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 17:51:00 -
[216] - Quote
okay .. deleted .. seems i can't read today. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:14:00 -
[217] - Quote
CSM candidates are out and looking for votes. The only CSM candidate who campaigned on fixing the POS is Nicholas Becker. http://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=1212008
Unless I missed something, it seems voting for Nicholas Becker is the best candidate we can endorse to get the pos issue resolved before I get too old for this.
If anyone else sees another candidate making promises about pushing the pos issue, please feel free to add them, but until then, I am behind CSM candidate Nicholas Becker. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
727
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:18:00 -
[218] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:CSM candidates are out and looking for votes. The only CSM candidate who campaigned on fixing the POS is Nicholas Becker. http://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=1212008Unless I missed something, it seems voting for Nicholas Becker is the best candidate we can endorse to get the pos issue resolved before I get too old for this. If anyone else sees another candidate making promises about pushing the pos issue, please feel free to add them, but until then, I am behind CSM candidate Nicholas Becker. Or you can just wait till this winter when the POS changes will be taking place. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:27:00 -
[219] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Andy Landen wrote:CSM candidates are out and looking for votes. The only CSM candidate who campaigned on fixing the POS is Nicholas Becker. http://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=1212008Unless I missed something, it seems voting for Nicholas Becker is the best candidate we can endorse to get the pos issue resolved before I get too old for this. If anyone else sees another candidate making promises about pushing the pos issue, please feel free to add them, but until then, I am behind CSM candidate Nicholas Becker. Or you can just wait till this winter when the POS changes will be taking place.
Please link that article. They promised big changes last Spring (about March 2012) and here we are today with nothing but an uninformed comment (last December-ish) about few people caring about poses. |
Grigori Annunaki
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:36:00 -
[220] - Quote
As part of the Odyssey teaser page:
Quote:Continued development towards raising accessibility without removing functionality will bring dozens of changes to player-owned starbases, game UI and beyond. Looks like we'll be getting something this summer. Who knows how far it'll go to fix things, but I'm anxiously waiting for the first devblog. |
|
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:32:00 -
[221] - Quote
Odyssey teaser page:
Quote:.. will bring dozens of changes to player-owned starbases, game UI and beyond.
great. maybe we'll get fireworks and snowballs for poses too. a whoo hoo [circles finger up in the air] yeah. We need CSM pushing this! Vote Nicholas Becker |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
85
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:54:00 -
[222] - Quote
Remove the current pos size. Let separate modules add simply to pos running price. ( of course with some limitations) Why i cannot have one pos with (for example) 20 laboratories - that is consuming fuel like 10 normal poses that i need currently.
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:13:00 -
[223] - Quote
I still wonder. Why not apply the same principle, that was used for outpost structures, to POS? The loss of "visuals"? They can be emulated in multiple ways.
Anthar Thebess wrote:Remove the current pos size. Let separate modules add simply to pos running price. ( of course with some limitations) Why i cannot have one pos with (for example) 20 laboratories - that is consuming fuel like 10 normal poses that i need currently.
The answer is still the same: Logistical headache. And that's why the "different running price" was removed, when fuel blocks were introduced. |
mad gnu
Definitely not the Hot Drop The Gorgon Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:16:00 -
[224] - Quote
Awesome idea. Vote for it for all my accounts \0/ |
Verlaine Glariant
Amphysvena
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:33:00 -
[225] - Quote
Supported this idea more than 4 years ago. Supporting it again.
DO IT. www.amphysvena.org |
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:37:00 -
[226] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Remove the current pos size. Let separate modules add simply to pos running price. ( of course with some limitations) Why i cannot have one pos with (for example) 20 laboratories - that is consuming fuel like 10 normal poses that i need currently.
Sounds similar to the PI mechanics. Love the modularity, and adaptability. +1 |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
306
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 14:34:00 -
[227] - Quote
Oh hi again, are we still being ignored? Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Felsusguy
Bojo's School of the Trades
124
|
Posted - 2013.05.06 00:58:00 -
[228] - Quote
May this thread rise again!
If you didn't catch that pun, I am disappoint. How droll. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Last Resort.
454
|
Posted - 2013.05.06 02:16:00 -
[229] - Quote
not Odyssey but the next one!!!! "Build your empire" themed! Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
Felsusguy
Bojo's School of the Trades
125
|
Posted - 2013.05.06 02:25:00 -
[230] - Quote
Quick, someone get Hilmar Veigar P+¬tursson's e-mail address so we can spam him with complaints about the current status of starbases, With a link to all the modular starbase threads in existence! How droll. |
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Intrepid Crossing
80
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 10:06:00 -
[231] - Quote
How did this fall so deep ? It should be at the top of the features & ideas section!
Look guys - I have been in this thread since 2006 when it originally started (post 97 and onwards) - http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=391410 - and I will be here till I get that modular POS! So lets get it done rather sooner than later. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Felsusguy
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
132
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 01:05:00 -
[232] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:How did this fall so deep ? It should be at the top of the features & ideas section! Look guys - I have been in this thread since 2006 when it originally started (post 97 and onwards) - http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=391410 - and I will be here till I get that modular POS! So lets get it done rather sooner than later. Amen to that, my personal acquaintance. How droll. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Intrepid Crossing
81
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 12:59:00 -
[233] - Quote
This thread should be a lot higher than page 10. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Phobeus Primae
EVIL ONES
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 13:51:00 -
[234] - Quote
bump for an excellent idea |
Antangil
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 15:16:00 -
[235] - Quote
The flogging will continue until morale is improved. |
Mr VonBraun
Relativity Industrial
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 10:43:00 -
[236] - Quote
Consider the horse flogged |
Mr VonBraun
Relativity Industrial
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 10:46:00 -
[237] - Quote
Devs: If you do not implement this idea, we shall all wait outside your office every night and follow you home, and stand outside your house making sad, pathetic mutterings about the state of our POS towers..... |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
73
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 01:57:00 -
[238] - Quote
+1. I'm not a POS owner\user, I had one and sold it but I've seen the mess POS's look like when deployed all scattered and not really looking like a "Station" more of a "De-Cloak" site with all that clutter.
CCP get this done! It must be far easier with interlocking modules than having all those POS Modules floating around.
And also helping to keep this thread alive with a friendly bump back to Page 1! My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Jen Ann Tonique
University of Caille Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 03:02:00 -
[239] - Quote
I wish to flog this horse.
Jen Ann Tonique does not approve of this product and/or service. Any comments contained herin are to be taken not seriously and no person/s shall hold Jen Ann Tonique responsible for any damage real and/or imagined due to use or misuse of above comment. By reading this statement you agree to the above terms. |
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
365
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 03:14:00 -
[240] - Quote
Exhibits D and E have errors and are not loading.
Everyone should favorite this thread and bump it every day until someone from CCP stickies it. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |