EVE Search - [Issue] POS : Flogging the dead horse

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] POS : Flogging the dead horse - Reexamened

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Esiel Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.07 23:09:00 - [1] Edited by: Esiel on 07/01/2009 23:09:37 I know the topic was brought up but the answer was very unsatisfactory. We would like CCP to know we would really like this. Its too hard seemed a bit of a cop out when WHY was never even mentioned. We see all the stuff they have and are doing and know this should have been done along time ago. We respectfully disagree and feel that this should be done even if it is a bit hard. * * *
Carniflex Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:21:00 - [2] sounds reasonable
Doris Dragonbreath	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:22:00 - [3]
Vlad Wormwing	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:22:00 - [4]
Tuleingel	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:23:00 - [5]
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:44:00 - [6] together with a complete POS/SOV overhaul to actualy make it fun and not a 2nd job ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
BruisedMoon Amarr Power Seed Enterprises	Posted - 2009.01.08 20:39:00 - [7] Signed!
Bunyip	Posted - 2009.01.08 20:43:00 - [8] While it's not an official issue (and I did try to make it an issue in the CSM meetings), I do plan on asking CCP for a status update. We have lots of new eye candy, I think it's about time POSes were included in that.
Syberbolt8 Gallente Gen Tec Arcos Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.08 23:50:00 - [9] Originally by: Bunyip While it's not an official issue (and I did try to make it an issue in the CSM meetings), I do plan on asking CCP for a status update. We have lots of new eye candy, I think it's about time POSes were included in that. If you look back, this was taken to CCP once, this is the dead horse thread refered to in the first petition, however it does need to be taken back to ccp. Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Luzz Bightyear The PeacekeeperZ	Posted - 2009.01.09 05:29:00 - [10] Looking back at the issue with POS reactors, CCP could fix that and untold other bugs we don't yet know about by using this idea.

LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.01.09 06:35:00 - [11] Originally by: Luzz Bightyear Looking back at the issue with POS reactors, CCP could fix that and untold other bugs we don't yet know about by using this idea. A better concept doesn't help buggy code. It just introduces more bugs. As for this issue, I'm against it. We already talked to CCP about it and the answer was clear. If we raise it again, we will look like spoiled children who wont accept a no. While the concept is nice and all, I don't think we should risk the good relation between CSM and CCP by not respecting their answer.
Xiese	Posted - 2009.01.09 07:30:00 - [12] Edited by: Xiese on 09/01/2009 07:31:24 Originally by: LaVista Vista As for this issue, I'm against it. We already talked to CCP about it and the answer was clear. If we raise it again, we will look like spoiled children who wont accept a no. Why would we be spoiled children if we tell them, this is something we want even thou it will be hard. Also I read the minutes it went basically funny POS thing: Too hard Ok clarify "its too hard" what? why? If you aren't going to give us an answer that satisfies the customer then the customer has the right to ask for clarification. Or the customer can say, I know it will be hard but do it anyways. Neither of these things make you children, a child accepts the answer "Because I said so" an adult doesn't. Quote: While the concept is nice and all, I don't think we should risk the good relation between CSM and CCP by not respecting their answer. What you are saying is if CCP says no, we should roll over and never question it. What kind of adult relationship is that. Grow a backbone and do what the CSM was set up to do. Represent the Player Base.
CommanderData211	Posted - 2009.01.09 12:33:00 - [13] I agree with last post completely. "This is just too hard" should not be in CCP's vocabulary. Also, for a CSM, there should be no conflict of interest of trying to appeal to CCP. You are supposed to appeal to US. You represent US. The PLAYERS. We are not spoiled children (most of the EVE player base anyway). We PAY for this game. If that does not disqualify us for being spoiled I don't know what will.
Syberbolt8 Gen Tec Arcos Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.09 19:02:00 - [14] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Luzz Bightyear Looking back at the issue with POS reactors, CCP could fix that and untold other bugs we don't yet know about by using this idea. As for this issue, I'm against it. We already talked to CCP about it and the answer was clear. If we raise it again, we will look like spoiled children who wont accept a no. While the concept is nice and all, I don't think we should risk the good relation between CSM and CCP by not respecting their answer. TBH, they said no, we all know that, but it was called the funky pos thing, first off, which to me says it wasn't even really considered. 2nd, You guys even said you didn't really talk about it at either meeting, it somehow floped out of the first one and was never covered, and the 2nd meeting it wasn't even brought up, this to me, says CSM failed in there job the first round on representing this idea and it should be brought back to CCP, they should be made to talk about it, and if its no again, then give a real reason, not just a No its to hard. Just IMO but I would have thought you La Vista would have been interested in bringing this one back yourself. It doesn't make someone childish to want something really looked at or checked, if this is childish then man us over here in the us have a messed up political system. Cheers P.S. I support this idea 100% /signed Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Darth Shenron	Posted - 2009.01.09 22:58:00 - [15] Originally by: LaVista Vista As for this issue, I'm against it.REALLY. We already talked to CCP about it and the answer was clear. If we raise it again, we will look like spoiled children who wont accept a no. While the concept is nice and all, I don't think we should risk the good relation between CSM and CCP by not respecting their answer. But your relationship with the people who care(VOTERS) dosent matter then eh ??
Seth Ruin Ominous Corp Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.01.10 05:38:00 - [16] Originally by: LaVista Vista As for this issue, I'm against it. We already talked to CCP about it and the answer was clear. If we raise it again, we will look like spoiled children who wont accept a no. LaVista Vista: As much as I respect you for the work you've done for this community, I'll have to disagree with you here. It is such an overwhelmingly supported idea by the community, giving us a simple "No, we cannot do this" is unacceptable. We need a good reason why not. CCP's "Nope, can't do it" and "We'll look into it" answers are getting very tiresome...
Acrel makaveli Inc	Posted - 2009.01.10 12:57:00 - [17] The thing I do not understand is with the impending release of WIS which bare in mind is probably 100x "harder" to design and develop then the proposed POS changes. It actually worries me somewhat that WIS wasn't even something that is widely wanted by the EvE community nor does it actually add much to the game other then fluff. Yet currently is being developed and soon to be implemented, but an idea thats been kept alive for almost 3 Years is immediately shot down without reason other then "to hard". Acrel
Seth Ruin Minmatar Ominous Corp Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.01.10 15:22:00 - [18] Originally by: Acrel WIS . . . is being developed and soon to be implemented, but an idea thats been kept alive for almost 3 Years is immediately shot down without reason other then "to hard". What really frustrates me is I do software development for a living, and I know that if I told my boss I can't do something simply because it's "too hard," I'd be without a job pretty soon. It's just an unacceptable excuse, and shows a very bad quality for CCP; laziness.
Mulco Dark Star Mining and Industry inc.	Posted - 2009.01.11 04:43:00 - [19] As always i support the dead horse. I think that ccp's way of handling a subject that have a significant support of the paying playerbase is disappointing, at least give us a good reason to your answer. Personaly i think that this should have been made reality ages ago.
Seth Ruin Minmatar Ominous Corp Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.01.11 20:56:00 - [20] Originally by: CSM Meeting Minutes 46. 0102-07-0077 Funky POS Recommendation CCP thinks this is a cool idea but requires a total rewrite of the starbase system and complete art asset replacement so unlikely to happen as a result. Ankhesentapemkah and Serenity Steele said it would be nice if CCP incorporated these ideas into the small anchorable structures they may have planned for the future. Two points here why they're not committed to this idea, and my counter-points: 1.) It "requires a total rewrite of the starbase system" Counter: I don't think anyone who plays EVE would say they are satisfied with how the starbase system works currently. Hell, I don't think even CCP is satisfied with it. A "complete rewrite" is not a valid reason to shoot something down. If your code is so rigid and inflexible to add a feature that could significantly improve the game experience, the problem is with the code, not with the feature. 2.) It would require a "complete art asset replacement" Couter: And what do you call the Trinity graphics? Are you seriously telling me CCP will never replace the art assets in this game? That's ridiculous. For other games, that could be acceptable. However, CCP has stated time and time again that they are committed to keeping EVE alive and breathing. There will be no "EVE 2," and because of that, the game must keep growing and evolving. If that means replacing art assets that have been "good enough" for 5 years, then so be it. I am still thoroughly not satisfied with CCP's responses.

Amortech The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.01.12 11:51:00 - [21]
Tsuruko Aoyama The Graduates	Posted - 2009.01.12 11:52:00 - [22]
Darth Shenron	Posted - 2009.01.13 01:29:00 - [23] Edited by: Darth Shenron on 13/01/2009 01:34:22 Originally by: Seth Ruin Originally by: CSM Meeting Minutes 46. 0102-07-0077 Funky POS Recommendation CCP thinks this is a cool idea but requires a total rewrite of the starbase system and complete art asset replacement so unlikely to happen as a result. Ankhesentapemkah and Serenity Steele said it would be nice if CCP incorporated these ideas into the small anchorable structures they may have planned for the future. Two points here why they're not committed to this idea, and my counter-points: 1.) It "requires a total rewrite of the starbase system" Counter: I don't think anyone who plays EVE would say they are satisfied with how the starbase system works currently. Hell, I don't think even CCP is satisfied with it. A "complete rewrite" is not a valid reason to shoot something down. If your code is so rigid and inflexible to add a feature that could significantly improve the game experience, the problem is with the code, not with the feature. 2.) It would require a "complete art asset replacement" Couter: And what do you call the Trinity graphics? Are you seriously telling me CCP will never replace the art assets in this game? That's ridiculous. For other games, that could be acceptable. However, CCP has stated time and time again that they are committed to keeping EVE alive and breathing. There will be no "EVE 2," and because of that, the game must keep growing and evolving. If that means replacing art assets that have been "good enough" for 5 years, then so be it. I am still thoroughly not satisfied with CCP's responses. -------------------------------------------------------- What a pile of s**t if the system was implomented as proposed could use the same code as stations, amything bolted to pos would be available in station panel. all that rubbish we have to go through to do things at a pos could be deleted from the code how are we going to walk through stations, if we dont change the player owned STATIONS Or are they going to code in airlocks, and space walking from corp hangers to mobile labs
Thuul'Khalat Veto.	Posted - 2009.01.13 16:54:00 - [24] I fully endorse this
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:58:00 - [25] Originally by: LaVista Vista A better concept doesn't help buggy code. It just introduces more bugs. Not if the POS system is completely removed and replaced by something worth our playtime. Originally by: LaVista Vista We already talked to CCP about it and the answer was clear. If we raise it again, we will look like spoiled children who wont accept a no. Wrong, the point it the current POS system sucks and we want it out. Replaced possibly by this proposed system, variation of it or something else CCP migth deem worth their time to do. Originally by: LaVista Vista I don't think we should risk the good relation between CSM and CCP by not respecting their answer. Wrong again ... The CSM will be there with new delegates meeting CCP people. From a software development point of view the POS system is HUGE and very integrated into the EVE economy and game mechanics. Modifying the code is a pain, replacing it is easier. So it all boils down to showing CCP that maintaining the current POS system (patching it with new concepts and keeping on top the current bugs) actually costs more than "simply" replacing it (or the silly parts of it like all the linking and numpty stuff - seriously, just make it like the rest of the S&I process)
barvo The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 02:03:00 - [26] This was a great idea in 2006, and given that so little has changed (except for the targetable modules) since then with the POSes, it's still a great idea. CCP's answers are not acceptable - POSes need a lot of dev love anyway, whether or not that amounts to a total rewrite They just came up with a whole bunch of new gates in the latest big patch, new models for pretty much everything in Trinity, and are about to introduce a whole new chunk of the game that has almost nothing to do with Eve currently (walking in stations). To say that it's too hard to take something that's made a lot of people's lives in Eve hard for a long time and actually make it work better and look better is a 'C-, must try harder' effort from CCP to be honest. As for the CSM, you were elected to represent us. If we want an issue to be raised and discussed, it is your responsibility to do so. If you think you've already discussed it, then we have a problem; either you didn't explain CCP's answer to us satisfactorily, or CCP's answer did not satisfy us. Either way, the action's with you still on this one.
Ted Grayham	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:14:00 - [27]
Darth Shenron	Posted - 2009.01.16 11:14:00 - [28] If ccp was to implement this. This would cure a lot of pos issues, it would be possible to dock in pos (game loads normal station enviroment). would facilitate easier lab interfacing, I.E. same as station. and your alliance mates could dock and use labs assembly arrays etc. All using code already in game!!!! and when walking in stations arrives it could load the new station enviroment, just as easy. walking thru pos now thats a plus.
malackia	Posted - 2009.01.18 00:54:00 - [29] this deserves a bump
Karrade Krise Galatic P0RN Starz	Posted - 2009.01.18 01:00:00 - [30] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Luzz Bightyear Looking back at the issue with POS reactors, CCP could fix that and untold other bugs we don't yet know about by using this idea. A better concept doesn't help buggy code. It just introduces more bugs. As for this issue, I'm against it. We already talked to CCP about it and the answer was clear. If we raise it again, we will look like spoiled children who wont accept a no. While the concept is nice and all, I don't think we should risk the good relation between CSM and CCP by not respecting their answer. Introducing "ambulation" is bound to have its' own bugs, no? I think it's just CCP being lazy about it or not caring. This whole dillema tells me that they are more concerned with Wowizing EVE with useless "features" like ambulation. I must say, from the screen shots it looks really good...however I will stick with my roots. Blowing the crap out of everyone else in space, where the game originated. As I've done in every thread on this matter... /signed. Karrade-Confirming all pirate babies come from me Surfin's PlunderBunny-I always knew you were a woman Karrade-I am a man of many talents.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Represent the Player Base.