Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1862
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 01:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/04/my-vision-for-poses.html I wrote a blog post on what I would like to see as high level design goals for a POS rewrite, which will likely be a major topic at the next CSM summit. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
367
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 04:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
I, in general, agree with everything in there.
My thoughts on it were a trifle too big to stick in a comment though.
So, my fleshed out thoughts: http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blog/2012/04/22/pos-changes-for-eve/ FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3427
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 08:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
I particularly like "Scalable". 1-man mini POS have long been a hobby-horse of mine. I would suggest that they be unable to mount offensive weapons and be anchorable anywhere that there isn't another POS, outpost or gate on grid. However they should be dockable (with a strict limit on the volume of ships that can be stored in them). At a stroke you have then introduced player housing, which is one of the best hooks for getting people involved in an MMO.
I strongly, strongly suggest that you exert maximum pressure on CCP to make mini POS customisable in appearance. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
VCBee 180
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 11:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I strongly, strongly suggest that you exert maximum pressure on CCP to make mini POS customisable in appearance.
get out |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3433
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 14:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
VCBee 180 wrote:Malcanis wrote:I strongly, strongly suggest that you exert maximum pressure on CCP to make mini POS customisable in appearance. get out
Sorry buddy, 6 month sub says I'm staying.
*folds arms*
What now? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
679
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 17:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
we ban npc corp forum alts from csm forums, that's what |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
679
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 17:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
In any case, POS revamping is a huge improvement to the null and lowsec experience as well as wormholes, so I commend Two Step for following through on this. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
369
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 17:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
OOo, I know what I'd forgotten to say. Dead space field generation, with a acceleration gate which can be locked.
Have it be hackable, to allow people without proper standings to enter, up to the mass limit. Have it be destroyable (if time consuming. maybe a short reinforcement timer) to let people deploy their own, to enter the field.
Added expense for safety (high cpu/power draw), and it's not perfect. But means randoms are /less/ likely to waste time on it. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3435
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 17:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
OH just in case this old favourite has been forgotten - allow abandoned (offline) POS to be accessed with Hacking skill (even if it takes Hacking V, that's fine) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
484
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 18:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:OH just in case this old favourite has been forgotten - allow abandoned (offline) POS to be accessed with Hacking skill (even if it takes Hacking V, that's fine) My alt would love that feature.
Maybe even initiate an unachoring cycle that could take a few days just to give the owner a chance to return. Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
|
discordigant
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 10:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Firstly thankyou for diving into this problem, any upgrades to this system would be valued.
Allowing the creation of extra tabs of storage with assigned member use for individual use in CH's and SMA's would be the ultimate goal for security.
I would also like to see in C1's a tower size restriction to medium or small, or change the mass limitations on C1's to end this madness of reaction systems living untouched with relative safety for the logistical nightmare they pose to mess with.
EDIT: And god yes a way to remove old towers without shooting at them for a wrist slashing amount of time. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1353
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 13:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
My POS wishlist:
1) Either a special hangar or configuration options on the existing hangars to allow access to people without roles. This makes administration much easier and limits the necessity of roles for corps that live out of a POS. The idea would be that if you can get through the shields, you have access to the hangar (same for the SMA).
2) Refitting T3 subs. Duh.
3) Some sort of access to Incarna content. I don't care about WiS, but I do occasionally like to modify my avatar. That's inaccessible outside of a proper station.
4) The ability to easily dismantle an abandoned POS. I'd suggest adding an "emergency power" feature so that the POS would go about a week after running out of fuel, then be available for anyone to unanchor. Perhaps require an additional step in empire space due to the local Navy and/or Concord policing the area. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Stralow
Die rot-weiss-roten Piloten Bruderschaft der Pilger
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 17:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
discordigant wrote:I would also like to see WH folk having the ability to change clones on the fly to suit situations (Not proposing jump cloning in and out of WH's that's just bad apple sauce) but the ability to do what every other player base in this game has the option to do. PVE and PVP sets.
I've made a similar suggestion a while ago. My plan was a ship or better a pos module, that lets you change your clone in WH space. It lets you only switch it there. So if you get podded in your WH space, you're still screwed. No jump in or jump out of the WH system. Every HS/LS/0.0 space player uses jump clones and its just normal. Only in WH space i am forced to go to pvp with an one billion mining imp or just don't use one and that's not right. End of it was, that most people just read "wh" and "jump clone" and started to throw the usual "its wh space with billions and billions of isk so just deal with it" crap. i say we take off and nuke the whole site from orbit. it's the only way to be sure |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
818
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 05:06:00 -
[14] - Quote
Care to include no structure mails in that? Or do i need to explain why I think structure mails need to go away?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
discordigant
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 05:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Care to include no structure mails in that? Or do i need to explain why I think structure mails need to go away?
Perhaps you need to for ill experienced people like me, i have not a lot of null experience but on the WH front i do find the tactical information on my opponent useful as not everyone will tower bash or invade a hole. Knowing that they have no experience in a tower bash i find to be relevant.
EDIT: On the mail front, i would also like to see SD mails introduced. I want to see if people have a ***** history of SD there riches in front of people, i also think those SD mails should be attributed to the force attacking and **** caging said POS that the SD happened in. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
818
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 07:58:00 -
[16] - Quote
discordigant wrote:Perhaps you need to for ill experienced people like me, i have not a lot of null experience but on the WH front i do find the tactical information on my opponent useful as not everyone will tower bash or invade a hole. Knowing that they have no experience in a tower bash i find to be relevant.
Basically the way the current mechanic works is if anyone attacks your tower, the tower instantly sends a mail to the tower owner that it is under attack. That mail is very specific on tower location, exact ship attacking it and who is flying said ship. This allows large alliances/null power blocks to project tower coverage far and wide on valuable moons and such. All without having to actually occupy/live in the space.
These towers have alts logged off at them. The very moment you attack one, the alt logs in and adjusts the amount of strontium to allow the tower to come out of reinforcement mode at a time that is suitable for the power block to assemble a massive force to ensure you are not able to take the moon.
Another bad side effect of structure mails is AFK empires or Road Trip empires. There is nothing you can do while they are gone to threaten their space. Want to drop a SBU to start the process of taking a system that is claimed by some far distant empire that never lives there, but has sov? The moment you drop it, a mail is sent out with all the details. That distant empire is notified, massive armada is formed and before that SBU on-lines, they have trans-versed the galaxy (lol power projection) in no time at all.
In closing; structure mails is one of several cancers of how null operates. Total and complete favoritism of power blocks and gives a giant middle finger to anyone who is not part of a power block. As long as you actually reside/live in the space or very close to it, your structures will be relatively unaffected by not having mails. If someone goes to attack anything, because you actually are in the area you will know about it due to seeing them in local and other things like, using the POS/warping to the structures.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
discordigant
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 11:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:discordigant wrote:Perhaps you need to for ill experienced people like me, i have not a lot of null experience but on the WH front i do find the tactical information on my opponent useful as not everyone will tower bash or invade a hole. Knowing that they have no experience in a tower bash i find to be relevant. Basically the way the current mechanic works is if anyone attacks your tower, the tower instantly sends a mail to the tower owner that it is under attack. That mail is very specific on tower location, exact ship attacking it and who is flying said ship. This allows large alliances/null power blocks to project tower coverage far and wide on valuable moons and such. All without having to actually occupy/live in the space. These towers have alts logged off at them. The very moment you attack one, the alt logs in and adjusts the amount of strontium to allow the tower to come out of reinforcement mode at a time that is suitable for the power block to assemble a massive force to ensure you are not able to take the moon. Another bad side effect of structure mails is AFK empires or Road Trip empires. There is nothing you can do while they are gone to threaten their space. Want to drop a SBU to start the process of taking a system that is claimed by some far distant empire that never lives there, but has sov? The moment you drop it, a mail is sent out with all the details. That distant empire is notified, massive armada is formed and before that SBU on-lines, they have trans-versed the galaxy (lol power projection) in no time at all. In closing; structure mails is one of several cancers of how null operates. Total and complete favoritism of power blocks and gives a giant middle finger to anyone who is not part of a power block. As long as you actually reside/live in the space or very close to it, your structures will be relatively unaffected by not having mails. If someone goes to attack anything, because you actually are in the area you will know about it due to seeing them in local and other things like, using the POS/warping to the structures.
My bad i thought you were referring to kill mails for structures. |
Kyros Xero
Xuronautics
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 19:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
I can definitely agree with your posted goals - all important things to accomplish with any POS rewrite.
In particular I like the idea of having parts of POS' be vulnerable to small gangs and creating pvp opportunities, however I'm curious if you have any thoughts on how to accomplish that while still allowing the POS to have meaningful defenses against larger groups?
|
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
99
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
It could be cool if the pos system were designed with "public poses" in mind, like POCOs.
I remember when there ISS ouposts access was set public, it would be cool if the new system were designed in order to make this policy convenient.
Another unrelated thing: the efficiency of refining modules could be revised... |
Kelvan Hemanseh
Hole Exploitation Inc. The Unwilling.
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
A question for you here Two Step, enabling docking in a POS along with these other upgrades seems to marginalize outposts. If POSes got these upgrade what would you have done to outposts so they retain some role? |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1872
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 15:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I particularly like "Scalable". 1-man mini POS have long been a hobby-horse of mine. I would suggest that they be unable to mount offensive weapons and be anchorable anywhere that there isn't another POS, outpost or gate on grid. However they should be dockable (with a strict limit on the volume of ships that can be stored in them). At a stroke you have then introduced player housing, which is one of the best hooks for getting people involved in an MMO. I strongly, strongly suggest that you exert maximum pressure on CCP to make mini POS customisable in appearance.
I totally agree that you should be able to customize the appearance of nPOSes. These are your homes, why wouldn't you be able to make them look good. I think the modular POS concept gets you some of the way there, and then you could imagine releasing parts for the POS with pirate faction skins (gurista ship hangar, etc.)
Mashie Saldana wrote:Malcanis wrote:OH just in case this old favourite has been forgotten - allow abandoned (offline) POS to be accessed with Hacking skill (even if it takes Hacking V, that's fine) My alt would love that feature. Maybe even initiate an unachoring cycle that could take a few days just to give the owner a chance to return.
Yeah, something would need to be done about the offline nPOSes. I'm not sure what the exact mechanics should be though, but that is really the sort of thing that is up to CCP. The role of the CSM is to say stuff like "You need to be able to deal with offline new POSes" and CCP will come up with a solution.
discordigant wrote:Firstly thankyou for diving into this problem, any upgrades to this system would be valued.
Allowing the creation of extra tabs of storage with assigned member use for individual use in CH's and SMA's would be the ultimate goal for security.
I would also like to see in C1's a tower size restriction to medium or small, or change the mass limitations on C1's to end this madness of reaction systems living untouched with relative safety for the logistical nightmare they pose to mess with.
EDIT: And god yes a way to remove old towers without shooting at them for a wrist slashing amount of time.
The T3 subs issue needs to be fixed.
I would also like to see WH folk having the ability to change clones on the fly to suit situations (Not proposing jump cloning in and out of WH's that's just bad apple sauce) but the ability to do what every other player base in this game has the option to do. PVE and PVP sets.
I agree that it would be good to limit future POS sizes in smaller class wormholes. Private storage and T3 subs would be solved by allowing docking. Switching clones is something that should be allowed for *everyone*, and if it is something you can do while docked, I would expect it to be available in a new POS system.
(more responses in the next post) CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1872
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 15:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kyros Xero wrote:I can definitely agree with your posted goals - all important things to accomplish with any POS rewrite.
In particular I like the idea of having parts of POS' be vulnerable to small gangs and creating pvp opportunities, however I'm curious if you have any thoughts on how to accomplish that while still allowing the POS to have meaningful defenses against larger groups?
In general, the exact mechanics are best left up to CCP to design. I was picturing something like allowing people to hack into manufacturing arrays and steal minerals/BPCs, delay jobs or maybe even with enough time cancel them. As for defenses, I am not sure I would want to see even the current level of automated guns in a new POS system. My preference would be very limited automatic defenses, but if you have people present you would be able to bring more potent manual defenses to bear.
Camios wrote:It could be cool if the pos system were designed with "public poses" in mind, like POCOs.
I remember when there ISS ouposts access was set public, it would be cool if the new system were designed in order to make this policy convenient.
Another unrelated thing: the efficiency of refining modules could be revised...
Yup, I totally support something like this for a long range goal. Especially if you want people to be able to replace NPC stations, I would love to see the ability to rent out hangar space and manufacturing slots to the public. I would totally support a new improved refining system as part of this, especially since the current one doesn't make a lot of sense ("why do I have to go run missions with my refiner? All I want to do is mine!")
Kelvan Hemanseh wrote:A question for you here Two Step, enabling docking in a POS along with these other upgrades seems to marginalize outposts. If POSes got these upgrade what would you have done to outposts so they retain some role?
Ideally, I would like to see these replace outposts. I don't think having a bunch of invulnerable stations that will eventually be in every 0.0 system is good for the game. 0.0 should be the highest risk in the game (and offer the highest rewards) which is not currently the case. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
827
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:10:00 -
[23] - Quote
I always liked the idea of a 'structure' that has two paths when a player anchors it. One would be the dynamic modular process of turning it into something very similar to the player stations in null now. Vast and robust with no guns for defenses. Thus over time they could be killed given a long enough bombardment from the enemy.
The other path would be something on a smaller scale that is a modular POS that too can be blown up over a shorter time, but has the weapon systems to help protect it.
Two Step - I will say that your idea of a new POS seems to want to mimic pretty closely to the stations we have now. The whole walking around, hangers, etc. I always felt POS life should be like living in tents around a camp fire (more nomadic lifestyle) and actual stations be like having an actual house. I am not sure a station and a POS should be too close in function.
Maybe a list of what you believe a POS and a station should and should not be able to do? Also what is your opinion on structure mails? Like many things in this game, there is how something is intended and how it really is functioning. What is your thoughts on the matter?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
discordigant
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 00:42:00 -
[24] - Quote
Two step wrote:discordigant wrote:Firstly thankyou for diving into this problem, any upgrades to this system would be valued.
Allowing the creation of extra tabs of storage with assigned member use for individual use in CH's and SMA's would be the ultimate goal for security.
I would also like to see in C1's a tower size restriction to medium or small, or change the mass limitations on C1's to end this madness of reaction systems living untouched with relative safety for the logistical nightmare they pose to mess with.
EDIT: And god yes a way to remove old towers without shooting at them for a wrist slashing amount of time.
The T3 subs issue needs to be fixed.
I would also like to see WH folk having the ability to change clones on the fly to suit situations (Not proposing jump cloning in and out of WH's that's just bad apple sauce) but the ability to do what every other player base in this game has the option to do. PVE and PVP sets. I agree that it would be good to limit future POS sizes in smaller class wormholes. Private storage and T3 subs would be solved by allowing docking. Switching clones is something that should be allowed for *everyone*, and if it is something you can do while docked, I would expect it to be available in a new POS system. (more responses in the next post)
Thanks for the response, I do stand by having tower size limitations on C1's as it is unbalanced, but not C2's and 3's that has been rumored lately. They are easy enough to evict as they stand we should not have a dread mentality to towers in every hole.
EDIT: Also the only gripe i would have with the cabins quarter docking in a POS idea is that when someone is sitting at a POS waiting you out we can see them now, so you should be able to see who is docked up. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
372
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 00:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:OH just in case this old favourite has been forgotten - allow abandoned (offline) POS to be accessed with Hacking skill (even if it takes Hacking V, that's fine) +10 bloody thousand!
Also (don't mind me...): /beginrant: NO SD'ing INSIDE POS SHIELDS! /endrant...
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 10:22:00 -
[26] - Quote
I think it had been commented on Two Step's blog post: what about setting the ground for nPOSes to also replace the NPC stations as market place ?
Maybe in a first step, contract creation should be allowed on items at nPOSes. Then, later, introduce market orders. NPC station market place item capacity could then be capped as an ultimate step, with market sell order fees taking into account the hangar space available at the station.
While this would potentially make markets more vulnerable to attacks like #burnjita, but on the other hand the market could evolve independently from NPC stations. |
Ravan Hekki
Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 10:43:00 -
[27] - Quote
Can here expecting a sensible discussion of somthing important, for once i'm suprised to find im not disapointed.
Dockable scalable POS's are a must and as a WH dweller I think this is an awsome idea that is really needed. +1 sir +1. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |