These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Affordable POS Changes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Valkyrs
Deep Vein Trading
#1 - 2013-02-04 21:11:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkyrs
The POS system needs some work, we know it, and I'm happy to say CCP knows it as well.

From what we've read recently (and maybe I'm wrong!) it seems that the overhaul is going to be too big a task to tackle and get into the next release.

I take this to mean that it will be getting cycles and find it's way into a future release. I'm all for it, it seems the people are as well, but it also seems that they've been expecting change for awhile and the wait is just too long.

Before I continue, I understand that there's little gain to patching something that is going to be replaced. However, sometimes the effort required is small enough, and may delay the need for immediate replacement.

I'd like to address some issues I have with the system, and explain what solution might be taken for them. I'm sure POSes are used for tasks that I don't outline below, so feel free to add them. I just ask that you provide a logical solution that is feasible, considering it wouldn't be getting a lot of cycles, and would ultimately be replaced.

1. Selecting the facility

Most of the time, the facility that I did last time is the facility I want to do this time, why can't it just default select the last one, if that one is still an option? No game changes here, just remember a variable, maybe client side? Simple, but a big change. Obviously, give us the option of choosing the facility and line (though should be able to double-click a facility and have the events from #2 determine the line)

2. Selecting the shortest line

Maybe it's just me, but which line do I want 99% of the time? the shortest. As a programmer I see the problem, multiple people competing for a spot which might be taken after it's been selected. So when I go to invent, it should go grab an empty line. If there's no line empty, give me a pop-up. "The next line available is not empty, it will take XXh:XXm:XXs before that line is free". Then give me 3 options, Cancel, Try Again, Continue. Cancel aborts, Try Again will try to use this line or pop back up if the line was taken, and Continue will try again over and over until it gets the line. "Always perform this action" seems like a good checkbox to include. Give the client the option of choosing a line, just in case.

3. Batch jobs
Based on what was mentioned above, where we don't (have to) select a facility or slot, we can now talk about more automation. Select multiple blueprints from a hangar (since Sci & Indi can't) and select Manufacture, Invent, etc.
Here we have a facility and slot pre-determined, we can hit go. Install the jobs one-by-one, and if a problem arises, show the error, and give the option of selecting a different facility/slot and continuing.

4. User swapping
I have heard before that this is tough to fix, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. If I was able to switch users faster, I'd have less issues with POS. It's time wasted that I have to spend. Bring up the user selection window and a password box, save me 5 minutes relogging, that would change my POS experience tremendously.

All I'm talking about are a few dialog boxes, a min function, some for loops and a bit of error checking. You've pulled off some pretty amazing things CCP, I have faith you could put something like this together pretty quick, throw the POSers out there a bone and keep working in the shadows to bring a full blown solution to light. We want to see progress, no matter how slow and simple.

If anyone else has ideas on how to improve POS for them, please post your issue and how you would like to see it resolved.

Keep it up CCP!
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#2 - 2013-02-04 23:13:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Valkyrs wrote:
The POS system needs some work, we know it, and I'm happy to say CCP knows it as well.

From what we've read recently (and maybe I'm wrong!) it seems that the overhaul is going to be too big a task to tackle and get into the next release.

If I understood CCP Seagull correctly, we can expect some changes to be released each expansion, but that there wasn't going to be an expansion that only focused on POS features (or any other single element).

If I had to name features that should get a priority, I'd have to recommend:

"Simple" changes:
* Buff refining arrays by increasing the ore yield, so that they are actually useful.
* Buff T2 ship arrays by setting the base time and material multipliers to 1.0 (optionally rename the current ones "Rapid" and introduce slower more efficient arrays).
* Buff launchers by changing the RoF to one per 6 sec (from one per 24 sec), and increasing their damage multiplier to be on par with turrets (say 50x instead of the current 1x for cruise or 2.5x for torps). Missiles were nerfed long ago from God weapons, but POS were never compensated.
* Buff blasters by at least doubling their optimal, so that they can hit outside a force field.
* Buff railgun tracking, especially since there are no light or heavy missile batteries.

"Tough" changes:
* Repackaging.
* Assembling T3.

There are lots more on the desired list of course, but I think they are considerably more difficult (example: roles, storage, batch jobs, etc.).
Sugar Bunny InSpace
Toward the Terra
#3 - 2013-02-05 04:16:30 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:

....
* Repackaging.
....
Just that for now and I'll be happy for 12 months Big smile
Valkyrs
Deep Vein Trading
#4 - 2013-02-05 14:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkyrs
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Valkyrs wrote:
The POS system needs some work, we know it, and I'm happy to say CCP knows it as well.

From what we've read recently (and maybe I'm wrong!) it seems that the overhaul is going to be too big a task to tackle and get into the next release.

If I understood CCP Seagull correctly, we can expect some changes to be released each expansion, but that there wasn't going to be an expansion that only focused on POS features (or any other single element).


I got this impression as well, though as I mentioned it's a difficult position, how do you improve something that really should be torn down and started from scratch?

I'd be happy with quick changes that improved the current system, but also paved the way for future development. Spending more than a little time on something that will be of no value in the future is backwards.

Thanks for adding your thoughts, just to clarify I imagine you're referring to the ability to repackage items that are in a POS hangar, as can be done in stations. Seems reasonable and obviously the solution needs no suggestion.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#5 - 2013-02-05 15:23:35 UTC
It won't break my heart if we never get the modular POSes and I'm not sure I agree that POSes for individual pilots should be introduced. But the one problem that does need fixing is the Corp/Alliance Roles & Permissions and their interactions with the workings of POS modules. Specifically to allow a level of security so, for example, ten members of a corp can all use modules at a POS securely without the threat of jobs being cancelled and without the threat of the POS infrastructure being left defenceless or stolen.

I personally think this is more important than labour-saving measures and should be high up on the list of jobs to be done. Ideally this would be completed in 2013. But I won't hold my breath. BlinkSad

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Valkyrs
Deep Vein Trading
#6 - 2013-02-05 17:19:38 UTC
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
It won't break my heart if we never get the modular POSes and I'm not sure I agree that POSes for individual pilots should be introduced.


I like the idea of the modular POS, especially since there's not much granularity with the current system, but ultimately if it's going to cost a lot of time to do, maybe it's better spent improving the system we have?

Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
But the one problem that does need fixing is the Corp/Alliance Roles & Permissions and their interactions with the workings of POS modules. Specifically to allow a level of security so, for example, ten members of a corp can all use modules at a POS securely without the threat of jobs being cancelled and without the threat of the POS infrastructure being left defenceless or stolen.


Roles and permissions is one that comes up frequently. Hopefully with the removal of corporate hangars from Orcas they will be easier to tend by CCP. Can you give an example of a roles and permissions architecture that you've seen in the past that would work well for EVE? Either that, or explain how you would like to see it done.

Usually a system is either easy-to-use but not very detailed or specialized, leaving holes in security. Or it is very detailed but tightly controlled. I find the system that EVE uses to take the downsides of both, being very complex and at the same time not allowing assets to be secured.

Here would be my suggestion (keep in mind I haven't done much rule managing, feel free to elaborate or critize me on these):
A group is a collection of users, which can include other groups
Permissions are access to assets, facilities, hangars and abilities
Locations specify where the task can be done. This could include a corporate hangar, a solar system, a tower, etc.
Permissions are tied to groups and locations
Wizards available which create a set of rules which are a common task.