These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations

First post First post
Author
Katsuo Nuruodo
Suddenly Dreadnoughts
#321 - 2013-04-03 14:37:11 UTC
Kennesaw Breach wrote:
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first?


That would be the unfortunate side effect of the proposed personal hangar array. If there's stuff in it when you need to move, and the owners of that stuff aren't around right then, the only way to recover anything is to blow it up.


That's true. So, Fozzie, is that really what you want here? Standard procedure for moving your own pos involves bashing your own POS modules?

In wormhole corps, member turnover is rather high. So, if you have a PHA in a corp pos for any length of time, you're going to have items stuck in it.

There's also the issue of giving items to people. Quite commonly when someone makes a run to a trade hub, they'll grab a few items for other people, then just drop them into the appropriate hangar bays when they get back. But, now, you can only transfer items if the other person is online, and at the POS when you return. Or, I mean, you could use a CHA and reassign roles each time to make a temp hangar bay for a person, but ugh, changing roles a few times a week? It's bad enough doing it once every few months.

This module messes up asynchronous item exchanges.
Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2013-04-03 14:38:13 UTC
Proddy Scun wrote:
Currently if you look in most C3+ wh you see 3-10 POS.

I suspect a lot of that is due to storing personal user stuff 7 users per CHA (in additon to shared area CHA). True some of it is also just to prevent quick conquest by having fall back POS.

In any case I would bet the number of POS in typical well developed C3+ wh systems would fall to much lower numbers maybe more like 1-3 for most wh's


You might want to add Force Fields to your overview, mate. Not all POSes in wormholes are online, and some of those offline POSes are offline for good reason.

Wormhole POSes are for defense, changing ships, and doing industrial work. Personal storage is best done in orcas.
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
#323 - 2013-04-03 14:40:34 UTC
First i wanted to express my appreciation to the work you do on the pos system.

On the topic of access:

Not having access to corp members hangar space sounds somehow wrong. From the ceo/director perspective where i provide a pos and hangars to corp members i really think it makes sense to have access. If just for the reason to secure the stuff inside in case **** hits the fan badly. But i can also imagine that it might cause you some headache from a coding point of view. : )
I also red the comment/idea about allowing a corporation to decide about whether there is personal hangars or not. As i red the dev blog it will be a different structure than the CHA, so basically each corp can decide about on-lining such.

On hangar size:

prolly too small, why not oversubscribe the hangars? difficult to code?. So every member could possibly use the full storage. In combination with the access part above there would not be much potential to abuse that. Given there are roles that can see the content and size of the personal hangars and actually access/remove/destroy it.

hangar access range:

plain awesome

capital ship maint arrays in non-souv systems:

good but could use some polish; these capital maint arrays currently use a lot of power grid; i would like to see that power grid need get reduced by like 30 to 50% or so; especially since there are still no personal ship hangars or more granularity in the access management we will still have to keep secure and less secure ship maint arrays online which also eat up quite some power grid. As is, we will prolly keep the whole lot of ship maint arrays anchored, each with one capital in it and just online the one we want to access at a time. it is a quick thing anyway and i just need to offline like one neut battery or another ship maint array to be able to get all caps launched within a minute or so (especially since i wont have to be close to it anymore).

Still thinking about all this awesomeness... : )

Cheers
Gal
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#324 - 2013-04-03 14:41:27 UTC
heh or CCP could make things really easy on themselves. Just allow WH and single star system in unconquered constellation to have some sort of limited single system sovereignty structure so corps can build real outposts and stations instead. POS issues solved.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#325 - 2013-04-03 14:42:24 UTC
Kennesaw Breach wrote:
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first?

That would be the unfortunate side effect of the proposed personal hangar array. If there's stuff in it when you need to move, and the owners of that stuff aren't around right then, the only way to recover anything is to blow it up.

Exactly. If you relocate your POS with all responsibility, you'll bash the PHA anyway. The cases you destroy a contents of PHA are:
1) You're a spy and want an easy grief on your corpmates.
2) You want to grief invaders.
3) You misclicked. No, we dont give roles to 1-day noobs, but 1000-day pro is not immune to that as well. Proof - Battle for Ansakai.

Kennesaw Breach wrote:
Unless CEOs/directors can pull stuff out of people's personal hangars, I don't see us anchoring the new module at all.

Alright, it's your choice.
We will anchor it for sure.
Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2013-04-03 14:43:43 UTC
Proddy Scun wrote:
heh or CCP could make things really easy on themselves. Just allow WH and single star system in unconquered constellation to have some sort of limited single system sovereignty structure so corps can build real outposts and stations instead. POS issues solved.


And with sov comes supercaps and titans. And with that comes a lot of unsubscribing of wormhole players.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#327 - 2013-04-03 14:50:05 UTC
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Even if the code for starbases is old; badly made and so on, I really have a hard time believing you when you are under "technical limitations" for everything.

"Technical limitations" means "Really damn hard, and not really worth the effort at this time."
I can believe it.

Sometimes I wonder if CCP shouldn't just take a "start from scratch" approach to problems like this. Just make entirely new code for a player starbase that works like they want it to. Then switch out every POS in EVE to the new structure they implement, in small, medium, large sizes of course.

Before anyone asks, no, I don't have personal experience with this.
That's the cleanest way to do things, but it can be very intensive - A lot of existing code connects in odd places, and those need to all be found and dealt with - Without breaking other features - before you can switch over.
Basically, a clean start costs $$$, takes time.

Sometimes, it just isn't worth it to make a change. Or isn't worth it to make a change right now. The fact that CCP is willing to make some changes now indicates that they're invested in cleaning up the mares-nest that POS' have become, and is very encouraging.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#328 - 2013-04-03 14:54:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Kennesaw Breach wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:
Currently if you look in most C3+ wh you see 3-10 POS.

I suspect a lot of that is due to storing personal user stuff 7 users per CHA (in additon to shared area CHA). True some of it is also just to prevent quick conquest by having fall back POS.

In any case I would bet the number of POS in typical well developed C3+ wh systems would fall to much lower numbers maybe more like 1-3 for most wh's


You might want to add Force Fields to your overview, mate. Not all POSes in wormholes are online, and some of those offline POSes are offline for good reason.

Wormhole POSes are for defense, changing ships, and doing industrial work. Personal storage is best done in orcas.



Your corp operation philosophy mate. Its only one of several ways.

But yes I know some interior WH need extra industrial and storage due to not always having clear path to normal space. And some corp prima donnas (valuable senior players) just like to built extra POS as status symbols too (thus offline since they aren't actually needed)

Sure Orca is safe place while pilot is logged off in case POS gets blown. Fairly limited space. And Orca is only safer place if you retain ownership of WH. Its pretty obvious why new owners often set up MWD and patrol location where old POS were destroyed for a month or two. Among other measures. But Orca is inventive for your own personal property. Was even nicer when you could suck combat ships into maintenance bays. Heard somewhere you can't do that anymore.

Big smile But I personally could not begin to fit the 5-7M m3 of personal property I have at POS into one ship. Yes I am arguing that I should continue to have to pay for the 5-6 hangars needed to store all that instead Fozzie "oh extra volume doesn't count against corp POS needs because its personal stuff" or his possible "you simply can't have more than 40K m3 personal stuff because you really should only use corp equipment and corp supplies at a POS."
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#329 - 2013-04-03 15:04:49 UTC
KEEP YOUR ******* SUPERCAPS OUT OF OUR WHS! -.-!
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#330 - 2013-04-03 15:10:01 UTC
Infinion wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:


Stegas Tyrano wrote:
Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be!

They'll only be animated inside the server ;)



Just out of curiosity, if you used an existing drone model and only animated it in such a way that it
1) moves between two points
2) passes through all objects
and 3) appears/disappears within a certain distance from a structure

which process would be too time-consuming to include with the feature?

Dude. Burning needless and precious server-side CPU cycles. Completely needless, and counter-productive to what we want CCP to be doing - Putting cycles into things that matter.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#331 - 2013-04-03 15:12:29 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Infinion wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:


Stegas Tyrano wrote:
Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be!

They'll only be animated inside the server ;)



Just out of curiosity, if you used an existing drone model and only animated it in such a way that it
1) moves between two points
2) passes through all objects
and 3) appears/disappears within a certain distance from a structure

which process would be too time-consuming to include with the feature?

Dude. Burning needless and precious server-side CPU cycles. Completely needless, and counter-productive to what we want CCP to be doing - Putting cycles into things that matter.


Oh, I'd lump it in with the other eye candy, like the little ships at customs offices that make me think I'm getting ganked every time I see one flash onto my screen... those are great. Roll
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#332 - 2013-04-03 15:13:00 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Rand McKikas wrote:
If it has to be put up as a corp item, (player item hangar ) then I think directors should have access to everything, if you don't trust your leadership you should find a different corp.... plus having to waste stuff because someone quits is just bad


"Trusting your leadership" ended badly quite a few times in the past, I'll be damned before I trust anyone with anything when it comes to EVE.

So you play solo, eh?

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#333 - 2013-04-03 15:21:30 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Why not just add 2 checkboxes to this "personal tabs".
1. Allow access for CEO/Directors
2. Allow access for ALL

Problem solved.


Adding the checkboxes would be really easy. Making the checkboxes do anything is the challenge. Lol
Oh, they'd do something, even if it wasn't anything you added. People would be clicking them like lunatics, trying to figure out what they really do - Like so many demented monkeys. Then, they would spawn many, many threadnaughts full of frustration and tears and conspiracy theories.
Twisted

But maybe those are functions you might find less than desireable. Blink

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#334 - 2013-04-03 15:21:53 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ P0N-3
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
If, if a PHA does not become inaccessible when a tower is reinforced the same way a CHA does, I might feel a little more sympathetic to the "oh noes tough cookies" argument. You have a known window of time to extract your things.

The reinforcement timer is not designed to let you un-anchor everything and dock up safely. It's to give you the time to assemble a fleet and strike back. Cannot win? Then you loose. And that loss actually hurts. Making thou thirst for revenge... sweeeet bloody holly revenge!!!!111oneone


I'm thinking from a perspective of if I want to keep any personal items or subsystems to swap (because hooray subsystem swapping!), I'd like to have them available in case of emergency. It doesn't sound like this will be the case, so the PHA isn't going to improve my life there. I'm not worried about someone saving my stuff from destruction -- if I get invaded, I'm throwing everything I have at the invaders. If I have anything left when the POS goes down, the victors take the spoils. That's life. But my personal stock of items won't be available to me if I don't log in before the tower is reinforced.

People evacuate their CHAs when they come under siege not just to save their things, but to keep the use of the items inside. Anything I put in a PHA I am not only writing off in the usual "anything that goes into w-space dies" kind of way, but in the "anything that goes in here will be inaccessible in an emergency". Thus, the important things will have to stay in the CHA. This seems completely backwards to me. Sure, I'll use the PHA for some random junk I have lying around or for quick swapping of items between ships, but I think people are too fixated on "but the carebears want to save their things!" and are forgetting that the defenders need access to their things in order to defend.

Seriously, my only complaint with this is that the PHA as it stands is being introduced without any competitors in utility to make it a real choice of risk and reward. "I may not be able to get those items when I really need them" should not be a necessary tradeoff of "basic quality of POS life improvement from an organizational perspective". If the argument being put forth for making it 100% private is "well you risk that for great reward" then there should be plans in the works for something equally useful for organization with different privacy settings. The unfun way that POSes currently work should not be built into the new system as a tradeoff.

Proddy Scun wrote:
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:
PSH needs to have a maximum number of users (20?) supported with fixed maximum storage each or a maximum aggregaate total volume (1.4M m3 ?) for all users. That way POS has more structures and cost to support widely varying numbers of users.

Realistically PSH should probably replace old shared Corp Hangars on 1 for 1 basis when storage of personal items is at stake and shared corp space would retain teh remaining old shared Corp Hangar space.

I don't think having 1 PSH replace 10+ old style Corp Hangar arrays is a good way to preserve limits on what POS can do based on fitting considerations.


20 would be very restrictive. I imagine in most cases the PHA will supplement CHAs instead of replacing them, especially since their functionality will be so different. Even a 100-man corp (not unheard of in a wormhole, and I'm sure there are plenty of nullsec corps of similar size using POSes) would need five of those. POSes shouldn't get any more size-restrictive than they already are.


If you store it in Corp Hangar Arrays now - how is trading 1 CHA for each PSH more restrictive? Assume equal volume and 20 personal user rather than 7 tabs.

Not more restrictive UNLESS you stick with Fozzies 1 PSH per POS. I am proposing Multiple PSH model. I only suggested 1.4M m3 volume and 20 users as a starting place that might be reasonable.


You're assuming a one user per tab model rather than using CHAs as corporate storage. Once your corp is big enough that your loot and corp stock of items (which gets very big very quickly if you're in w-space; see also the fuss kicked up when they imposed a limit on unstacked items in a CHA combined with the inability to repackage things) needs to be carefully sorted, indexed, and have tiered access levels, the one user per tab model leads to ridiculous fuel expenses. Personal storage tends to take place in a tab designated for cans, anchored secure containers, or the items being kept in ship cargo holds. The reason people clamored for personal arrays isn't just for security. It's because keeping everything stored and organized in a POS requires far too much work. The PHA is a step in the right direction, as is the ability to anchor CSMAs in wormholes, but limiting the number of people who can use a single PHA would make its utility even more limited.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#335 - 2013-04-03 15:29:49 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Infinion wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:


Stegas Tyrano wrote:
Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be!

They'll only be animated inside the server ;)



Just out of curiosity, if you used an existing drone model and only animated it in such a way that it
1) moves between two points
2) passes through all objects
and 3) appears/disappears within a certain distance from a structure

which process would be too time-consuming to include with the feature?

Dude. Burning needless and precious server-side CPU cycles. Completely needless, and counter-productive to what we want CCP to be doing - Putting cycles into things that matter.




Agreed server is NOT involved with animation effects - just last position, expected position, system status (damage, modules on/off, ammo counts) and destruction...and that stuff directly related to those calculations.

Your computer running client software provides 99.8% or more of CPU power needed by EVE game to support your EVE experience

Client creates all animations based on simple current position-projected position and others status reported by server. the base assumption is that ships, missiles etc fly on smooth path between current and expected positions - unless the server updates status and position before arrival at old project position.
Dring Dingle
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#336 - 2013-04-03 16:05:29 UTC
Haha... Fozzie past 5 k likes ! :D

.... directors/CEO access is a must!
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#337 - 2013-04-03 16:11:40 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Thanks everyone for their feedback so far both on the proposed changes and on other changes we can make in the future.

Want to remind people once again that we're not removing CHAs from the game with these changes, nor are we talking about limiting PHAs to one per starbase. You can online as many of both structures as your Starbase's fittings allow. Since CHAs are not being removed we are not removing any of the current functionality for miners storing collective ore, or for people wishing to share items within their corp.

And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#338 - 2013-04-03 16:16:48 UTC
Proddy Scun wrote:



Agreed server is NOT involved with animation effects - just last position, expected position, system status (damage, modules on/off, ammo counts) and destruction...and that stuff directly related to those calculations.

Your computer running client software provides 99.8% or more of CPU power needed by EVE game to support your EVE experience

Client creates all animations based on simple current position-projected position and others status reported by server. the base assumption is that ships, missiles etc fly on smooth path between current and expected positions - unless the server updates status and position before arrival at old project position.

Fair enough.
however... Even that little bit, multiplied across whoever many players active at their POS'... Still a drain I'd rather see used elsewhere.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#339 - 2013-04-03 16:19:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We may consider it for later iterations.

Please do. I think we've made our case as a community that 'no one but owner' is an undesireable condition. We can make-do until a change in a later iteration.

Carry on smartly with the good work!
Cool

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#340 - 2013-04-03 16:26:57 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations.


Please do!

Everything else announced is spot on. Good luck and happy coding!