These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Oreamnos Amric
New Jovian Exploration Department
New Jovian Collective
#361 - 2013-04-03 20:18:34 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Oreamnos Amric wrote:
This module is exactly what everyone who lives in a POS with any number of other people has been screaming at CCP to give us (i.e. wormholes). I will happily swallow the potential to lose some stuff during an emergency evac when balanced against increased security for things I want to keep secure. If I'm about to lose a POS who actually cares about the crap in it? We'll be too busy throwing ships at the invaders anyway.

That's just a bunch of crap in spite of a moment. You didn't though your idea through even for a second.

Aw cute, it's trying to speak.
naed21
Iron Knights
#362 - 2013-04-03 22:18:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:

OK cool - sounds like PSH may have some limit in total size then. So that would be fair.


The personal hangar has no limit on total size.


This sounds potentially dangerous...

Imagine for a moment that you have a thousand member corp each completely fill the space of a PSH.

Now imagine you exploded it.

Did you lag out? Did you TiDi? Did Eve Break?

Have you tried opening your inventory?

This all sounds like a very bad idea.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#363 - 2013-04-03 22:31:40 UTC
naed21 wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:

OK cool - sounds like PSH may have some limit in total size then. So that would be fair.


The personal hangar has no limit on total size.


This sounds potentially dangerous...

Imagine for a moment that you have a thousand member corp each completely fill the space of a PSH.

Now imagine you exploded it.

Did you lag out? Did you TiDi? Did Eve Break?

Have you tried opening your inventory?

This all sounds like a very bad idea.

well, that particular scenario does sound like a bad idea.... but also a damned hilarious one, lol.
Sassums
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#364 - 2013-04-03 23:02:43 UTC
I realize that "taking the easy way out" requires less work, but that really shouldn't be how a company operates. We need the CHA's and their permissions fixed, not glossed over with some new feature.

First off the Private starbase hangars are just a simple terrible idea and a waste of time. The entire concept is broken. You could fix CHA's by allowing more customization to the roles we already have in place.

But lets focus on the private hangers rather than CCP being lazy about the existing CHA system.

First of all - does the 10k-40k m3 apply to each person, or is it only 40k total divided among the people using the CHA?

The inability for directors to not access members stuff is unacceptable, especially if they leave the corporation. So if someone goes inactive and gets booted from the corp or leaves, the items are just simply stuck there? That seems incredibly pointless. If someone leaves the corp, is booted, or goes inactive and is booted, their items should be able to be removed and either contracted to them in HS or taken for the corp.

A SMA is needed badly. More than a CHA. Simply copying the code from the CHA to the SMA would do wonders. Allowing SMA's to have the same "tab" system would be great.

As it stands SMA's lowest role is "Corp" so anyone in the corp can access it. This is unacceptable. By adding "tabs" this would allow directors to add roles for each tab, preventing anyone within the corp from accessing ships unless they have the correct roles. Why is such an easy change being ignored.

The following upgrades look great:

  • Swapping and fitting Strategic Cruiser subsystems at a starbase
  • Removing the sovereignty requirement from Capital Ship Maintenance Arrays


    • Starbase setup UI improvements - I am not sure what this implies, could you expand on it. As it stands, setting up and moving POS mods around is incredibly tedious.

    Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield - What about guns outside the shield, do we still have to slow boat to each and every gun to load ammo into the guns? This seems counter productive to the change you are doing to the POS mods within the shields. The ability to load ammo into the guns should be able to be done from anywhere in the shields.

    The POS Modular system that was discussed - does this mean it is totally off the table, or simply on hold?
    Sassums
    Dark Venture Corporation
    Kitchen Sinkhole
    #365 - 2013-04-03 23:10:36 UTC
    CCP Masterplan wrote:
    [quote]Lots of questions about roles

    The role system is responsible for a lot of the limitations of the current behaviour. To solve a lot of those issues, we're going to have to dedicate a good amount of time to reworking that system first. There simply isn't the scope for doing that in this release. This is the sort of thing we'll need to dedicate a team to for a full release cycle. (omg dat roles UI!)

    That is incredibly disappointing, I thought the POS Rework would be the main problem here. So you are well aware that those of us upset with the POS system are not a vocal minority, yet you neglect the largest problem with the POS system, the roles. The POS update should be a large update, not some stupid band aid. Where are your priorities?
    Pelea Ming
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #366 - 2013-04-03 23:26:05 UTC
    Sassums wrote:

    But lets focus on the private hangers rather than CCP being lazy about the existing CHA system.

    First of all - does the 10k-40k m3 apply to each person, or is it only 40k total divided among the people using the CHA?

    You know, if you'd bothered to read this thread instead of being tl;dr...
    each person.

    Sassums wrote:
    The inability for directors to not access members stuff is unacceptable, especially if they leave the corporation. So if someone goes inactive and gets booted from the corp or leaves, the items are just simply stuck there? That seems incredibly pointless. If someone leaves the corp, is booted, or goes inactive and is booted, their items should be able to be removed and either contracted to them in HS or taken for the corp.

    Doesn't matter if peeps have crap left behind, their storage space affects no one else's.
    Pelea Ming
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #367 - 2013-04-03 23:30:06 UTC
    Sassums wrote:
    Starbase setup UI improvements - I am not sure what this implies, could you expand on it. As it stands, setting up and moving POS mods around is incredibly tedious.

    I agree, more info is always a good thing.
    Sassums wrote:
    Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield - What about guns outside the shield, do we still have to slow boat to each and every gun to load ammo into the guns? This seems counter productive to the change you are doing to the POS mods within the shields. The ability to load ammo into the guns should be able to be done from anywhere in the shields.

    Already answered, suck it up and leave your shield to resupply your guns.
    Sassums wrote:
    The POS Modular system that was discussed - does this mean it is totally off the table, or simply on hold?

    The complete rehauling of POSs is still on the table, these changes are just to offer us something while they continue to work on it.
    Pelea Ming
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #368 - 2013-04-03 23:39:45 UTC
    Btw, on a completely unrelated note... I want something like the "Likes" counter to see how many emo tears I create!
    Gorgon Spinoza
    Solaris Institute of Science and Technology
    #369 - 2013-04-04 00:06:32 UTC
    Despite your best intentions, I'm sorry to say that I'm totally not impressed with the POS changes.



    Why not fix broken functionality first, before introducing new features?



    Alliance use of POS labs/factories from a blueprint in a corp hangar at an NPC station is broken if the job requires materials. Currently they are required to be in the POS lab's local storage, where only the owning corp has access. Alliance members can never access another corp's hangar. Input materials should be taken from the 'slot renting' corp hangar at the NPC station instead.



    Public use of POS labs/factories is totally broken and does not work, although such facilities are listed as 'public' in the science & industry window by default.



    Please remove the "Rent Research Slot" and "Factory Manager" corp role requirements for installing S&I jobs on an alliance POS. There is absolutely no reason to prevent corp members from using alliance (or public) lab/factory slots. Give the job owner the (default) option to pay the research/factory costs from their personal wallet. The option to pay from the corp wallet is only available for users in the "Rent Research Slot" role.



    Please no laboratory type "package deals" ... when I need a certain kind of lab (copy, invention, research ME/PE), do not force me to spend CPU/Power on slot types I do not want and will not use. Replace the lab arrays with a "Blueprint Copy Laboratory" with only copy slots, an "Invention Laboratory" with only invention slots, etc, etc. This would also be in line with the different types of assembly arrays; there is no assembly array with both drone- ammo- component- and equipment-slots.



    All Science & Industry job slots of a single type should be listed on one single page under the control tower, not on multiple pages under individual labs and factory arrays. Installing additional lab modules would add extra lab slots to the control tower (75% of my clicks in the Science & Industry 'select slot' dialogs are wasted clicking on lab/factory facilities that have no free slots available).



    If you introduce new features, then please think 'out of the box' instead of dwelling on previous mistakes:



    In my view a POS tower should be a mini station that has giant empty halls inside where modular facilities like corp/personal hangars, SMA, labs and factories can be installed. It should share the same codebase as outposts and NPC stations, just mini-versions without sov requirements.



    Don't focus on limiting pos storage space. From a user point of view, being told "You cannot do this" is a frustrating aspect of interaction with the EVE client. Sometimes there are good reasons for game balance. But no amount of extra storage space is going to let you do more DPS. There is no financial gain in having more storage space available. For server load it makes no difference wether stuff is stored in a POS or at an NPC station.
    Please give everybody a personal hangar with unlimited space in the control tower just like in NPC stations. Storage space should consume no CPU/Power at all except maybe for a single light bulb.



    All POS facilities should be able to input/output to the Control Tower's central storage or route their products as is the case with PI facilities. Managing all materials for production and dropping them in the right facility at the right time is boring at best, and frustrating at worst. It reduces the time I have available to do things I like about EVE.



    A POS module for a corp/alliance-only market would be cool too.
    zeho
    DIVINE DIVIDE
    #370 - 2013-04-04 00:08:42 UTC
    Starbase Ideas

    Introduce different Classes of Starbase with tweaked stats or special attributes that suit specific roles.
    Spacecraft in EvE are all role specific - why not introduce some specced pos towers too!

    1. Military Outpost - tweaked stats for "deathstar" configuration.
    2. Science & Industry.
    3. Exploration / Logistics.
    4. Covert Operations / Intelligence.

    You get the idea!

    Thanks.
    Katsuo Nuruodo
    Suddenly Dreadnoughts
    #371 - 2013-04-04 01:31:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Katsuo Nuruodo
    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.


    I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible.

    Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do.

    Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members.

    And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure?

    Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either.

    The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription.

    But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time.

    If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there.
    Caleb Ayrania
    TarNec
    Invisible Exchequer
    #372 - 2013-04-04 02:07:33 UTC
    About 20 minutes into this Fozzie said something rather profound, that I think CCP and CSM need to consider a whole new Modus Operandi..

    zebras-episode-22

    Parallel Feature functionality.

    Its not band aid if two systems exist together to eventually transition into the new..

    I think it would be valuable to EVE if we started accepting more of this parallel features on the live servers.

    This would basically mean we could let CCP launch band aids a lot more and just make sure that the old system is not taken down until its ready, and all old features exist in the new.

    Thus a third itteration could be running on test servers and when big patches come around mergers would become a normal phenomenon..

    Its rather relevant if we are expecting 10+ more years, which is starting to look very likely.
    Pelea Ming
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #373 - 2013-04-04 02:35:41 UTC
    Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
    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.


    I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible.

    Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do.

    Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members.

    And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure?

    Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either.

    The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription.

    But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time.

    If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there.

    Blah blah, cry me a river. Everyone knows how this mod works, if they can't plan accordingly, it's their own damned fault if they lost crap in it.
    rodyas
    Tie Fighters Inc
    #374 - 2013-04-04 02:50:49 UTC
    Pelea Ming wrote:
    Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
    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.


    I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible.

    Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do.

    Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members.

    And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure?

    Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either.

    The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription.

    But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time.

    If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there.

    Blah blah, cry me a river. Everyone knows how this mod works, if they can't plan accordingly, it's their own damned fault if they lost crap in it.


    But what about all the officer modules and gear I need to operate at the average lvl in a wormhole??????????

    I can't just trust dumb POS storage building to hold it, then its destroyed. I will lose Billions of PLEXs I redeemed when it goes doooowwwwnnnnn.....

    Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
    Ghostly Dread
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #375 - 2013-04-04 04:04:56 UTC
    Reducing the fuel requirement for small empire r&d pos's would be nice. It's not practical to run a small tower with one lab since the fuel block change. Maybe a r&d tower.
    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #376 - 2013-04-04 06:29:28 UTC
    Will the subsystem fitting change apply to ship-based SMAs such as on carriers, titans, etc. or only on POS SMAs?

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)
    Pantson Head
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #377 - 2013-04-04 10:27:58 UTC
    Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
    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.


    I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible.

    Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do.

    Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members.

    And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure?

    Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either.

    The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription.

    But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time.

    If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there.

    I don't get why the most frequent objections to the personal nature of the PHAs in this thread are things which simple behavior will nullify.
    Worried about trolls denying you pos resources more easily than they currently can with the PHA? Store some of those resources in the PHA yourself and never worry about that again.
    Think you'll have to pos bash yourself or lose your corpmates goods when you need to change locations? If someone is going on a vacation or taking a break from the game, it wouldn't be difficult to transfer stuff to the CHA. Send a corporate mail about using your brain to determine what you keep in personal storage when you may be away and forward it to new members. Yes people will lose **** in PHAs. No it won't be the CEOs fault.
    I don't feel that removing the personal nature of the PHA is justified by concerns that can be addressed by not being an idiot about this stuff.
    Komen
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #378 - 2013-04-04 11:00:08 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    CCP Goliath wrote:
    Sweet blog! Think this one will push you over 5k? Blink


    I guess that will depend on whether Starbase users are a small portion of the community or not. Lol

    Smug bastard.

    Awesome changes. It's like a check-list of every gripe we have with the damn things. Almost as though you were....but no...this is CCP, that just doesn't happen...
    Caleb Ayrania
    TarNec
    Invisible Exchequer
    #379 - 2013-04-04 11:29:59 UTC
    OK I have a small question I would really like Fozzie or any dev to answer..

    Why have these spatial limits on stationary entities? Space limitations belong in things that fly or move stuff around not things that just store things?

    Its starting to smell a bit of wow bag mechanics.

    Hoarding is good and huge storages in static entities should be EVE trademark.

    Maybe the infinity should go, but lets keep storage nice and comfortable when its not mobile.

    Oh and why not reuse impound feature and just make it personal?
    Athena Maldoran
    Doomheim
    #380 - 2013-04-04 11:33:58 UTC

    Feedback:

    Not happy about the "Private Starbase Hangar", It's not what we want. Very limited size, and we already have storage. Not beeing able to retrive items when a corpie leaves corp. What we want is a remaking of the permission system, so we can make things work. Theres a number of ideas surrounding this topic. Why give us something noone wants? "If the structure is unanchored, all contents are destroyed. A confirmation box warns the player if the structure is not empty, and ensures that the items are not destroyed by accident." HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE...

    On the other hand, most of the other "fixes" you have mentioned, are very welcome. The ability to access anything and move everything within the shields, the new system for deploying pos modules etc, repacking, t3 fix, removing the sov on csma.
    these are what we expect as fixes. They are very needed.

    But I think many people are a bit dissapointed, because it all looks like your just painting an old horse to make it look good. Nothing here that smells like a modular pos or anything. Should there be riots in the streets, you will know why. I'm worried that this expansion will rival Incarna in faliure.