These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

The dockable and modular POS .. in my wormhole space

First post
Author
Janus Nanzikambe
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1 - 2012-06-20 10:13:01 UTC
Anyone living in a wormhole knows the nightmare that is the POS interface. You're probably also familiar with how long most of the current complaints have been on CCP's "To do soon(tm)" list. There've been many discussions and blogs on the subject, but as far as I'm aware the only wormhole specific one was Two Step's vision for modular POSs (highly suggest you read that if you haven't already)

So my question to you, as a wormhole resident, is what do YOU want to see changed with regards to POS?

I largely embrace Two Step's vision as he describes it, but with one caveat: from the exterior, "Docked" and online players and their current ship must be visible. If you wish to be hidden from prying eyes, cloak up. Allowing an infinite ammount of active an online players to effectively hide in a dockable station will only provide more incentive for blobbing. The present mechanics regarding scouting to see what your neighbours have active aren't broken and do not need fixing.

Thoughts?
joes Bazooka
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-06-20 11:23:38 UTC
Janus Nanzikambe wrote:
Anyone living in a wormhole knows the nightmare that is the POS interface. You're probably also familiar with how long most of the current complaints have been on CCP's "To do soon(tm)" list. There've been many discussions and blogs on the subject, but as far as I'm aware the only wormhole specific one was Two Step's vision for modular POSs (highly suggest you read that if you haven't already)

So my question to you, as a wormhole resident, is what do YOU want to see changed with regards to POS?

I largely embrace Two Step's vision as he describes it, but with one caveat: from the exterior, "Docked" and online players and their current ship must be visible. If you wish to be hidden from prying eyes, cloak up. Allowing an infinite ammount of active an online players to effectively hide in a dockable station will only provide more incentive for blobbing. The present mechanics regarding scouting to see what your neighbours have active aren't broken and do not need fixing.

Thoughts?



I think you should wait a week or so to read the CSM minutes about this before the 120000 thread gets done about this. They have got a clear goal from the blogs i have read and when we can access the minutes in more detail then i feel we should comment further on it, not in yet another thread they wont read about possible ideas.
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#3 - 2012-06-20 12:14:08 UTC
I have read Two Step's blog about it and am very much fond of his ideas. It has recently been discussed in the CSM as far as I know, so I am just waiting to hear more of what has been discussed with the devs.
Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#4 - 2012-06-20 13:29:36 UTC
Definately needs to be done, living from a POS is a bit of a nightmare. They say they are working on a fix but when we'll actually see it is anyones guess. I reckon a year or two. Sad I just hope its not Bounty Hunter fix long. Cause we've been waiting forever for that one!

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#5 - 2012-06-20 15:03:12 UTC
Docking in a POS would completely change the w-space game, probably not for the better. Without local, putting eyes on ships is the primary means if getting intel. This would create a MASSIVE advantage for defenders being able to hide their numbers without leaving the POS shield. Another thing I'm opposed to is personal hangars. I think one of the hardships of living out of a POS *should* be that you are limited in what you can keep to yourself.

I want to see POS management beefed up so that permissions are done properly and people aren't robbed just because they can't clearly see what a given player has access to. One good fix would be the ability to set permissions on hangars so that a hangar could be shared to the corp without assigning roles. SMA divisions or permissions/passwords on individual SMAs (this might actually exist, I've never run a POS) would be good as well. This would allow a corp to lock down their shinier ships and and capitals, only giving access to more trusted individuals.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#6 - 2012-06-20 15:36:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Godfrey Silvarna
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Docking in a POS would completely change the w-space game, probably not for the better. Without local, putting eyes on ships is the primary means if getting intel. This would create a MASSIVE advantage for defenders being able to hide their numbers without leaving the POS shield.

On the other hand, the lack of pos shield around the dockable structure would mean that if anyone would want to undock for any reason, they would make themselves vulnerable, which makes sieges that much more interesting. Very few people are stupid enough to float outside of pos shields as delicious targets for bombers, but with no shields and only docking as an option for safety I would expect the number of bombable targets to increase.

I would judge the total effect of such a change to be positive. If a POS is both dockable AND has shields, then it's just stupid.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-06-20 15:47:14 UTC
Docking - The system would have to vary to what we have with stations. You should only be able to dock your pod and when you want to get in a ship, you have to travel to the ship storage section just like you do now.

Vulnerable - good in theory but what current mods could this apply to? maybe moon harvesters but that doesn't apply in WH space. If there was a mod that let you hold a WH open, it would work for that i guess but do we want that?

IMO we should be able to change (not jump clone) clones in W-space.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-06-20 15:49:03 UTC
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Docking in a POS would completely change the w-space game, probably not for the better. Without local, putting eyes on ships is the primary means if getting intel. This would create a MASSIVE advantage for defenders being able to hide their numbers without leaving the POS shield.

On the other hand, the lack of pos shield around the dockable structure would mean that if anyone would want to undock for any reason, they would make themselves vulnerable, which makes sieges that much more interesting. Very few people are stupid enough to float outside of pos shields as delicious targets for bombers, but with no shields and only docking as an option for safety I would expect the number of bombable targets to increase.

I would judge the total effect of such a change to be positive. If a POS is both dockable AND has shields, then it's just stupid.


That is absolutely ridiculous and i would quit the game if they changed W-space like that.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#9 - 2012-06-20 16:05:53 UTC
I agree with Janus here. Also personally I think dockable stations rather than an outpost with a FF kinda takes away a lot of the flavor of wormhole space.

In the main the current system works fine IMO the main changes need to be to security and possibly the ability to keep 1-2 clones at POS (not ones you can jump to from k-space).
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#10 - 2012-06-20 16:11:23 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Docking in a POS would completely change the w-space game, probably not for the better. Without local, putting eyes on ships is the primary means if getting intel. This would create a MASSIVE advantage for defenders being able to hide their numbers without leaving the POS shield.

On the other hand, the lack of pos shield around the dockable structure would mean that if anyone would want to undock for any reason, they would make themselves vulnerable, which makes sieges that much more interesting. Very few people are stupid enough to float outside of pos shields as delicious targets for bombers, but with no shields and only docking as an option for safety I would expect the number of bombable targets to increase.

I would judge the total effect of such a change to be positive. If a POS is both dockable AND has shields, then it's just stupid.


That is absolutely ridiculous and i would quit the game if they changed W-space like that.

How? I have always assumed that a dockable lego house POS that has everything in one modular structure would obviously mean lack of shields, and would see it as an improvement.
BobFenner
Black Hole Runners
#11 - 2012-06-20 16:17:23 UTC
I would certainly agree on the security issues of w-space being addressed.

I DO NOT agree with having any clone facility in w-space. When I pod someone I want to know they are out of the fight for a good few minutes if not hours. I also do not want pilots to be able to swap clones so they can protect their precious implants. When you move to wormhole space you should have to make a choice about which implants are important to you - NOT have a choice between a war clone for fighting and a +5 implant clone for when you log off.

Rant over. Lol
My missus thinks of EvE as 'the other woman'. :)
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#12 - 2012-06-20 16:22:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
BobFenner wrote:
I would certainly agree on the security issues of w-space being addressed.

I DO NOT agree with having any clone facility in w-space. When I pod someone I want to know they are out of the fight for a good few minutes if not hours. I also do not want pilots to be able to swap clones so they can protect their precious implants. When you move to wormhole space you should have to make a choice about which implants are important to you - NOT have a choice between a war clone for fighting and a +5 implant clone for when you log off.

Rant over. Lol


A clone facility wouldn't let them jump to it from k-space so once podded in a fight they'd end up back in empire and would have to come back inside manually to be able to switch to a clone stored at POS.

Theres a lot more to implant selection than your view about protecting precious implants tho i.e. I used to regularly swap between proteus and carrier ideally I'd want to be in my lg slave clone for the prot and my capacitor implant clone for the carrier and there have been times I've wanted to leeroy into a fleet for lols to see if I can't pick off 1-2 people before dying but having semi expensive implants in means I don't. (nowadays I just have different chars to fulfill the different roles).
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-06-20 16:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:

How? I have always assumed that a dockable lego house POS that has everything in one modular structure would obviously mean lack of shields, and would see it as an improvement.


It would basically bring docking games to W-space.

However, i think you misunderstand the thinking behind Two Steps docking proposal... I actually had a conversation with him a few months ago where i voiced my opinion that i wanted the incarna experience brought to W-space, so that we wouldn't miss out on what CCP has planed for WIS in the future. Now i'm not saying that this is definitely what he meant in his blog, but it sound pretty likely.

Can you imagine trying to do PI in your itty V and having bombers kill you every time? Shocked

The way around the issue of people being able to hide their numbers by docking could be solved by showing pods attached to the external surface of the docking structure. Any intel gatherers would then simply need to count the number of pods to ascertain the number of pilots docked.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-06-20 17:09:31 UTC
I'm pretty simple with my POS needs. I don't care either way about "docking" There are a few things I would love.

1. easier/better security mangement.

2. Better security for SMA's. Just give them the corp hangar tabs like every other POS module and I'd be happy

3. Access to FULL ship fitting capabilities. It's stupid that I can't take advantage of a modular T3's flexibility where you want it most (WH's or no station 0.0). Heck, I can't even haul in a packaged T3 and assemble it at a POS. So someone could manufacture T3's inside a WH but couldnt actually put one together without hauling it out, and then flying it back in. Yea that makes sense.

4. along with that, the full ability to repackage etc.
BobFenner
Black Hole Runners
#15 - 2012-06-20 19:08:01 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
I'm pretty simple with my POS needs. I don't care either way about "docking" There are a few things I would love.

1. easier/better security mangement.

2. Better security for SMA's. Just give them the corp hangar tabs like every other POS module and I'd be happy

3. Access to FULL ship fitting capabilities. It's stupid that I can't take advantage of a modular T3's flexibility where you want it most (WH's or no station 0.0). Heck, I can't even haul in a packaged T3 and assemble it at a POS. So someone could manufacture T3's inside a WH but couldnt actually put one together without hauling it out, and then flying it back in. Yea that makes sense.

4. along with that, the full ability to repackage etc.


What this guy said. Big smile
My missus thinks of EvE as 'the other woman'. :)
joes Bazooka
Doomheim
#16 - 2012-06-20 21:55:02 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
I'm pretty simple with my POS needs. I don't care either way about "docking" There are a few things I would love.

1. easier/better security mangement.

2. Better security for SMA's. Just give them the corp hangar tabs like every other POS module and I'd be happy

3. Access to FULL ship fitting capabilities. It's stupid that I can't take advantage of a modular T3's flexibility where you want it most (WH's or no station 0.0). Heck, I can't even haul in a packaged T3 and assemble it at a POS. So someone could manufacture T3's inside a WH but couldnt actually put one together without hauling it out, and then flying it back in. Yea that makes sense.

4. along with that, the full ability to repackage etc.


^This^

I also disagree with the stupidity of bringing station games to WH's, this will just lead to an obscene amount of stealth bomber ganks. And lets be honest SB pilots are PVP pussies.

If you cant rapecage the POS and enact proper WH control to kill the targets you are sieging in their POS then you deserve to be deprived of those kills when they scram to a safe spot with their fat loots, or scram out to cloak up and form up a defense.
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#17 - 2012-06-20 22:09:43 UTC
Better security settings, no docking, easier interface to setup/manage a pos, and moon goo. Ok, no moon goo, but the rest stands. P

No trolling please

Talon Dreyua
Pulse Industries
Knights Collective
#18 - 2012-06-20 23:01:05 UTC
Personally, I would like to see some of the restrictions taken off of the arrays that currently require sovereignty. I would like to be able to put up a CSMA for instance. Can't do it and it doesn't make sense why I can't.

I do like the idea of being able to change around the subsystems on my T3 and being able to repackage stuff. Dockable doesn't matter much to me unless I am able to run a market and refining system to the people who are docking up there.
Tasiv Deka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2012-06-20 23:14:04 UTC
BobFenner wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
I'm pretty simple with my POS needs. I don't care either way about "docking" There are a few things I would love.

1. easier/better security mangement.

2. Better security for SMA's. Just give them the corp hangar tabs like every other POS module and I'd be happy

3. Access to FULL ship fitting capabilities. It's stupid that I can't take advantage of a modular T3's flexibility where you want it most (WH's or no station 0.0). Heck, I can't even haul in a packaged T3 and assemble it at a POS. So someone could manufacture T3's inside a WH but couldnt actually put one together without hauling it out, and then flying it back in. Yea that makes sense.

4. along with that, the full ability to repackage etc.


What this guy said. Big smile


What these guys said
also someone else said something about CSMAs that sounds like a good idea as well

Oh, Do go on... no seriously ive got nothing better to do then listen to all the petty arguments and feeble trolling attempts... 

The sad thing is i'm not sure if i'm telling the truth.

Lexylia
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-06-20 23:42:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexylia
I´m ok with this but only when it get destoryed, everything in it, include ships/items and pilots get destoryed/poded Twisted

Would be also ok if you only could dock with a pod on it so u cant have ships or items hiden in it but still if pilots are docked when it´s get destoryed = poded


if not **** it
12Next page