These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Personal POS's
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sinooko
Tharumec
Gespenster Kompanie
#1 - 2012-08-03 10:40:32 UTC
Proposition:
Make it so corporations can allow individual players to anchor and use personal POS's.

Benefits: Allows players to set up their own personal POS for whatever use they can dream up.

Potential Downside:
OMG WTF TOOMUCH POSBASH!

Potential Fix for Downside:
Allow players to hack and take ownership of offline towers. If it takes a couple hours but you make a quarter billion jacking someone else's tower, pff, in that case I can't see people complaining too much about clearing towers out of newly conquered regions. ISK in bank!

Restrictions:
  • Allow members to anchor POS's at the discretion of the corporation command.
  • Each POS would be modifiable only by the person who anchored it and the corporation POS managers that the person belongs to thus making it so the POS can't be stolen unless command made an oopsie.
  • Allow corporation command to mute POS hate mail on specific POS's so POS managers don't get flooded when multiple POS's are starving to death. (Which will happen)

    • Why?: POS's are sort of a top down thing. Corporate leads get to play with them but no-one else really hears much about them except, “It's that time again, POS BASH TIME!”, or The password to reach the shiny titan is MUFFINS! Damn things feel like big bubbly obstructions to fun. Also It's rough for a CEO and team of directors to keep track of multiple POS's, and with current mechanics, if a player is given POS rights they have POS rights to ALL corporate POS's. Can we say security risk?

    More Details:
    POS's should be made available to the average player. Personal POS's would be very useful to nullsec players in systems that don't have dockable stations. A player could set up a POS that would provide a place to haul back loot/ores and reprocess them, store ships, build stuff, research blueprints, build meth... *ahem* booster labs, and mine whatever moon minerals haven’t already been claimed by alliance command.

    Final Note:
    Allowing players to invest that much may also encourage more of a feeling of ownership and fuel the fires of nerdrage when an enemy conqueror comes to call.
    Tchulen
    Trumpets and Bookmarks
    #2 - 2012-08-03 10:46:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tchulen
    I can't say for certain as I'm at work so don't have time to find the references but I was under the impression that this was roughly the direction CCP was heading in with POSs anyway.

    You might just get your wish, albeit perhaps a slightly modified version.


    EDIT - and being a purveyor of fine POS fuel blocks I for one welcome any change that means more people using POSs
    Sinooko
    Tharumec
    Gespenster Kompanie
    #3 - 2012-08-03 10:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinooko
    Sounds good to me. If you could track down and share such material I would be very grateful.
    Tchulen
    Trumpets and Bookmarks
    #4 - 2012-08-03 11:16:38 UTC
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL277F51E9736CE7FC&v=6zpRiVYAvFs&feature=player_detailpage#t=77s

    Best I can find. It's only slightly suggested but the fact he's saying they want people to be able to put their stamp on their starbase it sounds like he means everyone will be able to have one. Anyway, take a look and see if you agree with me.

    I've read other people speculating about it but I can't seem to find those threads at the moment.
    Krash Tjubang
    KarmaFleet
    Goonswarm Federation
    #5 - 2012-08-03 12:01:12 UTC
    Also if you read the future part of the minutes from the CSM 7 meeting posted in the news a couple of days ago. It Can be a long read, but they are proposing POS's for All uses and for All players.
    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #6 - 2012-08-03 12:30:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
    Krash Tjubang wrote:
    Also if you read the future part of the minutes from the CSM 7 meeting posted in the news a couple of days ago. yesterday. It Can be a long read, but they are proposing POS's for All uses and for All players.



    Haven't read them yet (will be starting in ~5 mins) ... sounds like an extension of the "smallholding" idea they had last summer...

    After reading the Minutes ... the new POS will be absolute win, and take care of most (if not all) of your suggestions.

    CCP, DO NAO!

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
    Obsidiana
    Atrament Inc.
    #7 - 2012-08-03 16:42:57 UTC
    Here are the highlights:


    CSM Minutes (p64) wrote:
    1) … New POSes should be "space housing" … includes some form of customization
    2) Scalability. They need to scale from individual to alliance sized.
    3) Get rid of the force field bubble, partly for technical reasons.
    4) A single structure.
    …
    5) They want a path to retire the current starbase system.
    …
    1) Modular. CCP's initial thoughts are that modules would be cubical and fit into a simple grid.
    …
    CCP Greyscale said that they wanted to allow them to be anchored just about anywhere.
    …
    2) Defenses. CCP is looking into defensive modules
    …
    3) Force fields (or lack thereof). CCP wants to have docking modules
    …
    Seleene said, "I want to cloak my secret pirate starbase." Greyscale said that might be a possibility, then shocked the entire room by mentioning offhand, "I really, really, really want to let you put a jump drive on them." The whole room erupted into smiles.
    …
    Elise asked about mooring supercaps, and CCP said that that would be allowed


    So docking, anywhere anchoring, and jump drives; that about sums it up.
    Nikk Narrel
    Moonlit Bonsai
    #8 - 2012-08-03 17:00:18 UTC
    Obsidiana wrote:
    Here are the highlights:


    CSM Minutes (p64) wrote:
    1) … New POSes should be "space housing" … includes some form of customization
    2) Scalability. They need to scale from individual to alliance sized.
    3) Get rid of the force field bubble, partly for technical reasons.
    4) A single structure.
    …
    5) They want a path to retire the current starbase system.
    …
    1) Modular. CCP's initial thoughts are that modules would be cubical and fit into a simple grid.
    …
    CCP Greyscale said that they wanted to allow them to be anchored just about anywhere.
    …
    2) Defenses. CCP is looking into defensive modules
    …
    3) Force fields (or lack thereof). CCP wants to have docking modules
    …
    Seleene said, "I want to cloak my secret pirate starbase." Greyscale said that might be a possibility, then shocked the entire room by mentioning offhand, "I really, really, really want to let you put a jump drive on them." The whole room erupted into smiles.
    …
    Elise asked about mooring supercaps, and CCP said that that would be allowed


    So docking, anywhere anchoring, and jump drives; that about sums it up.

    Sounds interesting. I like the anchored anywhere part.

    I am also curious how they would handle the indy cap ships. They deliberately made them high risk to operate in low and null, so for many they cannot be expected to perform certain functions without the POS forcefield's protection.
    (The design of this dependence was pretty obvious, so I assume they have something in mind to replace it)

    Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #9 - 2012-08-03 19:05:18 UTC
    Nikk Narrel wrote:
    Sounds interesting. I like the anchored anywhere part.

    I am also curious how they would handle the indy cap ships. They deliberately made them high risk to operate in low and null, so for many they cannot be expected to perform certain functions without the POS forcefield's protection.
    (The design of this dependence was pretty obvious, so I assume they have something in mind to replace it)



    I'm going with "probably not" on the defence thing. Based on the bonuses, looks like CCP actually intended them to be in the belts ...

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
    Nikk Narrel
    Moonlit Bonsai
    #10 - 2012-08-03 19:15:38 UTC
    Velicitia wrote:
    Nikk Narrel wrote:
    Sounds interesting. I like the anchored anywhere part.

    I am also curious how they would handle the indy cap ships. They deliberately made them high risk to operate in low and null, so for many they cannot be expected to perform certain functions without the POS forcefield's protection.
    (The design of this dependence was pretty obvious, so I assume they have something in mind to replace it)



    I'm going with "probably not" on the defence thing. Based on the bonuses, looks like CCP actually intended them to be in the belts ...

    That won't be risk effective in a system where hot drops can be done.

    A sieged Rorq, (needed for the boosting bonuses and compression), takes 5 minutes to shift back to normal mode.
    You know well enough what can happen in 5 minutes. A freighter would be a nimble escape artist by comparison.

    In my opinion, I see rorqs being mothballed if the risk can't be balanced out better.

    Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #11 - 2012-08-03 19:25:00 UTC
    Nikk Narrel wrote:
    Velicitia wrote:
    Nikk Narrel wrote:
    Sounds interesting. I like the anchored anywhere part.

    I am also curious how they would handle the indy cap ships. They deliberately made them high risk to operate in low and null, so for many they cannot be expected to perform certain functions without the POS forcefield's protection.
    (The design of this dependence was pretty obvious, so I assume they have something in mind to replace it)



    I'm going with "probably not" on the defence thing. Based on the bonuses, looks like CCP actually intended them to be in the belts ...

    That won't be risk effective in a system where hot drops can be done.

    A sieged Rorq, (needed for the boosting bonuses and compression), takes 5 minutes to shift back to normal mode.
    You know well enough what can happen in 5 minutes. A freighter would be a nimble escape artist by comparison.

    In my opinion, I see rorqs being mothballed if the risk can't be balanced out better.


    Fact of the matter is you have the same "problem" with dreadnoughts in siege. Not to mention that CCP is talking about killing off "off-grid" fleet boosts ...

    Anything right now is pure speculation though ...

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
    Nikk Narrel
    Moonlit Bonsai
    #12 - 2012-08-03 19:34:32 UTC
    Velicitia wrote:
    Fact of the matter is you have the same "problem" with dreadnoughts in siege. Not to mention that CCP is talking about killing off "off-grid" fleet boosts ...

    Anything right now is pure speculation though ...

    I hope you are right, actually.

    I find it limiting to need a POS like that. Mining ops should be able to go where the belts are, plain and simple.

    Problem is, since the defense availability is changing, they either need to change the Rorq, (and possibly the orca), or admit that these ships were not balanced before since they could unfairly boost behind shields.

    Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #13 - 2012-08-03 19:49:45 UTC
    What specifically is wrong with the rorq, other than the mentioned 5 minute siege timer?

    Rorq wrote:

    Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
    -5% reduction in fuel consumption for industrial cores per level
    10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level when in deployed mode
    50% bonus to the range of Capital Shield Transporters per level.
    20% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level.

    Role Bonuses:
    900% bonus to the range of survey scanners
    200% bonus to the range of cargo scanners

    99% reduction in CPU need for Gang Link modules

    Can fit Clone Vat Bay
    Can use 3 Gang Link modules simultaneously.


    Assuming a decent drone pilot, you're looking at the equivalent of 20 drones on the field. With The bandwidth (125) and drone bay (300) available, let's use sentries as the "normal", with a flight of heavies and meds in reserve.

    Base HP (before skills, etc)
    250k hull
    30k armour (50/10/35/35 em/ex/kin/therm)
    90k shields (0/50/40/20 em/ex/kin/therm)

    Fitting
    3 low
    7 mid
    6 hi


    Hi's are probably 2x mining links and the shield link, plus some tractors and a clone vat (if you wanna be extra special)
    mids are a shield tank (invulns, cap shield booster, whatever)
    lows are a DCU, and whatever.

    Sure, sitting in one place for 5 minutes is "dangerous" -- but this isn't meant to sit there solo, or with only a group of barges.

    You'll have scouts on gates a few jumps out. You'll have a defence fleet in case anything gets through. Hell, you might even have your own set of caps on standby in case things go to **** ...

    UNLIKE a normal siege or triage mod, it looks like you can still get remote assistance in "Industry Mode" ...

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
    Astroniomix
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #14 - 2012-08-03 19:57:57 UTC
    Velicitia wrote:
    What specifically is wrong with the rorq, other than the mentioned 5 minute siege timer?

    Rorq wrote:

    Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
    -5% reduction in fuel consumption for industrial cores per level
    10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level when in deployed mode
    50% bonus to the range of Capital Shield Transporters per level.
    20% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level.

    Role Bonuses:
    900% bonus to the range of survey scanners
    200% bonus to the range of cargo scanners

    99% reduction in CPU need for Gang Link modules

    Can fit Clone Vat Bay
    Can use 3 Gang Link modules simultaneously.


    Assuming a decent drone pilot, you're looking at the equivalent of 20 drones on the field. With The bandwidth (125) and drone bay (300) available, let's use sentries as the "normal", with a flight of heavies and meds in reserve.

    Base HP (before skills, etc)
    250k hull
    30k armour (50/10/35/35 em/ex/kin/therm)
    90k shields (0/50/40/20 em/ex/kin/therm)

    Fitting
    3 low
    7 mid
    6 hi


    Hi's are probably 2x mining links and the shield link, plus some tractors and a clone vat (if you wanna be extra special)
    mids are a shield tank (invulns, cap shield booster, whatever)
    lows are a DCU, and whatever.

    Sure, sitting in one place for 5 minutes is "dangerous" -- but this isn't meant to sit there solo, or with only a group of barges.

    You'll have scouts on gates a few jumps out. You'll have a defence fleet in case anything gets through. Hell, you might even have your own set of caps on standby in case things go to **** ...

    UNLIKE a normal siege or triage mod, it looks like you can still get remote assistance in "Industry Mode" ...

    The "having to siege to give boosts" is the biggest thing that prevents it from sitting in a belt. Because as you have pointed out; the thing is pretty much a carrier. It can tank/rep like a non-triage carrier and gets similar dps. Granted the tractor beam bonus is still going to only be marginaly useful.
    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #15 - 2012-08-03 20:13:55 UTC
    right ... but you're boosting and crushing rock all at the same time ... and you're not gonna have the structure mails notifying the other guy you're in systemBlink

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
    Nikk Narrel
    Moonlit Bonsai
    #16 - 2012-08-03 20:46:24 UTC
    Velicitia wrote:
    right ... but you're boosting and crushing rock all at the same time ... and you're not gonna have the structure mails notifying the other guy you're in systemBlink

    I have a thought.

    The 5 minute siege aspect is what feels to me to be what forced the POS to be it's home. With current hot drop mechanics, and these being used on ships a fraction of the Rorq's value sometimes, 5 minutes seems too long.

    Sample scenario, you have a rorq in a belt as a mining op centerpiece.
    I feel it is possible for an enemy scout, equipped with a cyno, to discover a system filled with pilots.
    I will assume the Rorq pilot was warned the moment the scout first saw the enemy one system out. I will state he started to undeploy at that moment.
    With travel time, that still gives this enemy scout a little over 4 minutes inside the op system. Enough time to cycle through known belts with guesses boosted by D-Scan.
    If their are hidden belts, we have reason to expect they were already pinpointed, and would be visited first. (As the source of most valued ores, its a safe bet usually)
    If they were smart, and positioned the Rorq on the far side of the belt from the warp-in, they might buy a few more precious moments for it to gtfo.

    My solution idea, drop the deployment down to one minute from five.
    The pilot still needs advance warning, but at least now they have a better chance.

    Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #17 - 2012-08-03 22:07:27 UTC
    Yeah, that'll help ... though to compensate for the ridiculously short siege time, they'll need to reduce fuel needs farther (though I assume you meant to include this in your proposal).

    It's not so much the siege aspect that made it a POS-bound ship, but that (like the Orca, or a Command Ship, or T3 booster) it's most likely an alt in the ship, rather than someone's main ...

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
    Astroniomix
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #18 - 2012-08-03 22:39:47 UTC
    Velicitia wrote:
    Yeah, that'll help ... though to compensate for the ridiculously short siege time, they'll need to reduce fuel needs farther (though I assume you meant to include this in your proposal).

    It's not so much the siege aspect that made it a POS-bound ship, but that (like the Orca, or a Command Ship, or T3 booster) it's most likely an alt in the ship, rather than someone's main ...

    It depends, most rorquals (the smart ones) are running compression jobs while boosting, so I end up watching the rorqual more than the hulks.
    Tex' Winchester
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #19 - 2012-08-04 12:15:20 UTC
    Nikk Narrel wrote:
    Obsidiana wrote:
    Here are the highlights:


    [quote=CSM Minutes (p64)] 1) … New POSes should be "space housing" … includes some form of customization
    2) Scalability. They need to scale from individual to alliance sized.
    3) Get rid of the force field bubble, partly for technical reasons.
    4) A single structure.
    …
    5) They want a path to retire the current starbase system.
    …
    1) Modular. CCP's initial thoughts are that modules would be cubical and fit into a simple grid.
    …
    CCP Greyscale said that they wanted to allow them to be anchored just about anywhere.
    …
    2) Defenses. CCP is looking into defensive modules
    …
    3) Force fields (or lack thereof). CCP wants to have docking modules
    …
    Seleene said, "I want to cloak my secret pirate starbase." Greyscale said that might be a possibility, then shocked the entire room by mentioning offhand, "I really, really, really want to let you put a jump drive on them." The whole room erupted into smiles.
    …
    Elise asked about mooring supercaps, and CCP said that that would be allowed


    So docking, anywhere anchoring, and jump drives; that about sums it up.




    Looks like we're definitely gettin somewhere ;-)

    No more deliberately flying around looking to find a moon that hasn't already an anchored tower that is offline and the owner doesn't even remember that the tower is there.

    Seleene you are my hero Cool Jump drives huh?

    I just caught myself smiling too. Big smile
    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #20 - 2012-08-04 13:18:23 UTC
    Astroniomix wrote:
    Velicitia wrote:
    Yeah, that'll help ... though to compensate for the ridiculously short siege time, they'll need to reduce fuel needs farther (though I assume you meant to include this in your proposal).

    It's not so much the siege aspect that made it a POS-bound ship, but that (like the Orca, or a Command Ship, or T3 booster) it's most likely an alt in the ship, rather than someone's main ...

    It depends, most rorquals (the smart ones) are running compression jobs while boosting, so I end up watching the rorqual more than the hulks.


    Completely agree here. I've never been in a situation where it "made sense" to bother compressing in the first place ... but that's mostly because it was like 1 jump to a station ... and there weren't enough people mining to keep compression jobs running.

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
    12Next page