These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

new POSes and wormholes - what do w-space dwellers need?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#1 - 2012-08-03 15:52:41 UTC
From reading the CSM minutes it's pretty clear that the POS redesign is primarily geared towards Nullsec. However, living in w-space we are all completely reliant on POSes and whatever replaces them. Two Step did a great job of representing WH interests at that meeting and I'm sure will continue to do so, but it got me thinking that it would probably be helpful to him and to Greyscale to have a clear idea of what the residents of w-space want from new POSes, and ideally have one thing to point to.

I think you see where this thread is going.

I expect there will be some differences of opinion on what we do or don't want to see for new POSes in W-space, so keep it civil, but at least having the discussion is helpful.

To kick it off: While I understand that Greyscale really wants to ditch the whole concept of the force-field (which I am not inherently opposed to), there are certain traits of the force-field that I think are particularly important in W-space, given delayed local.

1. transparency. Both being able to see what's outside your POS (important if you are under siege), but more often being able to see who's in a POS and what they are flying, without them even knowing you're there.

2. No timers. Bob hates docking games. Even if we end up with "mooring" or what have you, keeping w-space timer-free is an important part of its character.

Another important thing, to my mind, is POS gunning. I know Two Step disagrees with me on this point, but in an environment where you can't just dump a dozen supercarriers and titans and reinforce something in less than five minutes, POS gunning can make POSes vastly more defensible and the process of sieging POSes vastly more interesting. Given the skill requirements and the fact that it paralyzes you, it seems like a fair trade-off for enhancing the effectiveness of your static defenses. I would like to see some continuation of the concept of "manning the guns."

I think we can all agree on some points about security, personal storage, some degree of defensibility, probably a few things I'm not thinking of. Big POSes in small holes is another thing to keep in mind.

Obviously new POSes are still very early in design, but I think it's important that from these early stages, the CSM and devs know what the playerbase needs from them, especially when we are so completely reliant on them.
SunTsu Rae
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-08-03 16:02:55 UTC
Here's an in addition too item.

This applies to POS's and alliance sharing. Specifically the research and copy functions.

Currently POS's are only acessable to the POS owner corp. That may or may not change, but what can help that process would be having completed products, such as inventions or copies, end up in a container, like a courier box, that is only retrievable by the by the job owner corp or the POS corp.

It should also be viewable only by the owning corp of the POS or the job creation corp when opening the lab or array hangar.

That should help the Dev's a bit in design.

SunTsu Rae Ensuring Rights, Recognition, and Remembrance. (Gulf War 1991) http://www.vfw.org
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#3 - 2012-08-03 16:09:53 UTC
It would be a shame to see the FF go its part of the flavor of wormhole space and I'd be dead against it.

The main thing is security and some overhauls to make things like access rights, who the POS will and won't agress on (and general defence options), dealing with multiple POS mods, etc. more friendly to the user.
ArchAngel Rodney
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-08-03 16:24:41 UTC
Greetings,

I was thinking also maybe having a way to have initials of your charector or a way to either have your name imprinted on the bpo once you purchase it. Or something to indicate which bp is owned by which charector. If multiple persons use it for reserch and or building. With several of the same Bp used. (Weather a original or copy)

To help eliminate confusion on which BP is owned by which Toon.

Weather automatically done after buyng them, Or being able to manually put in (For Example) Merlin BluePrint AAR
Or
Owner ArchAngel Rodney
BluePrint Merlin

Something like that when inside a POS. or while in a POS a indication when passing over it.. Saying ArchAngel ROdney insalled this bp.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2012-08-03 18:19:19 UTC
I applaud you on trying to collect the opinions and knowledge of the w-space community. However, I think this thread is going to cause a problem rather then provide a solution. Since all that will happen is that the issues with the Force Fields will be drowned by a bunch of other, albeit great, ideas. So I will try to list all the problems that will arise with the removal of Force Fields and then we should probably try to offer solutions that will allow CCP to transition to the new POS system without breaking the w-space game.


FORCE FIELDS

- Biggest issue with removing Force Fields in w-space is the fact that it has to be replaced by some other item or status that can be seen on the overview. See where I am going here? Imagine for a second that the new POS system has been introduced and the Force Fields are gone. You jump into your static only to see 6 Player Own Starbases on d-scan. Great, awesome, someone lives in that system or do they? Without the Force Field on d-scan you have no idea that the POS is online or occupied WITHOUT warping to EACH and EVERY POS on d-scan.

Now, think of what will happen if a corp does a FULL MOON coverage. Think of how the w-space is littered with defunct and offline towers and without FF there is no way to know they are defunct or offline. CCP will have to come up with a solution that will indicate that a POS is offline/online on d-scan, otherwise the w-space game will be come extremely tedious. Maybe one such way is to make a Ship Berth an object that will only appear on the online tower and will be visible on overview / d-scan.


- Intel gathering. Without ships lingering behind a Force Field and without cloaky scouts, fight in w-space are going to be hard to come by. Lets for a moment dismiss the fact that getting intel on your opponent's fleet comp is beneficial. Lets just ignore that. There is another massive benefit that transparent force fields provide, they help you determine if the said opponent is forming up for a fight. The nature of w-space and the lack of local means that the ability to see ships appear on d-scan is EXTREMELY important in determining if a fight will occur. The ability to figure out what their composition will be is only a secondary benefit in my opinion.

Don't know how this can be maintained with the new system. Docking will remove the ship from d-scan and there will ability to figure out if the fight will be brought is diminished.


- POS gunning, like stated already by Rodney, is a must in w-space. Especially critical in lower class w-space system. The new POS docking / berthing system must provide intel or info to the owner on what is happening outside of the POS. However, if such info / data is given to the owner / defender then the attackers will have additional disadvantages on top of multiple obstacles they already face in invading a foreign system.

As you can see there are many aspect of the current POS setup that work really well for w-space and their removal will impact the entire aspect of this gameplay. I am a bit shocked and extremely appalled that CCP is making this massive proposals without actually knowing how their game is played or actively consulting with all of the communities.
Vassal Zeren
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-08-04 05:47:49 UTC
Gnaw LF wrote:
I applaud you on trying to collect the opinions and knowledge of the w-space community. However, I think this thread is going to cause a problem rather then provide a solution. Since all that will happen is that the issues with the Force Fields will be drowned by a bunch of other, albeit great, ideas. So I will try to list all the problems that will arise with the removal of Force Fields and then we should probably try to offer solutions that will allow CCP to transition to the new POS system without breaking the w-space game.


FORCE FIELDS

- Biggest issue with removing Force Fields in w-space is the fact that it has to be replaced by some other item or status that can be seen on the overview. See where I am going here? Imagine for a second that the new POS system has been introduced and the Force Fields are gone. You jump into your static only to see 6 Player Own Starbases on d-scan. Great, awesome, someone lives in that system or do they? Without the Force Field on d-scan you have no idea that the POS is online or occupied WITHOUT warping to EACH and EVERY POS on d-scan.

Now, think of what will happen if a corp does a FULL MOON coverage. Think of how the w-space is littered with defunct and offline towers and without FF there is no way to know they are defunct or offline. CCP will have to come up with a solution that will indicate that a POS is offline/online on d-scan, otherwise the w-space game will be come extremely tedious. Maybe one such way is to make a Ship Berth an object that will only appear on the online tower and will be visible on overview / d-scan.


- Intel gathering. Without ships lingering behind a Force Field and without cloaky scouts, fight in w-space are going to be hard to come by. Lets for a moment dismiss the fact that getting intel on your opponent's fleet comp is beneficial. Lets just ignore that. There is another massive benefit that transparent force fields provide, they help you determine if the said opponent is forming up for a fight. The nature of w-space and the lack of local means that the ability to see ships appear on d-scan is EXTREMELY important in determining if a fight will occur. The ability to figure out what their composition will be is only a secondary benefit in my opinion.

Don't know how this can be maintained with the new system. Docking will remove the ship from d-scan and there will ability to figure out if the fight will be brought is diminished.


- POS gunning, like stated already by Rodney, is a must in w-space. Especially critical in lower class w-space system. The new POS docking / berthing system must provide intel or info to the owner on what is happening outside of the POS. However, if such info / data is given to the owner / defender then the attackers will have additional disadvantages on top of multiple obstacles they already face in invading a foreign system.

As you can see there are many aspect of the current POS setup that work really well for w-space and their removal will impact the entire aspect of this game play. I am a bit shocked and extremely appalled that CCP is making this massive proposals without actually knowing how their game is played or actively consulting with all of the communities.


The POS changes will probably come with a way to remove off-lined tower, thus dramatically decreasing the likelihood that towers on D scan will be inactive. Give it a couple of weeks after the POS changes, and there will be no off-lined towers in sight. (which will greatly add to the wonderful feeling of emptiness that whs have lacked for so long) The rest will be intel.

As for no force fields, what if the so called mooring would be a semi docking state allowing a player to see the grid around the POS and check D scan just as he would otherwise. His ship would still appear on D scan but there would be a small animation of it moored to the POS. Thus, less functionality of FF's is lost. I think FF's look hideous in any case and anything that is hideous does not deserve to be in a beautiful space game like eve! (I'm looking at you moa!Big smile)

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Utsen Dari
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-08-04 09:05:15 UTC
r.e. force fields: Why not just put online towers in the same bin as TCUs and other such infrastructure - warpable objects on the overview (that can be trapped with dragbubbles as usual)?


Also, adding my support that some 2-way intel transparency is necessary for structures in w-space. POS structures at the very least are going to need windows onto the nearby grid, and some visual indicator of how many active ships are docked inside.
Captain Spyrow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-08-04 14:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Spyrow
I honestly hated just about every single idea they had about the new POS system. I like that they are thinking outside the box, but as it stands it sounds like it will be even more complicated, and more suited to nullsec alliances.

A POS should be just that, a player owned station. It should be, for all intents and purposes, a station similar to NPC stations. Have your main structure where you fuel it, and have compartments where you fit modules in, but let it be interacted with like an NPC station. Dock into it, spin your ship, go to your quarters, etc.

I don't see what is so difficult about this.



Want to fix our current POS system? Start by allowing us to unanchor offlined towers. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of offlined anchored towers/modules floating in WH's that I have come across. That would make a lot of WH people very happy, myself included.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#9 - 2012-08-04 14:51:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Messoroz
Captain Spyrow wrote:
I honestly hated just about every single idea they had about the new POS system. I like that they are thinking outside the box, but as it stands it sounds like it will be even more complicated, and more suited to nullsec alliances.

A POS should be just that, a player owned station. It should be, for all intents and purposes, a station similar to NPC stations. Have your main structure where you fuel it, and have compartments where you fit modules in, but let it be interacted with like an NPC station. Dock into it, spin your ship, go to your quarters, etc.

I don't see what is so difficult about this.



Want to fix our current POS system? Start by allowing us to unanchor offlined towers. That would make a lot of WH people very happy, myself included.


So what you are saying is you want people to grief you and prevent you from playing by having cloaky proteuses sitting outside the POS undock. Yes, this is clearly a good direction on CCP's part. I will personally go about with a few alts inflicting terror on carebears after the change. I will even have alts in dreads sieging upper classes POSes to see if anyone is home. CCP's vision is brilliant on creating reasons to blob in wspace.


Removing force fields will turn wspace into station game faggotry seen in wardecs in highsec. You will have little room to stage a defense. If you are stuck in a POS being sieged, good news, you just lost. You wouldn't be able to get out to another POS to form up. Whole defense fleet stuck in POS? Good news, you are all ****** and will have your guardians instapop before thye can start reps.
Tark en Chalune
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-08-04 23:16:54 UTC
Leave POS's alone.



CCP can introduce large dockable Stations as a different class of object. WH operators can decide on their own if they wish to have one, and deal with the disadvantages and advantages they bring.

As for defunct stations ... maybe give them a timer. After enough shutdowns pass, they can be removed with salvage modules?
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#11 - 2012-08-05 02:22:08 UTC
CCP has their reasons for not wanting to have forcefields anymore. The exact reasons got NDA'd out of the CSM minutes, but they are reasonable. As for sitting outside a new POS's docking point, you might be able to do that, but they might also have webs, points and guns to cover that exit. So if you attack that person undocking, they can just dock back up and let their defenses attack you.

I do agree that having some sot of indication via scan probes or d-scan of a pos being offline/out of fuel would be a good thing. I also agree that showing how many people are docked or maybe even what ships they have active would be a really important part of a new system. Frankly, if I have to give that up to get all the other benefits, I think it is worth it though.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-08-05 02:38:53 UTC
I'm not sure I care how it looks. I just want things to work. I want FULL fitting services. Not that I mine really, but a refining array that isn't capped at 75% efficiency. The ability to repackage items in the arrays. Simple stuff like that.
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#13 - 2012-08-05 02:40:42 UTC
As long as they don't gimp lower class wh's with "lesser POS's" I am good with change.

No trolling please
kapolov
Doomheim
#14 - 2012-08-05 03:10:09 UTC  |  Edited by: kapolov
Two step wrote:
CCP has their reasons for not wanting to have forcefields anymore. The exact reasons got NDA'd out of the CSM minutes, but they are reasonable. As for sitting outside a new POS's docking point, you might be able to do that, but they might also have webs, points and guns to cover that exit. So if you attack that person undocking, they can just dock back up and let their defenses attack you.

I do agree that having some sot of indication via scan probes or d-scan of a pos being offline/out of fuel would be a good thing. I also agree that showing how many people are docked or maybe even what ships they have active would be a really important part of a new system. Frankly, if I have to give that up to get all the other benefits, I think it is worth it though.



TBH from reading the minutes the POS part seemed to have a lot of technical information lacking compared to the great detail that other topics got discussed? How much that was discussed are we missing?


The whole new POS system seems to greatly favor the attacker in a hostile situation. You would give up having access to all our current intel for the upside of a few benefits that in station services will give us? Options we should already have? Why the **** do you see them as trade offs we should pass up?

I don't expect to have POS's favor the local residents but i don't think they should now play stupid docking games when a well composed fleet can sit at your undock point and tank your POS defenses and stop you from leaving in a fleet format to form up any worthwhile defense.

I think the whole lesser POS idea is a bad option completely as you include C2,3 and 4 in those plans. I agree POS limitations need to be changed in C1's however or mass numbers looked at.

EDIT: Not all of us want to live in C5'6's and play the Cap game. You should remember that.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#15 - 2012-08-05 14:53:14 UTC
Two step wrote:
CCP has their reasons for not wanting to have forcefields anymore. The exact reasons got NDA'd out of the CSM minutes, but they are reasonable. As for sitting outside a new POS's docking point, you might be able to do that, but they might also have webs, points and guns to cover that exit. So if you attack that person undocking, they can just dock back up and let their defenses attack you.


This is where wspace becomes highsec. All that will result are docking games, you can also literally rapecage to **** a POS and not even cloakies undocking will be able to get out.
Irya Boone
The Scope
#16 - 2012-08-05 15:07:22 UTC
I just want the choice to anchor a POS or a station.
Have a real Fiiting service.
reduce the price In PW and CPU of refining and assembly arrays !!

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Doc Hollidai
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#17 - 2012-08-05 16:12:44 UTC
I think it's pretty clear from this thread already, docking in a POS (with current station dock mechanics) is a horrible horrible idea.
Janus Nanzikambe
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#18 - 2012-08-05 17:56:25 UTC
Two step wrote:
Frankly, if I have to give that up to get all the other benefits, I think it is worth it though.


To comporomise on either of those points is to fundamentally abandon two elements that define the difference between Wspace and Kspace.

Reconsider your standpoint on these points, please.
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#19 - 2012-08-06 02:22:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalel Nimrott
Eberyone who gave this post a thumb up is wrong.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-08-06 02:30:34 UTC
Honestly, IMO all they need to do is keep the control tower as is. Rather than anchoring the various mods in space around the control tower, they should just plug in to the tower. Think of a tower with silo's etc sticking out from it etc. Then all you have to do is be within range of the tower and you can access everything

Oh and fix fitting services and all that jazz
123Next pageLast page