These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

POS's And You : Make our voice's herd!

Author
Glasgow Dunlop
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-01-17 13:00:58 UTC
Two Step has started this thred:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194625&find=unread

Its your duty as fellow Wormhole Dwellers To get on board with our CSM member, to try and fix this!

@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet

TDSIN Director : Join 'TDSIN pub' for more info, Join today!

Glasgow EVE Meets Organiser

Frying Doom
#2 - 2013-01-17 13:18:46 UTC
Don't forget to like Two steps post as well to save CCP the hassle of reading as their comprehension skills seem to once again be lacking.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2013-01-17 16:40:08 UTC
Its funny that a few months ago we had a threadnaught in this very forum about the evils of proposed POS changes. Everything was brought up, discussed, digested, re-digested and discussed some more. I think the overwhelming opinion was that the proposed POS changes would seriously and somewhat adversely impact the predatory nature of w-space. Now that we learn that CCP is going to direct their attention towards other elements of the game, we want to start another threadnaught?

No, thank you. I am very happy to hear that CCP is not interested in change the POS system, the current implementation of Force Fields and other mechanics is just fine. Yes, there is a certain level of hassle, inconsistencies and bugs associated with the POS implementation, but an entire re-work is not needed. Instead of backing Two Step on this overhaul, maybe we should pressure CCP into fixing existing issues and leaving the POS system as is? That way we get to fit our subsystems in w-space, have our Force Fields and our intel while letting the Devs work on some other promising features.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2013-01-17 16:47:26 UTC
I believe the threadnaught is not specifically aimed for complete overhaul. Most people agree, that as long as there are no new (modular, force field-less) POSes coming, we definitely need to have the current POS system fixed. Improvements and iterations (on security, storage and roles most importantly) would be good enough.

It's stated even in the first Two Step's post.
Efraya
V0LTA
New Eden Alliance 99013733
#5 - 2013-01-17 16:57:02 UTC
Gnaw LF wrote:
Its funny that a few months ago we had a threadnaught in this very forum about the evils of proposed POS changes. Everything was brought up, discussed, digested, re-digested and discussed some more. I think the overwhelming opinion was that the proposed POS changes would seriously and somewhat adversely impact the predatory nature of w-space. Now that we learn that CCP is going to direct their attention towards other elements of the game, we want to start another threadnaught?

No, thank you. I am very happy to hear that CCP is not interested in change the POS system, the current implementation of Force Fields and other mechanics is just fine. Yes, there is a certain level of hassle, inconsistencies and bugs associated with the POS implementation, but an entire re-work is not needed. Instead of backing Two Step on this overhaul, maybe we should pressure CCP into fixing existing issues and leaving the POS system as is? That way we get to fit our subsystems in w-space, have our Force Fields and our intel while letting the Devs work on some other promising features.


Quoted for Emphasis.

[b][center]WSpace; Dead space.[/center] [center]Lady Spank for forum mod[/center][/b]

Mia Restolo
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2013-01-17 16:58:29 UTC
Even if the first iteration is only fixing the way corp roles apply to POSs it would be a huge step forward.
MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2013-01-17 16:58:49 UTC
I don't think many of the multiple POS threads protested against a change to the POS system only debated on what should and shouldn't be changed in the new system. The current system is something we have to put up with, work around and grin and bear.

Personally im most annoyed with being told sorry your not important enough for us to change a broken system, there excuse for not making a change is just wrong. I think its just basically CCP saying mehh they have put up with it for years so they will carry on putting up with it why should we spend money improving things.

A bit of a slap in the face and a **** you very much from CCP.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-01-17 17:00:31 UTC
I have to agree with Gnaw LF here. I don't know why modular POS's where even suggested if CCP knew it would be such a difficult task to accomplish.

All we need is a few tweaks and maybe some new pos mods. Also, it would be great if the force field didn't make my frame rate go to ****.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-01-17 17:00:55 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
I believe the threadnaught is not specifically aimed for complete overhaul. Most people agree, that as long as there are no new (modular, force field-less) POSes coming, we definitely need to have the current POS system fixed. Improvements and iterations (on security, storage and roles most importantly) would be good enough.

It's stated even in the first Two Step's post.



Roles, security, most of the stuff is fine. All we really need is the ability to swap subsystems and the ability to repackage items.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2013-01-17 17:06:33 UTC
Inability to securely store ships without having dozen POSes is IMHO not fine...
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2013-01-17 17:07:31 UTC
MadbaM wrote:

Personally im most annoyed with being told sorry your not important enough for us to change a broken system, there excuse for not making a change is just wrong. I think its just basically CCP saying mehh they have put up with it for years so they will carry on putting up with it why should we spend money improving things..



I think that is just Pride talking. I too would like to be considered important, to the point where CCP would listen to our every whim. However, the reality is that if you look at the POS system objectively you will see that it is being used quite effectively. That people who use it know how to work around the kinks and limitations, then you do have to ask yourself, do we want spend time making changes that will have a very limited (low visibility) impact or should CCP make a few new ships and make a massive impact?


In the end saying that CCP has not touched POS mechanics is also false, they made changes that allow us to online / offline CHAs and SMAs in mere seconds, FF Passwords are awesome these days and we can rename modules. So some work is being down, albeit at a very slow pace.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2013-01-17 17:14:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gnaw LF
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Inability to securely store ships without having dozen POSes is IMHO not fine...



Wait until your wormhole is invaded, then you will be thanking your lucky stars about having a dozen POSes. What are the other alternatives? Having the ability to dock and a personal hangar? Just like all the stations in high / low / null? Boring, docking games and other issues. Make it so SMAs remember the owner of the ship and only allow him to use / access said ship? Ok, might work but what about capacity? Now your ships are stored safely but another guy from the corp decided to store his Dread in there while you were frolicking about in your Machariel, you come back and there is no more space left in SMA. What then?

Do you see my point? The issues with SMAs are not about the security, its about allowing multiple parties the ability to use them. Fair use and so on. It becomes a hassle without making dockable, instanced personal hangars. So if we are to objectively look at the current implementation of SMA security, you will see that for w-space the current implementation is a major bonus.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2013-01-17 17:28:35 UTC
I do see your point and I mostly agree. But I also think that we should at least have an option to implement some simpler way to secure ships... personalized SMA tabs, for example (noone wants docking). We all know that ship security is massive hurdle for newer and smaller WH corporations. Making it easier for them to recruit and not have all their stuff stolen every other month would greatly help populate w-space and bring more targets to shoot at. As it is now they never get to the stage where evictions and storing dreads would be any concern for them.
Omen Nihilo
Omen Holdings
#14 - 2013-01-17 17:40:52 UTC
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#15 - 2013-01-17 17:54:06 UTC
Omen Nihilo wrote:


Thanks for heads up, that is very good to read and totally satisfying.

Guess this is what happens when 99% of players just skim the Minutes, bit ashamed now for jumping the bandwagon.

I still do want to make the starbases special.

.

Daenor Falknor
HunTim Trading Corp
#16 - 2013-01-17 18:02:14 UTC
Gnaw LF wrote:
[Roles, security, most of the stuff is fine. All we really need is the ability to swap subsystems and the ability to repackage items.


I totally disagree. The inability to have decent levels of secured storage in w-space is a major problem for corp recruiting and retention. it is one thing to share SMA/CHA with the friends that you have played with for 2 years. It's entirely another to share with new guys that you just recruited. And how about the new guy's level of comfort? He has to make all of his stuff available to a group of guys that he just met. Those issues stunted growth in my previous corp and eventually played a significant role in it's demise.

Are there ways around it? Yes, very messy ones. Roles (only a few available and now you are giving people roles for things that you may not really want them to have, just so they can access a particular CHA?) , separate POS (lots of isk and a hassle to maintain).

Saying POS are fine now is like saying MS-DOS is fine. People used it for years. Who really needs a windowing GUI on their computer?
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-01-17 18:08:07 UTC
Daenor Falknor wrote:
Gnaw LF wrote:
[Roles, security, most of the stuff is fine. All we really need is the ability to swap subsystems and the ability to repackage items.


I totally disagree. The inability to have decent levels of secured storage in w-space is a major problem for corp recruiting and retention. it is one thing to share SMA/CHA with the friends that you have played with for 2 years. It's entirely another to share with new guys that you just recruited. And how about the new guy's level of comfort? He has to make all of his stuff available to a group of guys that he just met. Those issues stunted growth in my previous corp and eventually played a significant role in it's demise.

Are there ways around it? Yes, very messy ones. Roles (only a few available and now you are giving people roles for things that you may not really want them to have, just so they can access a particular CHA?) , separate POS (lots of isk and a hassle to maintain).

Saying POS are fine now is like saying MS-DOS is fine. People used it for years. Who really needs a windowing GUI on their computer?


The is nothing I've seen that said the POS changes will address security. That is a corp roles and security issue, which would likely need to be addressed separately, cause they suck.
Spheranzinne
Color of Violence
#18 - 2013-01-17 18:21:48 UTC
what is "POS modular system"?
Sassums
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#19 - 2013-01-17 18:22:07 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Daenor Falknor wrote:
Gnaw LF wrote:
[Roles, security, most of the stuff is fine. All we really need is the ability to swap subsystems and the ability to repackage items.


I totally disagree. The inability to have decent levels of secured storage in w-space is a major problem for corp recruiting and retention. it is one thing to share SMA/CHA with the friends that you have played with for 2 years. It's entirely another to share with new guys that you just recruited. And how about the new guy's level of comfort? He has to make all of his stuff available to a group of guys that he just met. Those issues stunted growth in my previous corp and eventually played a significant role in it's demise.

Are there ways around it? Yes, very messy ones. Roles (only a few available and now you are giving people roles for things that you may not really want them to have, just so they can access a particular CHA?) , separate POS (lots of isk and a hassle to maintain).

Saying POS are fine now is like saying MS-DOS is fine. People used it for years. Who really needs a windowing GUI on their computer?


The is nothing I've seen that said the POS changes will address security. That is a corp roles and security issue, which would likely need to be addressed separately, cause they suck.


A POS update would be nice, but I agree roles are the problem here, maybe not necessarily the pos itself.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-01-17 18:56:42 UTC
Roime wrote:
Omen Nihilo wrote:


Thanks for heads up, that is very good to read and totally satisfying.

Guess this is what happens when 99% of players just skim the Minutes, bit ashamed now for jumping the bandwagon.

I still do want to make the starbases special.


CCP Gargant's response was indeed helpful but this wasn't just a case of players skimming the minutes. Unifex might be wishing he'd phrased his thoughts differently right now, but he still clearly indicated a lack of understanding as to how much POSes can affect the game experience of players across EVE.

While I see Gnaw's point about the irony of this pitchfork raising after past threadnaughts, the issue Two step is pushing (that I agree with) is to demonstrate how many players POSes impact contrary to Unifex's stated opinion. Modular POSes vs POS improvements is still debatable, but one of the two should happen and it should happen on a timeframe based on the true relevance of the issue, not the perceived relevance established by Unifex.
12Next page