These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mascha Tzash
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2013-04-02 15:54:32 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Sweet blog! Think this one will push you over 5k? Blink


It only counts if he gets OVER 9000!!!! Lol
Sedrie
Apple Industries Inc.
#82 - 2013-04-02 15:55:07 UTC
Giddyness has subsided slightly, so I will also bandwagon on the private hangar. I will now paint a pretty picture and illustrate a potential (admittedly edge case) problem.

If Timmy runs out in his covops to get that much awaited Galente Dreadnaught skillbook for his alt Billy, he's got nowhere to put said book when he gets back to securely transfer it. Since Billy is on the same account as Timmy, he's got to jetcan it and hope that his mom doesn't come in and declare bedtime and power off his computer in the interim.

There's no station trading in a POS, so without shared hangars between Billy and Timmy, he's got little other options.

Sure, Billy could have gotten the book in the first place, but regretfully he has no covops skills and has to fly through hostile space to get it.

As it stands now, Billy and Timmy have the same roles for access to one tab, and can easily and effortlessly transfer items between the pilots on the same account. This change looks like it will completely eliminate that ability.



The proposed size is also way too small. It will be fine for ammo and modules, but the miners and ship builders who rely on these mechanics will be left out in the cold.


As has been mentioned, Director and CEO should have take privs. Emergency evac is a way of life when living in wormholes. Even if there is time to CTA for defense/moving, there will always be members who are unable to get back to the wormhole. Being trapped in k-space while your baubles go up in flames is not on anyone's bucket list, methinks.


That said, I applaud the effort and eagerly await the changes.
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#83 - 2013-04-02 15:56:53 UTC
Please tell me you are working on a way for Alliance members to have access to item storage (possibly actually enabling the "alliance" option in the "give" and "take" menu's for ALL of the arrays...) currently the method of using the new freight cans (if dropped by each member) works okay, but very stellar fix if you ask me.

Tshaowdyne Dvorak
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#84 - 2013-04-02 15:57:53 UTC
Sedrie wrote:
There's no station trading in a POS, so without shared hangars between Billy and Timmy, he's got little other options.


Nobody said anything about removing the current CHA structures. Those will probably continue to exist in their current state. As I understand it, the new personal hangar will be a different structure entirely and work like a customs office.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#85 - 2013-04-02 15:58:31 UTC
I would have preferred you tackled the issue of corporation roles & permissions with regard to security of jobs and the POS tower & arrays first. But I can see these proposed ideas will be good and a first step to getting this important area of the game made fit for purpose. I just hope & pray we don't have to wait too long for roles & permissions to get some attention?

I agree with others comments regarding these new private hangars that CEO's of corporations should be able to empty these new hangar systems to enable POS set-ups to be dismantled in case of war-dec or another emergency reason. Or have a button to press to transport the contents to the in-system office at a NPC station if applicable.

I think probably the best idea out of those proposed is to enable ships to access all arrays as long as they are within the POS forcefield. Good idea. Big smile

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

StonerPhReaK
Herb Men
#86 - 2013-04-02 15:59:04 UTC
Good Read. Been wanting this forever.


I think someone disabled ones ability to like Fozzies posts, I've tried and cannot so i will just say it here... Fozzy, I like you.

Signatures wer cooler when we couldn't remove them completely.

Stegas Tyrano
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2013-04-02 16:00:53 UTC
Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be!

Herping your derp since 19Potato - [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2403364][Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts[/url]

Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#88 - 2013-04-02 16:02:12 UTC
Nice stuff,

however the biggest problem related to the limited amount of roles still remains.

.

Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2013-04-02 16:07:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
Excellent news!!! Finally!!!! I hope You guys have read my posts :)
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2013-04-02 16:07:48 UTC
Stegas Tyrano wrote:
Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be!


I think it's cooler to imagine that they're nanites capable of completely disassembling things at a molecular level, moving them, and reassembling them where they need to be. It's like the Star Trek transporter system, but with cool little intelligent nanites doing the work instead of magical beams that are unlikely to ever exist in reality. What do the nanites do when they're not busy moving anyone's stuff around? Maybe they play Minecraft with molecules, building their own little nanite worlds.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#91 - 2013-04-02 16:12:18 UTC
Better than nothing but there is so many problems with these changes that it's.. dissapointing. The ability for director to access others members' stuff to emergency evac, private hangars size and potential abuses with alts, unchanged corp roles... At least we are keeping the old CHA.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#92 - 2013-04-02 16:13:04 UTC
please now increase the volume that assemblies can hold and ill be happy.

oh and make the role rent factory slot work so you don't have to give everyone who uses a pos the ability to cancel every job the whole corp is running

OMG when can i get a pic here

Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2013-04-02 16:13:04 UTC
As a director for nearly 2 years of a successful WH corp, here are my thoughts:

  • Subsystem reconfiguration in the hole? Big win.
  • Accessing anything from anywhere within the shield? Also a win.
  • Adding new hangar to allow personal items to be securely stored? Partial win. My only concern is directors not being able to access members' personal hangars. If someone wants to keep things truly private, they have the option to put them in an orca, or anchored in a GSC, etc. The directors manage the tower resources, and (in my mind) ought to be able to access anything stored there, including members' private hangars.
  • Removing sovereignty requirement for Capship Maintenance Arrays? Somewhat win, but also somewhat terrifying. Yes, it'll be nice to be able to store all our vanity dreads and carriers somewhere appropriate, instead of having to anchor SMAs everywhere, one per capital ship. But please, please, PLEASE tell me you're not going down the path of allowing supercaps and titans to be built in wormholes (i.e. no capital ship ASSEMBLY arrays without sov). Don't get me wrong, if it becomes allowed, we'll be the first ones doing it, but it's a bad, bad, bad idea. At this point, no wormhole corp is immune from eviction; everyone in every hole could be evicted by a dedicated force determined to do so. But if you allow wormhole dwellers access to the biggest firepower in the game, you will astronomically increase the difficulty of evicting a well-dug-in corp. As of right now, if we find an enemy POS in our system trying to establish a foothold to evict us, we bash the POS and send the intruders home via pod express, a process taking hours or days. If we had access to supers and titans, we not only could bash their POS faster, but also repel any firepower they managed to bring with greater ease. Effectively, removing the sov requirement to construct titans and supers would greatly increase the position of the defender, and up the ante of the attacker. I'm as big of an industrial carebear as they come, but I don't want to see that, for it would mean greater safety and less fights. The whole point of wormholes is lack of safety. Please don't ruin that.
  • No mention of fixing gas reactions to at least add a progress bar? Fail. C'mon, CCP. Just give me a timer like the refinery arrays have, or something better than "check the output in a couple hours and see if you set it up right"


But all together, thank you for putting effort where it will be most noticed by the most players. I bet this is the most closely scrutinized devblog EVER.
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#94 - 2013-04-02 16:13:36 UTC
and the fact we have to disconnect silos to take or put stuff inside, please tell me you are going to fix this?

Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2013-04-02 16:14:48 UTC
I know this isn't related to the topic at hand,
but would you mind changing the layout somehow ?

This white on black is bad. It hurts.
A simple, light gray, background picture would help a lot already.

Thank you.

And now i'll try reading the rest of it.
Lilli Tane
Deu-La-Deu
#96 - 2013-04-02 16:16:20 UTC
All seem good except the personal Hangar array.

I can see the value of personal ship storage (and I will love it) but I think directors/CEO etc. should be able to remove ships even from personal storage.

Not only will help to empty them when people are kicked/leave corp, as it will keep the corp theft operations rolling.

Corp theft is a big part of EVE; I hate to see it gone, or made harder by mechanics.

Corp theft is a lesson for people that manage poorly the roles allocation.
ArmEagle Kusoni
Knights of Nii
The 20 Minuters
#97 - 2013-04-02 16:18:01 UTC
At first the personal storage sounds like a great idea. But, in a game where almost everyone has multiple accounts/alts, you're going to make private storage? How useful! It doesn't make much sense for item storage and even less for ships.

Though sure, for ships, some characters are specialized and won't fly all ships of a 'gamer' ('player' could be seen as to be meaning one account/character). But I'd still like to see it all together. And it's unfeasible tho creating tons of SMA's. Especially with the current roles...

I would want to share my item storage between my accounts/alts. Right now I'm using a secure container (living in a corp-mate's POS). Everyone can access it, but at least all my alts can too. Sure I was given access to a section in a hangar, but it's tedious for the POS owner to add permissions for all my alts, so I didn't even ask for it at first.

This is less than a half-baked solution (for the personal storage parts). The first step should have been better permissions/roles. Creating sections in the hangars, SMAs, etc. and giving easy permissions to them, without requiring global (corp) roles. It's crazy you need global corp roles to be able to place a POS. The POS is the entity there, not the corp!
Tshaowdyne Dvorak
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2013-04-02 16:20:20 UTC
From the blog post:

"No limit on the number of characters that can use the structure, but storage is limited per character. The exact per-character volume is undecided but we are currently considering a range from 10,000m3 to 40,000m3."

Devs, can we get some clarification on this point? Is there an upper limit to the volume the whole structure can hold? In other words, does the volume of materials stored in it by various characters actually deplete available volume for everyone else? This would clarify whether or not directors/CEO having access to stuff really matters.

Altrue wrote:
Better than nothing but there is so many problems with these changes that it's.. dissapointing. The ability for director to access others members' stuff to emergency evac, private hangars size and potential abuses with alts, unchanged corp roles... At least we are keeping the old CHA.


If you're a tiny corp, maybe you won't want or need it. If you're a large corp, let the players decide what stuff should be stored in personal hangars and what should be stored in the current CHAs based on their fear of losing stuff to eventual POS destruction. If they want directors to be able to move it, they can put it in their CHA. Otherwise they store it in the personal hangar of their own volition. Choices are a good thing.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#99 - 2013-04-02 16:21:24 UTC
Had to check this wasn't posted on the 1st of April lol, goes beyond my expectations.

Kennesaw Breach wrote:

  • Removing sovereignty requirement for Capship Maintenance Arrays? Somewhat win, but also somewhat terrifying. Yes, it'll be nice to be able to store all our vanity dreads and carriers somewhere appropriate, instead of having to anchor SMAs everywhere, one per capital ship. But please, please, PLEASE tell me you're not going down the path of allowing supercaps and titans to be built in wormholes (i.e. no capital ship ASSEMBLY arrays without sov). Don't get me wrong, if it becomes allowed, we'll be the first ones doing it, but it's a bad, bad, bad idea. At this point, no wormhole corp is immune from eviction; everyone in every hole could be evicted by a dedicated force determined to do so. But if you allow wormhole dwellers access to the biggest firepower in the game, you will astronomically increase the difficulty of evicting a well-dug-in corp. As of right now, if we find an enemy POS in our system trying to establish a foothold to evict us, we bash the POS and send the intruders home via pod express, a process taking hours or days. If we had access to supers and titans, we not only could bash their POS faster, but also repel any firepower they managed to bring with greater ease. Effectively, removing the sov requirement to construct titans and supers would greatly increase the position of the defender, and up the ante of the attacker. I'm as big of an industrial carebear as they come, but I don't want to see that, for it would mean greater safety and less fights. The whole point of wormholes is lack of safety. Please don't ruin that.

  • I'd assume that super/titan building won't be possible in a WH, if it is possible it could have some interesting implications.
    Infinite Force
    #100 - 2013-04-02 16:22:28 UTC
    Camios wrote:
    Ahem.
    I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but

    ShockedREFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Shocked

    Can you please do something about it?
    Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard.
    In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense.


    Go here .... Push for this low-hanging, candy picking, get-r-done easy one ???

    HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

    http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!