These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Inepsa1987
#261 - 2013-04-03 03:35:01 UTC
Title should be renamed to "Retribution 1.2 POS Fixes"

More content next time . . .



Spaceship Pilot.

Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Virtus Crusade Protectorate
#262 - 2013-04-03 03:38:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Ms Michigan
CCP Fozzie wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Sweet blog! Think this one will push you over 5k? Blink


I guess that will depend on whether Starbase users are a small portion of the community or not. Lol




Haha - I see what you did there! Twisted


Well all I have to say is "So much WIN in this dev blog."

I cannot express how happy I am after having WAITED YEARS for this. This will definitely help me sleep better at night knowing my "corpmates" are not going to rip me off or everyone else off. Having lived in WH's since APOC and in null - this pCHA is epic.

I ALSO LIKE HOW DIRECTORS CANNOT access it but we can see it - no harm here despite the ideologians who want things just so. This gives the renter a higher degree of trust also that he won't be ripped off. As a director worried about leaving stuff sitting around - just don't leave your stuff sitting around in the regular CHA and all is fine.

THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!

CCP FOZZIE, I don't know how you do it. You are the best like wh0re ever. Cool


My corp thanks you.

Cheers!
Deornoth Drake
Vandeo
#263 - 2013-04-03 03:59:19 UTC
Deornoth Drake wrote:
First: I like!

And I hope that you don't run into a road block!

Now on to some feedback:
Private Hangars
Quote:
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.


That sounds a bit strange to me. Consider a small corp with 10 pilots, they would end up using 400k m3 of 1'400k m3 (if the volume of the private hangar module corresponds to the corporate hangar module). Hence, a relative number would make more sense to me. Or on the other side, consider a really big corp with 150+ pilots, they would be able to use more that the 1'400k m3. As said it depends on how the total available volume, if there is any at all. And don't forget to link the private hangars in case a POS has two modules. Maybe provide access to the hangars and fuel bays via the POS and increase the size via the modules and let the drones take care of distributing the stuff (e.g. gun ammo).

Swapping and fitting Strategic Cruiser subsystems at a starbase
Will this become possible within carriers, Rorqual, Orcas as well? I hope so!

Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield
As mentioned before. Let the tower be the central access location for all hangars, so the modules just increase the available size.

As said, I like the changes and look forward to them!
Good luck!


The longer I think about the more potential there is in the control tower being the access point to all hangars:

  • no need to implement any transport drone mechanic but a need to track the capacity of the different hangar
  • no need to search for the right module to be able to access it's storage
  • if there are two modules running but only the space of one module is used, you could remove one module without having to move a single item or pop up a warning if you should remove some items or lose them in case of PHA -> this would simplify moving a POS since you could remove that is not in use
  • like for hangars, let the control tower be the access point to research & manufacturing slots (see above), which would allow a more dynamic way of running labs
  • POS setup could somehow move towards fitting screen
TheFourteenthTry
Unicorn Balls
#264 - 2013-04-03 04:13:30 UTC  |  Edited by: TheFourteenthTry
I had a question regarding The private hangar array.

It seems that this could be a new item, or just a modified version of the current hangar array. So what is it a whole new POS module, or modification of the current one?

If it is a modification of the current array, will this eliminate the corp hangar functionality/capacity entirely? My concern is that 1,400,000 m3 and 40,000 m3 are drastically different sizes, and it turns out some stuff in EVE is pretty big.
Abs Sciuto
Tail Spin Corp
Proxima Centauri Alliance
#265 - 2013-04-03 04:29:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Abs Sciuto
thanks! but I want to ask only one thing: give to directors right to take everything from personal hangars.
it's necessary cause :
1 in my wh we can move our pos somewhere, or take everything to empire. and not all from us might log in and give things to me.
2 spy can't more do something really incredible)

personal hangars with this rules you want will not be useable cause I will never buy and anchor it.

40k m3 per director will not enough, so I cant understand problem why)


add: you can give us a switcher to control this function.
Alsculard VanHellsing
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#266 - 2013-04-03 04:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Alsculard VanHellsing
edit
Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation
#267 - 2013-04-03 04:44:55 UTC
Personally I find the current announced implementation plan to be a bit underwhelming. However it is far, far better than nothing. However I hope you (CCP) read and consider my thoughts on the matter.


Kennesaw Breach wrote:
I'm more concerned about persons taking other people's stuff or corporate stuff from CHAs, labs, arrays, etc, and deliberately placing it in their personal hangar as a denial-of-resource action.
This is also a concern of mine and something I feel justifies at the minimum allowing a CEO access to the contents of private hangars. I can imagine a disgruntled member with fuel bay access or access to the corporate hangar arrays fuel reserves for the POS taking those reserves and slamming them into an untouchable personal hangar.

Unlike an NPC station where the Security Officer can only view the contents of the hangar (as the storage is provide by an entity other than the corporation, the Personal Storage Array is being provided by the corporation. It should be understood in my opinion that if an asset is stored in any facility at a POS it is corporate property.

However, with that said, CEO/Director should only ever be able to TAKE from personal hangars, never put. Simply put allowing them to give & take would enable exploitation of the array for infinite storage given sufficient characters to 'create' or 'initiate' their personal storage.


MarcelJust wrote:
slap the personal hangars on the tower itself and be done with it. When personal ship hangars are added add those to the tower as well.
I agree with this. Something tells me though that each individual POS structure is coded separately, which leads me to believe adding a new structure is a much easier solution for them than modifying an existing one.

If this theory of mine is correct, in addition to adding the new POS structure(s) I would like to see a new control tower class added. Honestly using ORE or the Sisters of EVE as the producer could legitimize only having one new tower added.

Call this tower an "Expeditionary Tower" and make it big, bulky, consume more fuel and likely be stronger. Maybe even have the perk of being able to use any of the four fuel types, or just one. It doesn't matter.

Where an Expeditionary Tower would stand out though is allowing a much much larger Personal Storage directly embedded within the tower. Something like 1,000,000 m3 per player, plus an appropriate personal ship hangar capable of storing at minimum a compliment of 1 exhumer/mining barge (whichever has the highest volume), 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, and 3 frigates.

This type of tower would be more advanced and an evolution to the system enabling players to actually store their personal gains from wormholes, remote mining operations, nullsec operations etc etc.

As I see it now, even a 50k m3 personal hangar allotment is going to prevent any real personal gain from PI, Mining, R&D, Manufacturing etc at a POS as 50k m3 is not a lot of space, especially for any serious miner or PI user.

However, it's better than nothing.



My biggest disappointment with this announcement is that not a shred of information was released in this dev blog in relation to the usability of Research & Manufacturing facilities at a POS.

When Odyssey was announced and POS changes were mentioned I was hoping the need for Factory Manager role would finally be addressed. I'm still holding out hope that it will be addressed and have a few ideas how to fix it (assuming I even have a grasp of how the code for roles [roles, not the POS module] are handled.)

As it stands, I personally feel that if CCP were to fix the overwhelmingly large issues with the Factory Manager requirement in EVE it would breathe a new life into the game the likes of EVE has never seen before.

Imagine a world where POS R&D and Manufacturing can be done in a corp with many members sharing the same labs and manufacturing facilities without fear that members that aren't part of the leadership can just cancel everything making everyone lose tons and tons of work?

Imagine... Null sec corps and alliances would be more open to pure industrialists who could use the wealth of their systems to keep themselves stocked locally without over-crowding their outpost slots.

People like me could actually fund a series of POS' and allow open member usage, creating an ease of accessibility for people who are interested in R&D or Manufacturing but simply don't have access to sufficient facilities. (Especially true with R&D).

Food for thought CCP.



Is there any hope of getting the ability to mark a player in the current roles system (assuming it isn't going to be revamped this expansion) as "Based At" a POS? The Personal Storage is a huge huge boon to POS security, but I really feel that being able to "Based At" a player to a POS would be significant.

As it stands now, POS hangar access is all or nothing. Further security requires fuel tech or config starbase equipment, which further complicates things with access levels.

Want secure storage beyond regular roles? Fuel Tech. Don't want that same person being able to manage POS fuel? Starbase Config. Crap, don't want that person unanchoring your tower? You're SOL. This often leaves the CEO/Director (in a smart, secure corp) in charge of maintaining their POS fuel bays and allows little room for delegation.

Ideally I'd like to be able to fully delegate maintenance of a specific POS to a specific member by having "Based At" hangar access enabled for said POS and then further fixing it by having separate POS Fuel Tech & Config Starbase roles under the Based at section.

If it's possible to do this and then further be able to specify in the existing POS menus whether it uses the based at or regular Fuel Tech/Config roles would immensely increase configuration with minimal effort.

It wont let me have an empty signature...

Alsculard VanHellsing
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2013-04-03 04:51:40 UTC
Oreamnos Amric wrote:
Altrue wrote:
I'm sorry but what type of people are your targeting EXACTLY with your new instancied CHA feature ?

Wormholes ? Who would use this if in case of an emergency EVAC, if directors can't move your stuff out while you're at work ?

Known space ? They have stations, working just fine, but without m3 limitations.

You're loosing a lot of precious dev time to create an useless module, far BELOW our expectations about a POS rewamp. GG CCP.


This module is exactly what everyone who lives in a POS with any number of other people has been screaming at CCP to give us (i.e. wormholes). I will happily swallow the potential to lose some stuff during an emergency evac when balanced against increased security for things I want to keep secure. If I'm about to lose a POS who actually cares about the crap in it? We'll be too busy throwing ships at the invaders anyway.




So far the new CHA is being universally hated by the major entities in W-space. Besides what is listed above and in countless (to me) other posts in this thread on this subject, it creates more problems than it solves. Bareface trolling and an increased potential of corporate interpersonal relation degradation will be the main result of the new CHA. (in its current form) Adding a grantable role would be the fastest quick fix to this potential problem while keeping the base essence of the addition intact. Another viable option is to eliminate this addition and just modify the current CHA with roles and expanded tabs to allow semi-individual control of a tab while not limiting the m3 to such a small amount. Granted the second method can cause some m3 greed however,it is easy to program the second method and be in time for the release.

Just some last thoughts:
If you are worried about your ceo/directors accessing your items in a corp pos then you shouldn't be using a pos and/or be in that corp.
Corp theft is always a concern in whatever form however, adding a feature that adds such a great method for drama/hate/political fallout can ruin a corp faster than any current method potential theft in eve.

Plz CCP take this seriously and rework that good intention
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#269 - 2013-04-03 05:24:10 UTC
Q1: Will we be able to research and/or copy blueprints from our personal storages?

Q2: Can we issue contracts from/to our personal storages?

Q3: I didnt understand the reasons behind CSMA changes, could anyone explain?

Feature request: market facility. A director creates a list of trade-able goods, with prices. Any corp-mate can sell those goods to get isk from corp wallet, or can buy some. Goods are stored in a CHA tab, which is linked to the market facility. No orders are seen on a regular market, the interface looks more like a POCO.
You cannot over-estimate that feature. It would make running corporate projects (including, but not limited to idustry) so much more efficient! Did you ever try to organize a mining operation with fair rewards? What about T2 or T3 production chain? Almost impossible, unless all of your corpmates are your own alts. Do it please - it's a rather simple feature that would incredibly tighten connections within corporation, solidifying community.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#270 - 2013-04-03 05:34:51 UTC
Rand McKikas wrote:
If it has to be put up as a corp item, (player item hangar ) then I think directors should have access to everything, if you don't trust your leadership you should find a different corp.... plus having to waste stuff because someone quits is just bad


"Trusting your leadership" ended badly quite a few times in the past, I'll be damned before I trust anyone with anything when it comes to EVE.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#271 - 2013-04-03 05:35:42 UTC
Alsculard VanHellsing wrote:
So far the new CHA is being universally hated by the major entities in W-space. Besides what is listed above and in countless (to me) other posts in this thread on this subject, it creates more problems than it solves. Bareface trolling and an increased potential of corporate interpersonal relation degradation will be the main result of the new CHA. (in its current form)

Some anonymous entities is not a valid argument. Please explain how it leads to "bareface trolling" and degradation?
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#272 - 2013-04-03 05:42:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Rand McKikas wrote:
If it has to be put up as a corp item, (player item hangar ) then I think directors should have access to everything, if you don't trust your leadership you should find a different corp.... plus having to waste stuff because someone quits is just bad


"Trusting your leadership" ended badly quite a few times in the past, I'll be damned before I trust anyone with anything when it comes to EVE.

Happens every time people are forced into communism. More options for capitalism, please. Personal hangars as a guarantee of private property is a right decision. Also want to implement a market on my POS.
Katsuo Nuruodo
Suddenly Dreadnoughts
#273 - 2013-04-03 05:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Katsuo Nuruodo
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Alsculard VanHellsing wrote:
So far the new CHA is being universally hated by the major entities in W-space. Besides what is listed above and in countless (to me) other posts in this thread on this subject, it creates more problems than it solves. Bareface trolling and an increased potential of corporate interpersonal relation degradation will be the main result of the new CHA. (in its current form)

Some anonymous entities is not a valid argument. Please explain how it leads to "bareface trolling" and degradation?


I have been the CEO of a wormhole corp for years, and I agree that this change will lead to "corporate interpersonal relation degradation". There should be some way for either ceo's, directors, and/or corp members with some certain role to be able to move items to and from other people's hangar bays.

On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable. It also greatly decreases the chances of them continuing their subscription. I had one corp member who was with us for the better part of a year, left for a few months, returned, and, because he had been dropped from corp while he wasn't playing, lost the expensive ship he had logged out in to our own automatic POS guns. He stopped playing shortly after that and has not returned. Imagine how much this would be amplified if someone returns to find out all the items they've been collecting in their WH home are now gone.

Now, of course this happens currently when a corp theft happens, and when the POS is attacked. But, there's a key difference here. Currently, the person to blame is the corp thief, or the attacking force. But, with the change, the person to blame for all your stuff being lost would be the corp CEO or directors. You're the one that took down the POS. If you don't want to destroy people's stuff, you'd have to keep up old POSs indefinitely, making moving or changing POS models prohibitively expensive.

My corp has lived in quite a number of different wormhole systems over the years, and every time we've moved, we've hauled everyone's stuff out and saved it for them, whether they were currently active or not. I don't want to be forced to decide between preserving billions of isk worth of my corp member's items, and moving to a new system so that my corporation can grow and thrive.
Hitoni Jaynara
Doomheim
#274 - 2013-04-03 06:04:02 UTC
Here is one thing that I havent seen (I will admit that I didnt read ALL of the thread) - allowing the ability to have super-capitals stored in lo-sec/wh areas. With that ability (mainly in lo-sec), wouldnt it be easier for the large, null-sec alliances to move closer into high-sec by denying acess to the lo-sec area for people who arent in those alliances? I dont know about you, but this fills me with dread - giving the ability to these alliances to "take over" another part of EVE is an even more dreadfull idea and limits exploration for everyone.

Just my badly worded ha-pennies worth there.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#275 - 2013-04-03 06:10:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable.

1. You can always choose to never anchor a new PHA, only use CHA.
2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc.
3. You're a CEO, damn it, not a baby-sitter. If corpmates connot care for themselves and their property - should you care? If you choose to be a baby-sitter though, you have an option #1.

P.S.: I bet that player who lost his tengu to POS guns whould have quit anyway.

P.P.S.: My first thought was also "need a way to scoop those stuff somehow". But then I've read a reasoning from Fozzie, who said that you should have a tough choice between using CHA and PHA. The choice is hard indeed, works as intended. Just make sure your corpmates understand that.
Katsuo Nuruodo
Suddenly Dreadnoughts
#276 - 2013-04-03 06:37:06 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable.

1. You can always choose to never anchor a new PHA, only use CHA.


That's another way of saying "your corp can never have more than 13 members". This change would let us do away with that restriction. I'd rather like to finally be able to grow my corp above this arbitrary limit we've had to live with so far.

Sinzor Aumer wrote:

2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc.



I wasn't talking about evacuation due to being attacked. I was talking about moving to a wormhole system that better suits the needs of our corp members.

Also, you seem to have missed the part where I stated:

Now, of course this happens currently when a corp theft happens, and when the POS is attacked. But, there's a key difference here. Currently, the person to blame is the corp thief, or the attacking force. But, with the change, the person to blame for all your stuff being lost would be the corp CEO or directors. You're the one that took down the POS.

Additionally recall that I was trying to prove the following point:

this change will lead to "corporate interpersonal relation degradation"


Sinzor Aumer wrote:

3. You're a CEO, damn it, not a baby-sitter. If corpmates connot care for themselves and their property - should you care? If you choose to be a baby-sitter though, you have an option #1.


We have always been a corp where RL comes first. If something happens in RL that pulls you away from EVE for weeks, or months, we want our members to know that their stuff will still be there when they come back, even if you had to stop playing suddenly, with no time to prepare in game.

And, as for option #1, well, I don't want to be limited to 13 members.

Sinzor Aumer wrote:
PS: I bet that player who lost his tengu to POS guns whould have quit anyway.


It wasn't a tengu, and while he may have left anyway, this occurrence increased the chances of him leaving quite a bit. Seems to me that CCP wouldn't really want to alienate returning paying subscribers.
Gelatine
EverBroke Geeks
#277 - 2013-04-03 06:48:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I can confirm that we're not removing CHAs, the Personal Hangar structure is a separate structure and the two can exist alongside each other to meet different needs.

Letting directors and/or CEOs access the member's sections of the PHA is not going to be within our scope for the first iteration due to technical limitations, and I am honestly not sold on ever adding it. These structures are not intended to completely replace CHAs for all purposes, and the added difficulty to rapid evacuation provides slightly more incentive for wormhole invasions.

The Personal Hangar does not have any limits to total storage, which significantly reduces the amount of management that needs to be done to keep it running smoothly.

And a reminder once again, we are not allowing people to build supercaps in wormholes or lowsec, don't worry.


This is probably the best news I've read regarding EVE for a very long time. Thanks CCP and CSM7

Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#278 - 2013-04-03 07:16:13 UTC
Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:

2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc.

I wasn't talking about evacuation due to being attacked. I was talking about moving to a wormhole system that better suits the needs of our corp members.

"Any reasons" was exactly as I said. EVE is a dark cold place, let me repeat that.

"13 members" - while role system is bad, it's not that bad.

Anyway, I have a solution for your type of corporation ("go play kids, daddy is always there to bail you out").
When a corpmate returns, and finds out he've lost all his hard-earned pixels - he's upset, no doubt. But then you send a corp mail: "Let's help him all we can, cause we're one family!" Folks a glad to help, they stockpile some isk. When presented, he says with tears of tender emotion: "So nice of you guys, but I cannot accept this. Let those isk go to the corp wallet to help our friendly family to prosper even greater!" Everybody happy.
And I'm not trolling, even if it may seem so.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#279 - 2013-04-03 07:52:00 UTC
Seems to have been some love for this post - any chance it could get a response from Fozzie or Masterplan?

xttz wrote:

Can you also confirm if any of these ideas are being looked into (perhaps as later Odyssey patches)?

a) Starbase weapon rebalancing

b) Centralised ammo mananagement

c) Starbase Defense Management UI

d) Auditing

e) Standings-based Forcefield Access
Alsculard VanHellsing
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2013-04-03 08:05:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Alsculard VanHellsing
So far all the posts from my last to this one seems to continue to support what I have written. Even the counter arguments have done nothing more than reinforce it. The prospect of just having the mod available and corp denying the use of them will contribute highly to potential corp dissent. It is a lose/ lose situation in that regard. The base of the mod and the arguments to support it have been about the individual however, it is being placed in a small (compared to a station or outpost) corporate based field. The attention needed either on the fly and/or a daily basis for a w-space pos precludes a complete hands off approach. For those that read the 1st post, it was a synopsis and analysis of all the previous posts to that point. Again, more in overlords and beyond have rejected this as a good intention but it will cause more problems for w-space corps than what it will solve.