These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Survey for Structures in EVE - Your opinion matters!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
twit brent
Never Not AFK
#61 - 2014-12-19 05:27:46 UTC
CCP Arrow wrote:
Coelomate wrote:
I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.

For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"

I have no idea what that means, or even could mean.


We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve.


So you want us to have to train more alts?
So you want it more inaccessible to solo players?
So you want to make it more tedious for solo builders?
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#62 - 2014-12-19 06:23:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
I completed the relevant sections of the survey. What it boils down to for me is that optimal game play in industry should not be solo. It is at the moment because you need to trust people in order to work together. That would be ideal but in EVE is unfortunately idealistic and impractical - you WILL get robbed.

I don't know how it would work in practice but I would love to be able to effectively hire people to do tasks for me. This wouldn't necessarily require a contract but roles should be fine-grained enough that I don't have to risk significant assets or security in order for someone to cooperate with me.

I'd also love for some permissions to exist outside a corp structure. Corps themselves can be limiting in terms of game play. I.e. I shouldn't need to join an indy corp if I want to do a bit on the side when the PvP is quiet.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
KaRa DaVuT
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2014-12-19 07:13:21 UTC
Done.

Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is in your heart and on your mind... And what you decide to do every day, makes you - not your race - a good man - or not.
Lasse R Farnsworth
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#64 - 2014-12-19 07:17:00 UTC
To be honest .. even as an ex WH squatter I didn't know the term starbase on first glance. And to be fair you should split an pos survey rom the rest ... Because just an small subset of players know the pain of that alliance 0.0 stuff but an huge group knows the POS PAIN ...
Cae Lara
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2014-12-19 08:46:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Cae Lara
probag Bear wrote:
"If you could set an automated commission tax when delegating tasks or resources would you use it?"

Please, please, please, don't half-ass this. Allow taxes to be set both per hour of usage (e.g: 0.1mil per hour per manufacturing job) and percentually (e.g: 1% of input value per manufacturing jobs). Implement tax filters, so that different taxes can be levied on different inventory/market groups. Basically, sit down with Steve or some future S&I CSM member, ask them what customization they would love, and implement all that. This feature is an absolute dream if done right.


I wholeheartedly agree, this kind of idea has the potential to turn into something amazing if done right. And I hope a lot of love and care goes into making it usable and effective.

It was worth taking the survey just to find out that CCP is planning something along these lines.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#66 - 2014-12-19 09:08:50 UTC
twit brent wrote:
CCP Arrow wrote:
Coelomate wrote:
I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.

For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"

I have no idea what that means, or even could mean.


We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve.


So you want us to have to train more alts?
So you want it more inaccessible to solo players?
So you want to make it more tedious for solo builders?





As a solo player and a solo builder, (with 11 accounts), yes, I hope that they add more activities that can be done as a group, or add more functionality for groups to do projects. It doesn't force us to train more alts, it encourages us to you know, play with other people. Something I don't actually have to do much right now. I don't believe tedium should be a factor though.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-12-19 09:18:29 UTC
As for my actual feedback on this survey:

Starbases should have their own thread and survey. They are such a convoluted mess, that forcing us to rate them against other factors makes other issues look less broken, purely by comparison.

Complicated and confusing role system
Clunky interface, especially for gunning
Utterly defenseless against even small (15) capital groups
Unfathomably low scan res (30mm on webs and disruptors, that's a supercarrier with no sebos. 70mm on medium guns (that's about carrier speed)
Mediocre damage with the inability to swap targets quickly (the 1 target limitation really hurts the ability to outswap logi)

Bonuses unfavourable to tower roles:
Caldari towers are the ONLY towers that have enough cpu for advanced reactions, yet gallente and amarr get the silo bonus
Caldari towers have an ecm bonus, which is actually a penalty 50% of the time (it can actually cause targets to be jammed LESS often)
Gallente control tower has no range bonus for hybrid sentries, meaning that you are stuck between enemies outranging (easily) your blasters, or shrugging off the terrible dps of rail batteries that have bad fitting cost.
Leonis Perthshire
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#68 - 2014-12-19 09:47:27 UTC
What we can do about the survey is fill it out, no mater how point lest and confusion it is seems, hope CCP will find the relevant info they need.

In my caseI like the fight for SOV but I don like the eternal bashing of structures, it would be cool a fight of a king instead of bash.

“If you win, you live. If you lose, you die. If you don’t fight, you can’t win!” – Eren Jaeger

White Maul
CCP Arrow
C C P
C C P Alliance
#69 - 2014-12-19 10:16:11 UTC
twit brent wrote:
CCP Arrow wrote:
Coelomate wrote:
I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.

For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"

I have no idea what that means, or even could mean.


We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve.


So you want us to have to train more alts?
So you want it more inaccessible to solo players?
So you want to make it more tedious for solo builders?





We just want to know what players think about it, if most players say no to that question, then that will send a clear message.

CCP Arrow   |   Director of User Experience   |   EVE Online   |   @CCP_Arrow
Sturmwolke
#70 - 2014-12-19 10:16:28 UTC
CCP Arrow wrote:
Coelomate wrote:
I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.

For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"

I have no idea what that means, or even could mean.


We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve.

Be careful here. EVE is alts online and will always be until the server finally breathes its last.
That said, encouraging the extreme multiplicity of alts use through game mechanics that heavily favors this playstyle is detrimental for the longterm playerbase.
The scaling should be tapered wherever applicable. I'm not a fan of infinite scaling.
Mello Witkacy
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2014-12-19 17:40:19 UTC
Just change Sov warfare so small corps and allys will be able to control their own space without need to join big blobs - big blobs NC and Goons killed eve....
for people who don't want to be a part of blob there is only NPC space or WH and thats wrong.
We dont want China serv here - CCP go to WORK !
Matcha Mosburger
Matsuko Holding
#72 - 2014-12-19 17:53:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Matcha Mosburger
delete double post
Matcha Mosburger
Matsuko Holding
#73 - 2014-12-19 18:01:09 UTC
Kalenn Istarion wrote:
CCP Arrow wrote:
Coelomate wrote:
I'm doing this survey now, and excited that these issues are at the forefront of the devs minds, but I really don't understand what many of these questions are asking me.

For example: "Would you prefer using structures through co-op gameplay?"

I have no idea what that means, or even could mean.


We of course don't want to inject any ideas, but it could hint at having the gameplay more of a collaboration of many rather than something you would delegate to a single individual to achieve.


A "corp production line" concept where anyone with appropriate roles could share in managing production instead of having only player-locked production slots would be something interesting, if that's the sort of thing you're conceiving of. Requiring two players in space to online a structure would be exactly the wrong kind of "co-op gameplay" for EVE.

You know what else would be useful, in terms of managing things like corp reactions or marketing or whatever? Limited corp API keys. This is only tangentially related but allowing someone with roles to use an API key to see data related to that role would be useful as hell, specifically in the context of the above-mentioned corp production.


Can't like a second time so +1

This really needs to happen - Limited Corp API Keys. Or at a minimum allow personal keys to see ANY (even Corp) projects started by the API owner.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#74 - 2014-12-19 20:24:40 UTC
This is the part where I get to say I miss CCP Greyscale. He was the last person to publicly work on any of this as part of the Crius indy rebalance. He solicited a lot of feedback about POSes and stations in relation to industry and actually implemented some suggestions.

As for some of the more ambiguous questions, given that I have experience with sov and POSes, I answered yes to make sure I got to the important questions about sov and POS mechanics. I'll rephrase what I wrote in another thread: too few options, too many mandatory timers, POS/corp roles suck.

For example: you want to tax renters? What about a version of the ESS (setting aside the current bad mechanics) that sends a percentage of the bounties gathered from in-system ratting directly to the owner's corp wallet? To clarify, it doesn't care who owns the system, or who is ratting there. It takes x% and sends it to your corp wallet. Now, was that so hard?

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Vihura
Vihura Cor
#75 - 2014-12-20 14:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Vihura
I filled survey but for 90% questions I should answer 'I have no idea' I only used POS a little in wormhole, I'm in alliance involved in SOV war but have no idea how its works from management point of view, generally, in my opinion, survey is bad designed because my feed back is in 90% useless.
Navigation Boy
Edge Dancers
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#76 - 2014-12-21 14:43:44 UTC
Wait, by "starbase" they meant POS? Player Owned Station?

I thought they were referring to the capturable stations, the ones that change hands.


Seriously suggest you put 'POS' in brackets, since that's how 99% of the playerbase knows it. My advice is that you can't expect the players to speak your lingo, you have to speak theirs to implement a proper survey.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#77 - 2014-12-21 15:44:40 UTC
Houm... I've tried to take the poll twice, and felt terribly stupid doing it. Don't you think that when someone says "no, I don't use structures, no I never used them, no I would NOT use structures even if you changed whatever with them", that should stop asking that person about how to improve them?

I kind of expected, after saying don't use them, never used, don't want to use them, a single last question on WHY don't use them, never used them and don't want to use them. What?

Did my best to suggest improvements but really... I never used them so I don't know whether it's necessary to improve ownership or management or whatever. What?
Generaloberst Kluntz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2014-12-21 16:31:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Generaloberst Kluntz
Make it easy for a CEO to transfer pos with configs to another Corp. "Trade POS" would require all director-level members to be inside said pos ff.
Make personal SMA.
Make onlining time half of current for everything. POS are interesting and every player will have one at some moment, it's annoying to wait 2min for each gun.
Make it possible to set individual access to SMAs and CHAs for non-members of Corp. My alts suffer.
Do not introduce attached modules to pos, or ditch forcefields. Anchorables and ff's are both awesome and beautiful.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#79 - 2014-12-22 00:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
Dangeresque Too wrote:
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
I did the survey just to ask for a corporation hangar array that has divisions for each member of the corp. So many ships stolen from POS hangar over the years without a decent way of preventing it. Should be easy to exercise safety if it is warranted.

I get not storing ships in the hangar if they are worth taking, but still. Deploying from a starbase in home system is very useful. Should be possible to do safely. Sharing ships is great, but safely storing ships with only personal access should be possible as well. Should be an option, not a forced thing, as I can totally see that making some of my ships available to corp members is useful for rapid deployment, but some ships that are more expensive are better off in a personal array.
They have what you described, called a Personal Hanger, everyone gets their own subset of space that they are granted access to.

I think what you were asking for was the same variant of a Ship Maintenance Array, like a Personal Ship Array, right? Just wanted to make that clear.


The place where you keep ships, yeah

shows just how much I have used POSes to be honest...you'd think ships go in a hangar

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
0mni Ca
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2014-12-23 00:02:15 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5334396#

My response to the CO-OP question, may not be strictly CO-OP, but would go quicker with more people.