These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Continuation of small improvements for POS
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kor'el Izia
#1 - 2012-01-28 15:54:27 UTC
I hadn't done any POS stuff at all before the Crucible expansion, but when I read the patch notes (as I'm sure you all do Bear) I noticed the changes to POS modules anchoring times and onlining times, they had been severely reduced. As my interest began to grow with these structures I did my research, like any EvE player would do, and came to the conclusion that the POS system we currently have is broken(something CCP can attest to). Currently POS setup will make even the most hardcore iceminers fall asleep of boredom

Changes has been proposed in the past (google: eve flog horse), these have typically been rather large-scale projects requiring a full expansion to fix, thereby being a large gamble for CCP

Many want changes to happen to the game and it can happen believe it or not. You just need to pick easily implementable quick fixes, not flogging of dead horses...not because CCP is lazy, but because there are more people who want a 4th AF modifier than people wanting better, cleaner, quicker, prettier (enter your desc here) POS

With the Crucible expansion we saw the beginning of the revamp of POS which, I'm hopeful about, we will see continuing moving forward.

I've compiled a small list of fixes in no particular order. If I could do it from here and send it in I would, but CCP won't release the source code P so that's out of the question

  • Title: Separate anchoring from onlining
    • Desc: This will allow you to keep anchoring stuff while something is onlining or vice versa.
    Why: To be able to set a structure to online, then continue anchoring other structures, or vice versa
    How: Modify the if-then check when you try to do something to just check if the operation you are doing(anchor) is happening. You will also have to make sure that you can't do two operations on the same structure(id?)

  • Title: Ammo drain from tower
    • Desc: Add a new hold on the tower that it's guns drain ammo from, just like your cargohold and your guns
    Why: To be relieved of having to fly to a gun 30km away in an industrial ship, fill it up, then fly to another gun 30km away, do this 18 times just for one POS and I'm sure you'll start to seeing the value in this.
    How: Add a hold of (X = 50000 Lets assume 50000m3 just like with Strontium) X size. Set allowed type to only allow ammo of the types used by all POS guns, so go and look them up. For an example Projectile Medium Large and XL (Small can't be used) That was the easy part, now add to the guns a function/method/procedure/script that runs when the gun's ammo hold is empty (tip: look at how ship guns drain from cargohold) and then transfers the same ammo from the tower, if can't be find, look for other ammo that the gun can use, else don't load.

  • Title: Anchor and online queues
    • Desc: Add queue for anchoring and a queue for onlining, just like with the skill queue
    Why: Same reasons as for the skill queue, to not having to wake up in the middle of the night to online a new structure, or stare at a timer for 2min then click, then wait 2min, click, 2min...and so forth.
    How: Use the current skill queue and the "Separate anchoring from onlining" fix to make it easier . When an operation is handled it must check so that the structure is anchored before it tries to online it. Remember this is two queues, since anchoring is supposed to be separated from onlining. Which means an onlining operation on a particular structure can't happen before that structure has been anchored, therefore there could be "gaps" in the onlining queue as it waits for the structure to be anchored. The anchoring queue on the other hand will just keep anchoring and should therefore theoretically have no gaps between operations.

That was a brief list of easily implementable things that will continue this effort of CCP to make POS(which is the backbone) and subsequently nullsec and lowsec something that doesn't scare future subscribers away but instead helps revive the battlefield and industry of this area of space...I'm looking forward to more news regarding POS improvements CCP, keep it up Blink
K1Vis
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-01-29 08:34:47 UTC
Yes if all those were implemented eve would be a little easier and simpler. Eve isn't simple or easy. We should have to fly to each gun. We should have to wait for the onlining of one mod before we anchor another. The more stuff to do in the EVE the better. I would like to see improvements such as modular POS's. Things that would require the same amount of work but we get a benefit. I like how they did crucible. We get customs offices but we have to destroy the old, put up a gantry and then upgrade it. With the blocks we still have to make them with all the same fuels as before. Keep Eve hardcore.
Omar Devone Little
Doomheim
#3 - 2012-01-29 09:09:40 UTC
K1Vis wrote:
Yes if all those were implemented eve would be a little easier and simpler. Eve isn't simple or easy. We should have to fly to each gun. We should have to wait for the onlining of one mod before we anchor another. The more stuff to do in the EVE the better. I would like to see improvements such as modular POS's. Things that would require the same amount of work but we get a benefit. I like how they did crucible. We get customs offices but we have to destroy the old, put up a gantry and then upgrade it. With the blocks we still have to make them with all the same fuels as before. Keep Eve hardcore.


So you would rather fight the interface and clunky mechanics than actually play the game? Number of clicks is not what makes Eve hardcore. Less time spent fighting the interface is more time spent fighting other people. Big smile


@OP
My suggestion from another topic...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=699754#post699754
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#4 - 2012-01-29 10:41:25 UTC
I tend to agree with K1Vis in that dumbing down and simplifying EVE is not the way we should be going. There are things that need serious mending with Player Owned Stations as regards corp/corp member access to Mobile Labs, Arrays etc. though and security issues. Whether CCP would like to fix those issues or whether they like the threat of corp POS assets being stolen by corp members I have no idea. Smile
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#5 - 2012-01-29 12:18:04 UTC
CCP has stated several times that the POS code is a mess, and it's impossible to touch it without breaking something completely unexpected. The timers were changed and fuel blocks added because it was mostly a data change, requiring little or no coding.

Your suggestions are good, but they take so much coding, they won't happen before CCP completely rewrites towers. And I suspect (and hope) that after the rewrite, those suggestions won't make sense at all.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644