These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Summit Topic: Starbase / POS Re-Work

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Quade Warren
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-05-18 16:47:19 UTC
Atum wrote:

Nope, way too complex. I just used the "Atum delivered 20 bubbles" as an example. Maybe I dropped 50k veld into a CHA during a corp mining op. Then when someone looks at that stack of veld, it has my name on it. Makes it a little easier to see how something might have arrived, or what stuff should be yours. An alternative might be the creation of fields in the DB that read "item_instantiated_by" and "ownership_claimed_by" that when an object is created, both are set to that pilot's ID, but only the second is player-visible, and can be changed simply by right clicking and saying "take ownership." The first would be useful to CCP Sreegs and Team Security in chasing down bots (eg. this pilot could only have created that much scordite if they were mining for 20 hours... no human can do that!), while the second, with no audit logs, histories, or ability to defend short of blowing up the guy who's trying to claim your stuff, would make it (hopefully) easier when moving crap around a tower to figure out "Oh, out of the 23 manticores in this SMA, these 4 are the ones Cyvok asked me to move to his private tower," or "these four stacks of omber add up to the 160k Mittani claimed he mined for corp use last night."


I can see what you're saying, but there is a problem with both your system and my system. It doesn't take into account haulers, which are more than slightly common for mining operations and/or deliveries to a POS (i.e. - fuel, ammo, blueprints, etc).

I can see that your item_instantiated_by would in effect solve this, but it could/would also put a lot more load on the database because of: 1) new columns/tables that serve one purpose use and would either have to be constantly updated/deleted/modified and 2) the potentially complicated algorithm involved in continuous ownership exchange based simply on dragging and dropping, which has become a mainstay of the Eve Client UI development.

I believe that is the bottleneck we'd be fighting in both of our examples. If the solution is to put it on the player to make these changes, that is very bad UI design and programming design, so this should not be considered a solution.
Myxx
The Scope
#22 - 2012-05-18 17:04:08 UTC
Starbases are a pain because you have to babysit them, fuel blocks mostly took care of this, but it still stands that its a gigantic pain in the ass. What I'd like to see is the ability to anchor a starbase for yourself, instead of the corporation, and have it be independent of the corporation's infastructure. This would mean a personal access list instead of a roles-based access structure. A list of people that can access certain areas of the starbase, or not at all.
Ruarch
#23 - 2012-05-18 17:14:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruarch
If there is only one thing you change about POS's, this is my request:

T3's are the backbone of WH dwellers due to their small mass, respectable dps, and massive tanks. The other appeal of T3's is their modular design, yet it's hard to take advantage of this feature in a WH because the only way to (re)assemble a T3 is to dock at a station -- which are only located in k-space. Please make is possible to (re)assemble T3's at a POS in a WH. Personally, I don't care if you reprogram how ship maintenance array's work or if you have to introduce a new POS structure specifically designed to (re)assemble T3's.

Thank you,

Ruarch
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#24 - 2012-05-18 17:50:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Atum
Quade Warren wrote:
I can see what you're saying, but there is a problem with both your system and my system. It doesn't take into account haulers, which are more than slightly common for mining operations and/or deliveries to a POS (i.e. - fuel, ammo, blueprints, etc).

I can see that your item_instantiated_by would in effect solve this, but it could/would also put a lot more load on the database because of: 1) new columns/tables that serve one purpose use and would either have to be constantly updated/deleted/modified and 2) the potentially complicated algorithm involved in continuous ownership exchange based simply on dragging and dropping, which has become a mainstay of the Eve Client UI development.

I believe that is the bottleneck we'd be fighting in both of our examples. If the solution is to put it on the player to make these changes, that is very bad UI design and programming design, so this should not be considered a solution.

I don't think it would be as bad as you believe. A hauler won't bother changing item_owned_by entries unless they were being a real prick, but that would be stupid easy for anybody in the corp to see and tattle on. The item_instantiated_by entry might be queried by CCP Sreegs and team through the back end, but it isn't something the client would ever request, so no additional load would be created except when the item itself winks into existence, and again when it is destroyed.
Dreadful Bride
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-05-18 19:37:31 UTC
I would like to see a POS with docking but only if you have a SMA. Once that is in then anyone can dock but you can only store ships up to the size of the array or total for all the SMA you have.

For storage etc all the arrays that are online at the POS will add their capacity to the total available maybe with a selectable percentage that can be put aside for personal hangers. This way all arrays can take from a centralized corp hanger and all facilities can be selected as POS Name Manufacturing/ Invention etc.

For fuel keep the fuel and stront bays and have them accessable from inside or outside.

another thing could be now everything is in one package the choice to have the forcefield bubble on or off and the weapons can be moved in if it is off. This wont effect the amount of hitpoints a POS has just if the ships can sit in a bubble or are docked up.

The last thing that comes to mind for me is starbase defence if someone takes control of the weapons while they are docked then they are shown the outside view as if they had undocked even though their ship is safe inside.

If ive missed anything obvious or just not explained it well enough feel free to ask Smile
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
#26 - 2012-05-18 22:07:58 UTC
Happily posting my support. But contents and good ideas around the dead horse are literally everywhere !
Stralow
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-05-18 22:20:32 UTC
I think CCP will be handicaped a little bit with the new POS System. They cant start from scratch entirely because they have to convert the old pos's to the new ones during a patchday. Think that will ne huge to transform the modules and all its contents to a new system.

i say we take off and nuke the whole site from orbit. it's the only way to be sure
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#28 - 2012-05-18 22:43:31 UTC
Stralow wrote:
I think CCP will be handicaped a little bit with the new POS System. They cant start from scratch entirely because they have to convert the old pos's to the new ones during a patchday. Think that will ne huge to transform the modules and all its contents to a new system.

True, but unless they go for broke with the whole Lego brick building thing (which I'm not entirely sold on), there's a lot of stuff they can do which would make it better and wouldn't involve starting from scratch. Code cleanups, role and permission enhancements, individual rather than corporate tower ownership... the tree is filled with low hanging fruit!
Nevigrofnu Mrots
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2012-05-19 09:36:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevigrofnu Mrots
Stralow wrote:
I think CCP will be handicaped a little bit with the new POS System. They cant start from scratch entirely because they have to convert the old pos's to the new ones during a patchday. Think that will ne huge to transform the modules and all its contents to a new system.


not really, they can make a new pos and all the related stuff, put everything in game and run it for 6 months with the old pos systems and tell everyone: "hey you have 6 months to replace them, in 6 months the old ones will be offlined, removed from space and put in a npc station near you".

To remove the old stuff from the game and people don't cry that they spend money and now have dead stuff in their hangers, during 6 months up to 1 year they can put NPCs buying the old pos and structures for a fair price...
Echo Mande
#30 - 2012-05-19 13:16:18 UTC
Speaking from experience I agree that the current POS arrays, basically all of them, need a rethink. Here's an edited version of something I posted in the POS Dead Horse thread. There I suggested separate lab arrays.

Instead of the current variety of different lab, manufacturing, shipbuilding, reaction and silo modules, there should be several sizes (call it small to XXL) of generic industrial, reaction and shipbuilding arrays, each of which can be tailored to the wants and needs of the players by POS logisticians. Each of the arrays would have the ability to host a certain amount of different types of modules which would provide one or more slots of one type (or other abilities) to users *2. Installing modules would take some time, but would not be permanent (uninstall modules to reconfigure the array) and might even require materials. Setting up an array's modules might be a bit like setting up PI (shudder) but without the periodic visits to keep them running. An array's hangar size should be dependant on the modules installed there, with perhaps an 'expanded hangar' module becoming available to provide extra space *1. Arrays and modules would both consume Tower grid and CPU.

An industrial array could install modules to provide the current 'lab' type or manufacturing slots. Perhaps component, T1, T2 and T3 manufacturing slots could also be provided by specific modules, with incorrect production type manufacturing in those modules' slots suffering at least a PE penalty. Some current modules would be subsumed in the new setup and some new abilities could be added. For instance industrial arrays could also have the ability to install some different 'refinery' modules (quick and dirty or slow and clean; with the percentage cap removed and with the ability to apply corp tax) and even 'ore compression' modules (with a time penalty over the rorq)*3.

Shipyard arrays could, in addition to the ability to install shipbuilding modules of various sizes and tech levels, have the ability to install ship maintenance array modules with multiple modules representing a larger SMA. The current penalties to POS T2 shipbuilding should be removed. Put in enough SMA modules and such an array could be as big as the current capital SMA.

The various silos, reaction modules and moonminers would in this scheme be redone as modules in the reaction arrays, with each module representing a single silo. Maybe small, medium and large versions of the various silo modules could be included. This assumes of course that moonmining doesn't go away entirely as/when CCP revisits mining.

While the arrays might not have a system security requirement, installable modules would. For instance the current sov requirement for capital SMAs would vanish (daft idea anyway) but XL and capital shipbuilding modules would need respectively sov<0.5 and player sovereignty to install. Moon harvesters (installable in/on reactor arrays) and possibly the entire reactor array would only be allowed in sov<0.4.

Whether these changes should or should not be carried through to the shield, ewar and weapons arrays is a matter for discussion. A large weapons array bristling with guns and ewar has some appeal but might not be terribly efficient.

Another idea for a module is one that provides extra CPU while consuming power or fuel blocks. This might make other towers than caldari ones useful as industrial POSses.

*1) It's fairly easy to have an invention project that requires 2-3 freighter loads of stuff to build. 240 or so invention attempts on armor hardeners will more than do this. being able to have bigger hangars are a must.

*2) If I want 20 invention, 18 copy, 6 ME and no PE and reverse engineering slots on my array I want to be able to set it up like that. The rest of the array I'd stuff with manufacturing slots of one type or another. Being able to do this also saves no end of hassle when installing jobs, especially large numbers of manufacturing jobs.

*3) Yes, the rorq's ability was meant for 0.0, with highsec miners having to take their ore to station directly. But wormholes have come along since then and lots of nullsec is starting to look like the Forge these days with respects to stationless systems. Besides, it'll prod more people into getting compression skills and buying the required skillbooks.


Commentary is welcome.

Wallet remarks everywhere
Echo Mande
#31 - 2012-05-19 13:18:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Echo Mande
Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote:
Stralow wrote:
I think CCP will be handicaped a little bit with the new POS System. They cant start from scratch entirely because they have to convert the old pos's to the new ones during a patchday. Think that will ne huge to transform the modules and all its contents to a new system.


not really, they can make a new pos and all the related stuff, put everything in game and run it for 6 months with the old pos systems and tell everyone: "hey you have 6 months to replace them, in 6 months the old ones will be offlined, removed from space and put in a npc station near you".

To remove the old stuff from the game and people don't cry that they spend money and now have dead stuff in their hangers, during 6 months up to 1 year they can put NPCs buying the old pos and structures for a fair price...

Alternately CCP can stop new jobs being installed in the obsolete arrays and make them reprocessable.

Wallet remarks everywhere
Eidric
Private Shelter for Mad People
#32 - 2012-05-19 13:20:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Eidric
- Capital anchoring within the field - i have nightmares about bumped carriers.

- Personalized hangar folders in CHA's (simply 1 for each member visible only to him)

- Ability of CHA's to be targeted for contracts, that would transfer contracted items into your tab.

- CHA flag that allows personal tabs - if turned off prevents any items to be placed and\or moves all items into general hangar space after specific time and notification to the affected player.

- Modular design with ability to "dock" to the POS structures and access all modules at once no matter how far they are from you as long as they are connected to the POS complex. (I have created ultracompact module systems that also work as fairly effective ship traps)

- T3 modification

- Preset fit change like people can in stations using a single button on the saved fit

- Use of BPO\PBC while they are in CHA with appropriate skill.
Traidir
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-05-20 07:43:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Traidir
Features:

  • Improve Corporate Permissions and Roles to have "security levels" so that less trusted members can only do so much damage.
  • Make newPoS pull items from a shared hangar area for all productions and research jobs. Flying around moving stuff is an unnecessary hassle.
  • Make it possible for individuals with access permissions to install personal "lockers" for their ships and items.
  • Make it possible to reconfigure Tech3 ship subsystems. It sounds like this requires newPoSes to be dockable, which is an added bonus.
  • Make it possible to manipulate all PoS modules from anywhere within the force field. Flying around to control buildings which are being controlled remotely anyhow is silly as well being an unnecessary hassle.
  • To make it easier to move a PoS to a new moon or to set up new posses just the way you want them: have a "save fitting" or, rather, a "Save Starbase Layout" button.
  • Allow modules and turrets to be added/onlined/offlined via a queue. A person should not have to sit waiting for 30 minutes for guns to online when all the needed button clicks can be done in 1 minute.

Mechanics:
One good way to implement modular design is remove the "powergrid" fitting requirement. Instead, each module would simply increase the rate of fuel consumption per hour; in this way, newPoSes could expand to nearly any size. CPU limits, then, could be increased via a modular upgrade system, which accepts increasing numbers of "Mainframe modules", which would be constructed from the advanced PI materials, just as PoS structures are now (thus creating an static ISK barrier to expansion via CPU and a dynamic isk barrier to expansion via increasing fuel costs). Each new hanger or assembly module would also increase overall common hanger space.

Modules should follow a progression, (e.g. SSAA -> MSAA -> LSAA -> CSAA) with each tier increasing the station's slots and capabilties. Production slots, then, could be consumed at different rates for different job types. For example, 3 medium sized ship assembly lines might be required to make a large ship. Thus, production would scale: a newPoS with a CSAA could either make 50 rifters all at once or 1 titan at a time depending on how many slots each job uses and their availability.

Since newPoSes will likely be dockable, consider removing the the notion of "force field". The guns still float outside the PoS, but if you're docked, you're protected by the newPoS's shield, not by a force field. This also enables newPoS services to be targetable. Having access to the overview and being able to see outside while docked (via windows or simply having your ship docked externally) would be critical in this scenario. (Alternatively, there could be a special PoS module which enables the PoS manager to activate a force field.)

One other notion: instead of using "hangar" space for ships, have modules like the SMA (and perhaps the assembly arrays) add "docking ports" to the newPoS. Thus a newPoS would have a scalable limit to how many (assembled) ships could be docked at once.
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#34 - 2012-05-20 11:29:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Revolution Rising
Start making these MORE like stations - not in terms of mechanics, but feel.

Is anyone terribly concerned if we had Walking in Starbases? :)

I'd like to see corporate contracts be able to be carried out at a corporate starbase..
Automatic payment system for miners carried out at starbases also.

I put an openended contract up for corp only to buy their ore/minerals/salvage at X price. People put ore in, get money out. Simple.

Needs to be done at starbases so competition can't muscle in on your workers IN SYSTEM. If workers want to transport to a station of course - that's another story and a fine mechanic.

.
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-05-22 01:43:05 UTC
I would really like this proposed lego Player owned stations system scales to also replace Starbases. So that it takes a whlle adding onto a POS till it becomes a recognized out post and gains some of temporary invulnerbilites of it. So a Lego star base has to be captured before it can be disassembled.

I would love the opportunity to set up a POS in an enemy system and sell goods from it to my Blues in the middle of the fight.
NEED a Pre Fitted ship to go back into battle just 20 mill and it is your to get into the fight with. We also offer a 6 week insurance plan if your ship get damaged beyond repair we will pay you X amount.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Giju
Mimoco
#36 - 2012-05-22 11:25:08 UTC
Couple of things that stand out for me:

T3 sub swaps.. I have never heard a valid/logical reason for this not already being in game.

Security/Personal storage for individuals.

All other stuff mentioned, docking etc are somewhat of a bonus. The above, for me, are much needed please.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-05-22 11:38:04 UTC
There are literally hundreds of pages written on both the old and the new forums about POSes. We're tired of writing the same things over and over again, only to be stored in a file and forgotten again. Even the stuff that's already been said a hundred times is enough for a full expansion dedicated to starbases. Why do you need even more input?
Serina Tsukaya
Dropbears Anonymous
Brave Collective
#38 - 2012-05-23 10:28:07 UTC
Simplyfy anchoring and onlining of various weapons and components. Once the tower has been anchored, you should be allowed to dump modules into the pos structure itself and set all up like lego, putting that item connected to that, that there. etc, and then have the tower anchor all the modules one by one in sequence. Then allow poses to have various Onlining schemes to have it change from having it's harvesters online to it's guns online without a player having to sit there and wait to be allowed to press a button, basically a online/anchoring queue.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-05-23 22:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
What I'd like to see is the eventual separation of what is now considered "station-exclusive" services like the market away from stations and integrated towards POSs and specialized capital ships, at a less efficient level. Echo Mande's idea of a far greater spectrum of starbases (ranging from tiny to XXL) in both size and scope, ranging from a basic forcefield that is just a place to warp your ship when hostiles arrive to a gigantic 'home' structure that is a finite, fuel consuming station.
Serina Tsukaya
Dropbears Anonymous
Brave Collective
#40 - 2012-05-25 08:29:10 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
What I'd like to see is the eventual separation of what is now considered "station-exclusive" services like the market away from stations and integrated towards POSs and specialized capital ships, at a less efficient level. Echo Mande's idea of a far greater spectrum of starbases (ranging from tiny to XXL) in both size and scope, ranging from a basic forcefield that is just a place to warp your ship when hostiles arrive to a gigantic 'home' structure that is a finite, fuel consuming station.


Logistical nightmare Incomming.