These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#221 - 2013-04-02 21:02:54 UTC
Quote:
Lots of questions about roles

The role system is responsible for a lot of the limitations of the current behaviour. To solve a lot of those issues, we're going to have to dedicate a good amount of time to reworking that system first. There simply isn't the scope for doing that in this release. This is the sort of thing we'll need to dedicate a team to for a full release cycle. (omg dat roles UI!)

Stegas Tyrano wrote:
Will the tiny drones that move stuff around be animated? They better be!

They'll only be animated inside the server ;)

Lady Zarrina wrote:
- Make sure enhancements to current corp hangers, gets replicated to the new player hangers. For instance I was not sure if I could repackage items in the new proposed player hangers?
Yes, the personal hangars should be supporting the new repackage option like CHAs do. (I've already got the CHA version of repackage working, and will extend it to the new hangar once that is completed)

Max Kolonko wrote:
Does the new Hangar have MAX TOTAL CAPACITY? or is it working 100% like POCO and have no maximum on sum of member hangars?

Like a POCO going loco down in Acapulco

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Oreamnos Amric
Confidently Incompetent
#222 - 2013-04-02 21:03:08 UTC
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.
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists
Intergalactic Conservation Movement
#223 - 2013-04-02 21:12:47 UTC
"Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield" Big smile

Yes Please!
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#224 - 2013-04-02 21:18:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
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.


After so many years screaming for some security improvements on POSes, I'm a TAD dissapointed by the skinny rachitic features we are getting here. Without any guanrantee to even see them in time.
It's you right to take this devblog as "good news" and I respect it. But I take it more as an insult.

I live in wormholes since 2009, and since 2009 I've never seen any consistent upgrade for us. This expansion made me feel hope, now I'm at the edge of unsubscribing.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
#225 - 2013-04-02 21:19:28 UTC
Sir SmashAlot wrote:
"Accessing starbase arrays from anywhere within the shield" Big smile

Yes Please!



I would guess that this also applies to starbase defenses as well?
Oreamnos Amric
Confidently Incompetent
#226 - 2013-04-02 21:21:08 UTC
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:
I would guess that this also applies to starbase defenses as well?


Hope not. Don't you want to take pot shots at people reloading their guns?
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#227 - 2013-04-02 21:31:20 UTC
At least, some special interests are getting some love. Roll
Rand McKikas
Rookies Empire
#228 - 2013-04-02 21:37:36 UTC
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
JD No7
V I R I I
#229 - 2013-04-02 21:43:30 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


Its not a waste, its THEIR STUFF!
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#230 - 2013-04-02 21:43:42 UTC
Oreamnos Amric wrote:
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:
I would guess that this also applies to starbase defenses as well?


Hope not. Don't you want to take pot shots at people reloading their guns?

All hail Amarr lazors!!!
DEFIER ORILIS
Defiance Eden Initiative
#231 - 2013-04-02 21:44:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Defier Orilis
Expanding the POS features is a great move. I personally like the POS right now but I am looking forward to be able to see the content of my structures remotely within the universe the same way I see my corp division items.

Thx, D.
Rengerel en Distel
#232 - 2013-04-02 21:46:24 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Quote:
Lots of questions about roles

The role system is responsible for a lot of the limitations of the current behaviour. To solve a lot of those issues, we're going to have to dedicate a good amount of time to reworking that system first. There simply isn't the scope for doing that in this release. This is the sort of thing we'll need to dedicate a team to for a full release cycle. (omg dat roles UI!)


How about just adding that you have to be a director to cancel someone elses job?

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#233 - 2013-04-02 21:54:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

If people are not willing to take the risk that their corp will move without them, they can always store certain items in the CHAs instead. Having tradeoffs and decisions to make between what to store in each of the two forms of storage is one of our goals.


Having tradeoffs is fine. Having tradeoffs that suck is not good game design. Example: Learning Skills. It was a tradeoff you had to make: Spend time training skills so you can train faster later, or train other stuff right away. And it sucked. So you removed them.

Do not add back in a mechanic that introduces the need to make a sucky decision. Give us a check box "allow director access". Let that be the tradeoff that players make. Or have stuff pop out into some sort of secure container.

Now on the other hand, I see that if the member has quit it does not matter that his stuff gets destroyed. And as directors can see whats in there, the corp could have a reimbursement policy.

CCP Fozzie, a question: Will those little drones that carry stuff about allow for me to put a BPO in my personal hangar, make a copy at the POS lab copy slot, and the drones carry the copy back to my personal hangar?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Kerdrak
Querry Moon
#234 - 2013-04-02 21:55:06 UTC
The change on CSMA is not gonna be a big deal. Everyone prefers to have a "sitter" character to hold the supercapital since is easier, safer and faster.
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers
#235 - 2013-04-02 21:55:23 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Quote:
Lots of questions about roles

The role system is responsible for a lot of the limitations of the current behaviour. To solve a lot of those issues, we're going to have to dedicate a good amount of time to reworking that system first. There simply isn't the scope for doing that in this release. This is the sort of thing we'll need to dedicate a team to for a full release cycle. (omg dat roles UI!)


How about just adding that you have to be a director to cancel someone elses job?


Yep, is this going to be in Odessey at last? Simple fix to a long standing problem, since the rest of the problems in this area are manageable with all the existing corp hangar roles.

--
Infinion
Awesome Corp
#236 - 2013-04-02 22:23:43 UTC
Quote:
"The exact per-character volume is undecided but we are currently considering a range from 10,000m3 to 40,000m3."


Why not do exactly that, let directors dictate a range between 10,000 m3 and 40,000 m3?
Alundil
Rolled Out
#237 - 2013-04-02 22:35:07 UTC
In love so far. Might be time to consider moving back to WH space :p

I'm right behind you
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#238 - 2013-04-02 22:57:13 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Even if the code for starbases is old; badly made and so on, I really have a hard time believing you when you are under "technical limitations" for everything.

"Technical limitations" means "Really damn hard, and not really worth the effort at this time."
I can believe it.

Sometimes I wonder if CCP shouldn't just take a "start from scratch" approach to problems like this. Just make entirely new code for a player starbase that works like they want it to. Then switch out every POS in EVE to the new structure they implement, in small, medium, large sizes of course.

Before anyone asks, no, I don't have personal experience with this.
Grigori Annunaki
#239 - 2013-04-02 23:07:53 UTC
My reading is that they are. There's a large-scale reworking of the POS system taking place and these are the "appease the masses" changes for the short term.
Seras VictoriaX
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2013-04-02 23:22:35 UTC
+1

I am really excited about the POS improvements.

I hope these small improvements do not decrease the priority of the large scale POS plan tho.