Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Please, do go on.

These three things. Word is you're working on the second of these. This is good. The other two things are inextricably interlocked and must be addressed together.


Something Easy: POS Reactions Interface
A few weeks ago I spent 3 days trying to figure out "Wtf why won't this work now? I had it working last week!" And I've been using POSes for years. I'm for drag and drop. But feedback is really important. Nothing in that counter-intuitive boondoggle of a spreadsheet ever gives feedback. Hit apply and **** just reverts with no feedback. The only clue anything has changed is when the difficult to see slightly lighter than normal links suddenly revert back.

The red-text onlining blurbs are extremely vague. Please make them more informative/descriptive.

When I give instructions to people new to POS reactions, I typically tell them the hit apply after every single thing they do because if they screw up, they never know why and they will lose all their progress up to that point if they haven't. There is nothing more frustrating than linking 15 structures and having them all revert with no feedback when you hit apply.

There is no logical workflow. Your input silos could be at the bottom of the list, at the top, or in the middle. But one thing is certain, they will never be in any useful order because the list auto-sorts by module type followed by name, and we can't manually move them.

Could we get a graphical interface? Something like the new Industrial S&I interface would be so much better. Failing that, at least let us drag and drop individual silos/etc where ever in the list we like so that there is some semblance of logical workflow.


Something Easy: POS Tracker
POS management people need better tools to manage POSes. The current "In Space" assets list in corp neocom is shite for anything except saying "In system XYZ-123 you have all this stuff anchored somewhere."

An actual POS management interface in the neocom corp tab would be super cool. Being able to remotely see a comprehensive structured list of what is out in space and the applicable fuel/timers is needed. We shouldn't have to resort to custom third-party API tools and spreadsheets to track in-game assets. A proper POS tracker should have been shipped with POSes.

Something similar to the Unified Inventory should work well for at least showing what is there, which modules are anchored at a particular POS, and displaying timers, statuses, and fuel amounts. If you happen to click on an assembly array, it could take you to the S&I interface to show the jobs, assuming you have those roles. Or it could just give a basic summary of current activity. (Ex: 15 jobs running, 4 awaiting delivery.) A bonus would be a way to manage POS configurations remotely.


POS/Hanger Access Roles
Config Starbase Equipment and Other Hanger Access roles are currently universal in scope. This is bad, and a major cause of corp theft. Allow us to limit the scope of these roles via a list of corp offices and POSes. The option to set roles to global, system, constellation, or regional scope should still exist.

All the items at a POS are effectively child objects of the POS itself. The option to cascade roles to everything at a POS should be available. No more having to go to the POS to configure every anchorable structure one at a time.

Now, it may be that a POS manager doesn't want to allow the same access rights to everything at the POS for any particular individual. This is particularly true of reactions, since one has to offline and then online the silos to remove/drop stuff. You don't necessary want to allow a person to offline the entire POS just so they can maintain some silos. This is where being able to individually configure items at a POS is still a useful tool.

However, the only way to do this is to allow said rights to one of four categories: Config Starbase Equipment, Starbase Fuel Technician, Corp, or Alliance. Again, we run into problems with scope being too large. The first two options are global roles. CSE ofc allows global access to offline and unanchor every POS in the corp. SFT is better. But it does not limit to which POSes this person can now do these things. The ability to set an individual's scope of access is again required.

The other two options are just lol worthy when it comes to maintaining security. But they serve a purpose for less restrictive access to shared facilities like hangers and assembly arrays.


Hanger Access Rights
Generally, we currently have a number of ways to manage roles. They are divided amongst a number of categories. We can assign individual roles to pilots, or we can assign roles to titles, and then assign titles, which allows for some limited group management and customizibility. This is all well and good. The problem arises in that when you assign a role to a pilot it applies globally. We need a way to limit the scope of an assign role.

The scope of Headquarters is literally a duplicate of Base but without the ability to specify which station it applies. Pointless. Get rid of it.

Base is better. But a person can only have one base. And it only applies to a station. Again, it is too limited. Again, get rid of it.

The third scope, Other, is all-inclusive of everything that is not specified as either HQ or a person's base. This includes POSes. Holy crap. Can you say broken? Far, far too open and inclusive. Get rid of it.

Fourth is Container Access. This allows one to take audit log containers from a hanger to which they already have access. If they can take from that hanger but don't have this role, they can still take from the container. Just not the container itself.

Rather than having three ridiculously bad options, just let us select stations with corp assets and POSes via a sortable list of corp assets.

Oh, I'm sure you'll hold space. No one has questioned that.

What is in question is how much.
What you've vehemently denied is that these changes will have no impact on your group at all. Which would be laughable if it wasn't so sad how you cling to the talking points.

Turtle shells only grow so big.

Don't worry baltar. Time will prove, as it always does, that you know nothing about this game.

Identifying yourself with a blob of players doesn't grant you any insight, logic or knowledge.
You're like a football fan that sit on his couch watching tv, then acting like he made a play when his team scores. .

This is why you talk in plural first person instead of the singular.
Using "we" and "us" as if the actions of the body can be attributed to the little toe.

You should go make sure your $15 monthly dues for your team's website is all paid up. We wouldn't want you to lose all that identity and credibility

Uh - i know this goes a bit off-topic now - but how can 2008+8 add up to 2014? Would explain why i suck at piloting if thats the new math

Making sweeping changes is the right direction, and with the recent adjustments to the proposed changes, that shows wisdom. Making the hard decisions to find a set of changes that benefit the game and doesn't completely alienate your player base is a hard task, listening to feedback and adjusting form that feedback is a great way to handle the situation. Thank you CCP for moving in a direction with us instead of in spite of us.

For what it is worth, I a few changes I think would be a good addition / change to the game. Here is a link to where they are posted, would love to hear what other players think; also hope a Dev or 2 looks them over. Never know there might be a good idea hidden away in all the jumble of ideas.

CSN podcast thoughts for change post

Domanark
Clueless Space Nerds Podcast

I totally agree that the balance act between positive change and a game killing move has to be hard.

The CSM is a good concept, but it has feed into the larger alliances grabbing more control (HS/LS POCO, Wormholes, etc). It's a cycle that worries me because the small groups end up losing out, overwhelmed and absorbed or just plan quit the game.

I somewhat see the method to the madness. but question the amount of input by the players actually used in development. The little I have seen on the forums here and the survey results posted don't support the player involvement perspective often mentioned by the devs.

Finally, I really have trouble believing that the changes associated with a game attribute NERF constitutes a game enhancement. POCO's, Battleships, Wormholes, Jump Drive, etc. etc. are things taken away - not improved.

If you want the verse bigger - add new regions.

If you want ships to be used in a different manner - create more sub system classes

If you want sov to change more often - enhance Corp size and Small Alliance options to wage war against larger alliances

Eve is a great game with options not even considered... Think Big!

Av

A future version of sov should meet the following four criteria.

A diverse landscape of asymmetric and systemic warfare where individual player skill and commitment have a greater impact than pure numbers

A system of flag capturing that provides a novel, broad and ever changing gaming experience for both defenders and attackers

The ability for the playerbase to customise content nodes beyond simply setting timers and

To cater for meaningful content for both time poor gamers as well as time rich ones

Eve prides itself on being a sandbox game. It allows for greater diversity of character development and gaming experience than any other MMO and player choice features critically within the game mechanics.

Sov Warfare in Null Sec however is the antithesis of the Sandbox concept. Sov holding entities have little or no choice or diversity in how they can go about installing or defending their influence in New Eden. They also cannot change the level of investment they want to commit to defensive infrastructure.


I dont know if this is still being read or not but I put a fair bit of work into a proposal regarding sov holding that I hope might get some feedback from a Dev or CSM. Without sounding biased, its a solid concept that meets a lot of player expectation. I have discussed it with several Devs during various OOG events and a whole host of players. The response has been overwhelmingly positive.

If you are interested in Sov mechanic changes I would love to hear your feedback on it.

"DEADPACK": Alternative Sov Mechanic Proposal

Sov Mechanic Theory

With pleasure.

That is exactly why I am pointing out that in order to stop leverage from scaling with group size, you need a system of diminishing returns.

The problem is not simply inaccessible sov mechanics for smaller groups, but how to handicap larger groups in a way that does not harm the overall game.
(Large groups are not essential to the game's well being, they evolved as a result of being the easiest way for individual players to move forward. It is human nature to take the easiest & most efficient path forward, so they emerged here.)

Groups arent fighting because the level of income they make in X or Y location is enough to sustain them AND its not worth the effort to go someplace else.

If you made resources dynamic, introduced randomness in depletion, had shifting bottlenecks etc etc etc

Groups would have a reason to move around the Universe.

For example, Tech is the most expensive moon product, it never depletes and its amount in T2 production never shifts. Hence why groups setup around Tech moons.