These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
twit brent
Never Not AFK
#41 - 2014-12-18 19:03:28 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
Also eve is inherently a game where trust is punished not rewarded, so people want to interact with others only when they must.


If CCP can take anything from this thread please let it be this. There is a reason why everything is done by holding corps. There is also a reason why i would never ever be ******** enough to put my super in a SMA.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2014-12-18 19:03:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
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.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

Ryan Rs
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#43 - 2014-12-18 19:24:31 UTC
Co-op gameplay means training more alts, right?
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2014-12-18 19:33:07 UTC
Done.

Hopefully CCP actually puts this information to good use and doesn't do more stuff like Jump Fatigue (aka Space AIDS).
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#45 - 2014-12-18 19:34:51 UTC
While I answered the sov related structure questions it's not really related to structures. Sov issues and sov structures need a seperate survey.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW

Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#46 - 2014-12-18 19:35:39 UTC
Ryan Rs wrote:
Co-op gameplay means training more alts, right?

Exactly. WTS 100 PLEX at 1.5 bil ISK each.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW

Kalenn Istarion
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2014-12-18 19:56:12 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.


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.

Try Harder.

RDevz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#48 - 2014-12-18 20:44:48 UTC
CCP Arrow wrote:
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.


To which I hope the universal response is "Please don't make me round up 50 of my closest friends and colleagues to do boring mundane task #47 than can currently be done by one person."

~

probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#49 - 2014-12-18 21:19:20 UTC
"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.
Highfield
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#50 - 2014-12-18 21:21:42 UTC
Completed the entire questionnaire, had to answer each and every question.

What I dearly missed was a box with a line like "If we have any questions about your answers, can we contact you?" and some option to supply a character name or other contact info. Even if you don't contact anyone because we're all idiots that's fine, but maybe you see some decent ideas that you'd like to get some more info on and now you can't get it..
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#51 - 2014-12-18 21:32:43 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.

You may not want to inject any ideas, but if I do not even understand the question, I cannot give any useful answer. A couple of those I actually answered the "why did you say that?" part with "I do not understand what you are asking." (The two after the co-op one.)

BTW, the easiest way for industrialists to interact is via the market interface. You can put up the part you have done for sale, other team members buy it. You get your ISK for your effort. The issue with using the market for this is everyone else is also using the market, messing up your price structure.
Solution: Private markets. A market that works just like the current public market at stations, except it can be set up by any player, corporation or alliance. Access can be restricted to corp, alliance, and by standing.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#52 - 2014-12-18 22:05:25 UTC
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.
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything.
Clockwork Pineapple
#53 - 2014-12-18 22:19:08 UTC
I had trouble answering the question "please rank these starbase activities' effectiveness" where the activities were "defense, setup, reactions, management" because ranking any of them first would send the misleading message that any of them were effective
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#54 - 2014-12-18 22:31:38 UTC  |  Edited by: probag Bear
Vincent Athena wrote:

BTW, the easiest way for industrialists to interact is via the market interface. You can put up the part you have done for sale, other team members buy it. You get your ISK for your effort. The issue with using the market for this is everyone else is also using the market, messing up your price structure.
Solution: Private markets. A market that works just like the current public market at stations, except it can be set up by any player, corporation or alliance. Access can be restricted to corp, alliance, and by standing.


That's already implemented into the game, and what's even better, it doesn't come with any broker's fees/sales tax!! You should be able to find it under Business -> Contracts. And you should be able to view all the data in easy-to-work-with form over at api.eveonline.com/char/Contracts.xml.aspx and api.eveonline.com/corp/Contracts.xml.aspx
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#55 - 2014-12-18 23:45:07 UTC
Fonac wrote:
Link does not work :/


also link not trusted by eve...What?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Tarpedo
Incursionista
#56 - 2014-12-19 00:35:45 UTC
I've spent 1+ year in WH, could not understand half of questions...

I personally want deployable automated scanner - I hate EVE scanning mini-game with passion so ~1/3 of EVE content is inaccessible to me.

How about bases with nearly infinite defenses and high maintenance cost? I'd pay for safety.

What about temporary siege outposts with capital guns which could be operated by 1-3 players?
Kossaw
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#57 - 2014-12-19 00:36:21 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.


This was hard to answer. I chose "no" because I don't think we should be ~forced~ into co-op game play e.g. when running a 1 man industrial corp that needs a POS. But the features you suggested for co-op play are a GOOD IDEA.

I also want to add to the voices that have already said you should not be mixing "POS Management" and "Sov Warfare". the criticisms about managing POS Structures and the Station Management interface are entirely separate from our hatred of the current Sovereignty Mechanics. These really are different development tracks - even though I accept there could be similarities in your solutions for these two problem areas.

WTB : An image in my signature

Sootsia
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#58 - 2014-12-19 00:57:58 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
Poor questions, you force us to give misleading answers. You ask us in a number of places to rank gameplay elements. This jsut tells you we think something is better or worse than something else, which gives the illusion that we think X element is in good shape, when in fact in some of these the players believe they are all in significant trouble. In all honesty 1-10 ratings would have been far more effective.

When you make references to stuff like co-op game play you need to state some semblance of an idea to get a good response, everything in eve is ALREADY INHERENTLY COOP game play due to the nature of this being an MMO, you can set up a pos yourself for example, but someone must build it and the fuel blocks for it, and if someone attacks it you and multiple other persons more than likely will need to defend it. The only true not co-op game play is perhaps industry but only because of the prevalence of alts.

Also even is inherently a game where trust is punished not rewarded, so people want to interact with others only when they must.

In short my suggestion to you is to hire a consultant who has experience in political campaigns, or even better a pollster and have them take your ideas and make them into questions, you will more than likely receive better data that will lead you to better decisions. You may be even able to farm this task out to you marketing department which i presume has done marketing research at some point, similar concept they will have studied this in school.

That said i survived it and answered as best I could, but the structure of it I think is going to make you feel that some areas of the game are in good condition when prehaps they are not.

EDIT: Additionally alot of these questions only maybe 1000 people in eve can answer jsut due to how few truly interact with outposts especially and to a large degree even ihubs. The number of people who still do not understand basic dominion sov war mechanics is pretty astounding.



I agree that the questions asked, and the choices offered, do not in any way, give you, CCP, the answers to which you desire from us, the players, our actual input, thoughts, ideas. Vigilanta is correct in that the process is flawed.


From my viewpoint, having set and installed Sov structures, (Ihubs, TCU's, SBU's, Outposts, ) as well as installing and running POS's both as a line member, and as management (CEO/Director) there can be much improvement in the way Access/Usage is handled/given/allowed, Access/Usages should be grantable upon / by Alliance/Corporation/Role/Title/Member delimiters..... such as the personal hanger array, should be extended to SMA's and other mods.


Abulurd Boniface
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2014-12-19 01:16:23 UTC
We're being asked about 'star bases' and 'outposts'. That is going to confuse a lot of people.

In a place where people use their own jargon you might want to be clear about what you mean by showing people 'when we ask you about outposts, [this.graphic] is what we mean by that'.

But that's just me.

I took the survey because we don't get all that many opportunities, although now far more than years ago, to offer direct feedback.

Starbases, outposts, what have you, should be much more useful on a personal level than they are now. Because of poor role management features many people can't get access to these features and their functionality and it just turns them away. I'm pretty sure that can't be the idea.

I'm confident many structures were lost because the people who could have maintained them did not do so because they did not get access to the roles to do so [which is understandable given the poor mechanics] and they just didn't bother with that anymore.
Andy Koraka
State War Academy
Caldari State
#60 - 2014-12-19 01:44:16 UTC
A lot of the frustration that comes with structures is based on either bad UI or broken features. For example we should not have been able to "steal" the anchoring BNI defensive SBUs in HED-GP like 4 times. While mildly amusing for us it's incredibly frustrating for anyone on the receiving end fighting us and a mechanic that's been broken since 2009.

The POS frustration specifically is that aside from a 2,800 word primer on how to turn the thing on, onlining one module at a time drags what should be a relatively brief process out into what's normally an hour+ affair.

Henry Plantgenet wrote:
Link works now but some of the assumptions are pretty terrible.
for one i'm not in an alliance i'm in CAS.
We can't make POSes in CAS so a lot of question are pointles..
the ones about sov warfare asssume we're in alliances but a lot of people are not in alliances.
how do i answer questions with bad assumptions do i just leave them blank?


No offense intended but I'm going to be frank, if you've never interacted with the structures in question, other than saying "there's a barrier to entry keeping me from using them" you're basically that guy talking about "bags of sand" . The POS questions assume you're in a player corp because you need to be in one to setup/interact with a Starbase, likewise you need to be in an alliance to interact with Sovereignty structures. That's why the survey had several filters to cut of some of the white noise by asking things like "does your corp own a pos" and "does your alliance participate in sov warfare".