EVE Online | EVE Insider


Join the Community, Create an EVE-ONLINE account or log in.

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

Resurrecting the Dead Horse

New Topic | Reply to Topic

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author	Topic
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2009.11.04 13:47:00 - [1] - Quote Report Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/11/2009 14:37:42 For the past three years, there has been a tremendous show of support for the old “Flogging the Dead Horse” post regarding a proposed re-design of the Player Owned Structure system. The two biggest reasons for support are that players hate what they look like – a bunch of scrap floating in space, and they hate the interfaces that are used to interact with them on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. Enter the Modular Starbase Aesthetically, people want to see an end to the era of junk floating inside and in the immediate vicinity of force field bubbles. A series of geometrically interconnected structures, such as squares or hexagons, make up the design of the proposed replacement system. The abilities of the facility are enhanced with each newly attached component. Weapons would be placed on extensions to the top and bottom or even the sides of the tower, emerging from the force field. These weapons systems would remain vulnerable to attack like they are today. Strategically, it would be possible to force players to pick and choose between the placement of weapons systems and jump bridges, as the number of available attachment points is limited. Whether or not the design is implemented this way is up to game design, but it is an intriguing possibility. Mechanically, the basic uses of Player Owned Structures don’t change; they will still serve as industrial complexes and staging areas. However, the management of these facilities is in dramatic need of improvement. The amount of time required to set up a Starbase is obnoxious and unnecessary, and make up a considerable portion of ideas provided in addendum to the original modular starbase concept. The solution to this thorny issue is to introduce an onlining queue, and to allow the anchoring and onlining of more than one module at a time. Either one of these options would be appreciated by those who operate facilities in space. Players desire the ability to freely swap out control towers to upgrade their operations without having to dismantle the entire facility one structure at a time. The ability to freely swap one tower for another has been repeatedly requested by the community. If different sizes of towers remain in use, these features should be implemented. In-situ facility upgrades have also been proposed. To upgrade the starbase, raw materials and blueprints would allow operators to initiate construction of new facilities and operational capabilities directly onto the structure, rather than hauling a complete module from their points of distribution to null-security space. A single, unified interface is desired for the structure. If a docking facility is provided, players would have access to the entire starbases’ configuration and settings (based on permissions of course) when inside the base. From this in-structure interface they would organize production chains and initiate manufacturing jobs. Standings would be configured, and other basic functions such as loading ammunition into the weapons systems could be handled from this interface, without making your way to each module and interacting with their separate interfaces. Docking at these facilities would not replenish shields or capacitor, as they are not equipped to do so. If so desired, on site repairs could just as easily remain un-obtainable. However, with the right modules in place, the starbase could serve as a ship storage facility, and could serve as a location for refitting your ship. A Super Capital Mooring Point should be introduced as an optional attachment for the starbase as well. These would allow players to secure their super capital ships within the starbase without making them vulnerable to corporate thieves, but simultaneously leave them vulnerable to capture or destruction by marauding fleets that lay siege to the tower.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2009.11.04 13:53:00 - [2] - Quote Report Collective storage within the starbase would work similarly to how it does now. A limited volume would be available for the placement of possessions, such as modules and ships. Ideally, players would only be able to keep a few ships in storage, to prevent starbases from upstaging outposts. Additional ideas are available in the original modular starbases thread, "Flogging the Dead Horse", though not all of them were deemed relevant, unique, or of value to the basic concept. But if you’re looking for additional material, you know where to look! An additional recap (courtesy Syberbolt8) is also available here.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:06:00 - [3] - Quote Report Edited by: sg3s on 04/11/2009 17:07:47 Some Definitions: Docking Docking is not used in the sense that you now know it with stations and such. You are inside the structure and basically get to interact with all it's systems, but you're limited to what is fitted on the POS itself. Also since this IS a POS it should always be destructable, now I know there has been discussion about how hard this is, mostly in topics suggesting docking in motherships (the name was changed to clear the misconception that this might be possible if you ask me). If it really is this hard, then don't implement it at first, or optionally as a testcase for when we might actually get real motherships in the future. Mooring Point A mooring point in not docking per se, your ship will still be out in space, but attached (like for big ships in x3? those still float loose of the station visually), locked if you will, to the superstructure of the POS. For Supercapital pilots this would mean they're essentially protected unless someone takes the POS down. You could make safe(r) supercap trading trough this feature among other things. It's not something important to the core 'modular' POS idea, but it is something suggested multiple times in the old thread. Out with the olde! In with the new (please)!
Syberbolt8 Gallente The Sacred Order of the Space Weasels Industrial Spearhead Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:14:00 - [4] - Quote Report Nice post, very much what we are looking for. keep up the good work mate :)
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:17:00 - [5] - Quote Report Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 04/11/2009 14:28:20 You should link to that latest POS you created in the other thread, the one with the guns outside the bubble as it is great for visualising.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:39:00 - [6] - Quote Report I support this idea. "junk floating in space freely" is somewhat, what I dislike too. Flying from lab to lab because you're out of range is plain stupid, I would prefer one docking spot and one interface to the entire POS.
Trafficist	Posted - 2009.11.04 15:09:00 - [7] - Quote Report At Fanfest Torfi said something like this ''Players will be able to walk in stations, and maybe even pos's'' If you would use the sexy looking model Evelgrivion has supported you with, that would be easily possible and would be tons 'o' fun. Just my 2'cents...
BeanBagKing Terra Incognita Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.04 17:03:00 - [8] - Quote Report /signed and supported
Esiel Renegade Serenity	Posted - 2009.11.05 00:21:00 - [9] - Quote Report The only thing I would suggest would be that you only allow 1 vessel to dock (must be a dockable ship - I would say no caps except freighters but that might be harder to code, I don't know) at a time unless you decided to add a module like the ship maintenence bay added. If you want to have multiple ships docked then you have to have the module. An add me as a supporter to a new better POS.
Cadde Gallente 221st Century Warfare	Posted - 2009.11.05 00:21:00 - [10] - Quote Report I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them.
BeanBagKing Terra Incognita Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.05 08:00:00 - [11] - Quote Report Incognito has been on IRC talkign to Evelgrivion, who we all know is the original author and has a better idea that probably anyone whats going on. His opinions may not exactly match everyones on what should and shouldn't happen, but as the champion and starter of the Dead Horse Thread I'll trust him to make the right decisions. Besides, we can't -all- be happy, but we can make the toothpick much, much better. Anyway, my point was that Incognito has been talking to him live, so I'm sure there have been details discussed that weren't mentioned here, that's fine with me because, again, I trust Evelgrivion.
CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.11.05 08:12:00 - [12] - Quote Report Originally by: Cadde I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them. I am not a big fan of the Hex layout, but that is just personal opinion. I would like to see something more 3D, but that is me personally. I like the original idea of a set # of sockets that you can plug modules into. A Module takes space and may or may not have more sockets. So you could have a tower with single hanger, or a set of extensions that are nothing but more sockets. One thing the Hex plan does cover is that it is aligned with the moon, so you could limit moon miners to the moon facing side, while docks and such can be on the space facing side. This is defiantly a step in the right direction overall.
CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.11.05 08:12:00 - [13] - Quote Report Originally by: BeanBagKing Incognito has been on IRC talkign to Evelgrivion, who we all know is the original author and has a better idea that probably anyone whats going on. His opinions may not exactly match everyones on what should and shouldn't happen, but as the champion and starter of the Dead Horse Thread I'll trust him to make the right decisions. Besides, we can't -all- be happy, but we can make the toothpick much, much better. Anyway, my point was that Incognito has been talking to him live, so I'm sure there have been details discussed that weren't mentioned here, that's fine with me because, again, I trust Evelgrivion. TBH mostly chatted in main channel, didn't really talk in depth about this.
Cadde Gallente 221st Century Warfare	Posted - 2009.11.05 09:28:00 - [14] - Quote Report Edited by: Cadde on 05/11/2009 09:34:25 Originally by: CCP Incognito I am not a big fan of the Hex layout, but that is just personal opinion. I would like to see something more 3D, but that is me personally. I agree with you, but the hex thing looks like a fitting window to me and it might be more pleasing to the designers if putting the pos together was more simple both in code and for the user. I myself would absolutely love it if we had to tow the modules to the pos and actually align them and dock them manually... Unfortunately this is eve and not a space sim. So, basically in the new system you have certain sockets where you can place the modules. Clicking a button that says "next available slot" would work too. All I'm saying is that some people might not be able to understand the new system if they actually have to position the correct module over the correct socket. Quote: Anyway, my point was that Incognito has been talking to him live, so I'm sure there have been details discussed that weren't mentioned here, that's fine with me because, again, I trust Evelgrivion. Yes but Incognito asked for a consensus and to get that those details have to be shared here for all to nitpick at. Once enough players can agree on a design concept i think CCP will have to give in to the pressure or lots of people are gonna call them on their "we value your feedback" motto.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.05 12:47:00 - [15] - Quote Report Edited by: sg3s on 05/11/2009 12:47:22 Originally by: CCP Incognito I am not a big fan of the Hex layout, but that is just personal opinion. Ok some clarifications for the Hex layout I guess... First of the whole idea revolves arround that it isn't a 'simple' geometry shape with little imagination, but a bit more complex. Naturally I just found hexagons logical (power of 3 is powerfull, uuuh they fit nicely together, octagons would be bit too much). It made perfect sense in my head, and thats where the problems started because I don't really have a way of translating it completely as I want onto paper/into an image. It was pretty troublesome making the image 'work' as I wanted it but I believe that what I came up with is pretty accurate. Note that the enclosed hexagons don't have to literally look like that, I just lack the artistic capabilities to 'round the corners' and make it look more pwetty so to say... Platforms could also be made so they 'translate' the structures that come after it into a square again, adding more variation to the overall look, for instance. And the images DO make a lot of sense as a fitting interface... But I did mention 'multiple layers' with that intention that larger modules/structures might take up space in multile layers. Giving it that extra dimension (height) that is missing from the original in my perspective, but holding on to strict limitations as to where everything ends up in the POS. That would make it less fit as a fitting interface (something 3d might work better). I made the images to resemble a large tower btw, for smaller towers you might have less layers to build on for instance. I just dislike making balancing decisions as that tends to deviate into whether or not that would be the correct way have it, details suck.
High Star	Posted - 2009.11.05 14:17:00 - [16] - Quote Report The one thing that still bothers me with design is the changing out of towers. Would it not be more sensible to have a standard tower (one for each race) and have location points to have 2 power and 2 cpu modules too allow you to increase the infer structures. This would make thing easier for POS owners to upgrade their POS'es the power and cpu modules could be priced so they are the same as towers today.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.05 14:19:00 - [17] - Quote Report Originally by: High Star The one thing that still bothers me with design is the changing out of towers. Would it not be more sensible to have a standard tower (one for each race) and have location points to have 2 power and 2 cpu modules too allow you to increase the infer structures. This would make thing easier for POS owners to upgrade their POS'es the power and cpu modules could be priced so they are the same as towers today. Read the OP mate, that is one of the reasons/ideas behind the whole concept.
BeanBagKing Terra Incognita Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 01:12:00 - [18] - Quote Report Bump from page 3 Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: BeanBagKing stuff about talking on IRC TBH mostly chatted in main channel, didn't really talk in depth about this. Ah, sorry, I'll try to stop making assumptions. Also, if this is now beeing CCP supported?, or perhaps I should just say looked at? ummm... Incognito seems to be interested in? (trying not to make assumptions) perhaps we can get this stickied so people will notice it. I still see a lot of people flogging the old dead horse, and not that I have problems with more ideas being contributed, people don't even seem to know that changes have occurred when they are flogging it.
Syberbolt8 Gallente The Sacred Order of the Space Weasels Industrial Spearhead Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 01:44:00 - [19] - Quote Report Originally by: BeanBagKing Bump from page 3 Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: BeanBagKing stuff about talking on IRC TBH mostly chatted in main channel, didn't really talk in depth about this. Ah, sorry, I'll try to stop making assumptions. Also, if this is now beeing CCP supported?, or perhaps I should just say looked at? ummm... Incognito seems to be interested in? (trying not to make assumptions) perhaps we can get this stickied so people will notice it. I still see a lot of people flogging the old dead horse, and not that I have problems with more ideas being contributed, people don't even seem to know that changes have occurred when they are flogging it. I still believe the old horse thread needs to be bumped, it can die when CCP say ok, lets do it. To much history to let it drop off the map. Plus all this attention from CCP Incognito might just be a trick to let the old horse die! /tinfoil hat Oh and please, oh please lets not ever quote anything said in that channel, nothing talked about in there is official in any way shape or form. And quoting or stating facts about devs is a good way to get them to run away and hide.
Thorsyrrian	Posted - 2009.11.06 02:32:00 - [20] - Quote Report I agree, the POS in its current form is lacking... The management of the POS is too tedious and complex and yet, lacks the functionality that many consider important. The issue also ties in with the whole corporation roles, corporation hangars, and permissions, being overly complex and limited in functionality. I believe the entire roles, permissions and hangar systems needs a major overhaul. Why are we limited to just 7 hangar divisions? and Why are these hangar divisions (and the non-sensical permissions) the same at each station, each POS and in each container? The current system makes micro management extremely tedious, very inflexible, and essentially does not meet the needs of the average corp Manager. Access permissions, divison labelling and logs need upgrading and greater flexibility and independence between the different locations. I would like to see the flexibility to have more than 7 divisions, to have different names and access permission setups for the divisions at different locations (at different stations, at a POS and in containers). Another issue with POS's is with research... Managing corp owned and player owned blueprints in a corp hangar for researching remotely at a POS is extremely insecure, and combersome when it comes to removing and moving blueprints around. Not to mention, stopping those who you do give access to the hangar, from taking everyone else's blueprints. Perhaps you could permit corp members to research their blueprints remotely at the corp (or alliance) POS from the safety of their own personal hangars, and not even need to use the corp hangar? I would also like to have divisions setup in personal hangars, so I can separate and organize my items the same way I can in the corp hangar. Some of these suggestions should be very easy to implement and will solve many of the micromanagement issues that plague management in every corp.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.06 19:01:00 - [21] - Quote Report Originally by: BeanBagKing Bump from page 3 Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: BeanBagKing stuff about talking on IRC TBH mostly chatted in main channel, didn't really talk in depth about this. Ah, sorry, I'll try to stop making assumptions. Also, if this is now beeing CCP supported?, or perhaps I should just say looked at? ummm... Incognito seems to be interested in? (trying not to make assumptions) perhaps we can get this stickied so people will notice it. I still see a lot of people flogging the old dead horse, and not that I have problems with more ideas being contributed, people don't even seem to know that changes have occurred when they are flogging it. I believe CCP has been interested in the idea since, or even before, the beginning of the old thread... But it is a big change and complicated to 'get it right'. This thread is really a summary of all the really good ideas raised in the old thread, in condensed form. Incognito mentioned he wanted to have it to be able to bring it up once again at CCP. This doesn't mean they will be making this though, don't get you're hopes up until it is on SiSi. And yes... don't let the dead horse die!!! :D
Dacryphile	Posted - 2009.11.06 19:51:00 - [22] - Quote Report Edited by: Dacryphile on 06/11/2009 19:56:36 Originally by: Cadde I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them. I think the modular design is far superior to a hex layout. Evelgrivion's POS ideas are win, I'm happy that CCP is finally picking it up and hopefully making something out of it.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:09:00 - [23] - Quote Report Originally by: Dacryphile Edited by: Dacryphile on 06/11/2009 19:56:36 Originally by: Cadde I am sorry, i really am but this doesn't cut it (yet) as there are many aspects missing from the original thread for me to support this as something to deliver to the desk of CCP's designers. Here are some links to pictures i feel should be included in the report: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5205/designfixec0.png http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4323/designfix2hn0.png Plain tower (Fitting window?) Production Facility (Fitting window with stuff fitted?) But i feel there should be more images beyond that to demonstrate the concept. The poses (now starting with hubs) have been flogged for 3 years. Presenting something that doesn't reflect the sheer awesomeness of this feature to the design team and thus running the risk of it getting the thumbs down... The horror! Incognito knows this though, he will probably nag about every little detail that isn't "ready" for presenting to a designer or a group of them. I think the modular design is far superior to a hex layout. Evelgrivion's POS ideas are win, I'm happy that CCP is finally picking it up and hopefully making something out of it. The Hex POS idea is not about it being hexagons D:< It's to signify that it doesn't have to be 'squared' just that it should be of modular design... Guess I'll be pressing that issue until everyone understands it
Dacryphile	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:12:00 - [24] - Quote Report Originally by: sg3s The Hex POS idea is not about it being hexagons D:< It's to signify that it doesn't have to be 'squared' just that it should be of modular design... Guess I'll be pressing that issue until everyone understands it So still 3 dimensional then? Where as the Dead Horse would be a cube, you are saying put more sides on it like gaming dice? Just trying to clarify.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:06:00 - [25] - Quote Report Originally by: Dacryphile Originally by: sg3s The Hex POS idea is not about it being hexagons D:< It's to signify that it doesn't have to be 'squared' just that it should be of modular design... Guess I'll be pressing that issue until everyone understands it So still 3 dimensional then? Where as the Dead Horse would be a cube, you are saying put more sides on it like gaming dice? Just trying to clarify. Almost, but not quite. They don't have to be geometrically correct to anything... hmmm you can build several tiers of odd shaped blocks that connect differently upon the previous tier. In the end there are natural restrictions for modules to be connected to other modules (silos near moonminers? cha near labs? dunno), you could use these limits to make blocks that look cool no matter how you configure them in the POS. It's largely to give art/design a broader spectrum to work in rather than constricting them to square blocks as you said. I how that makes sense now :p
Seiver D'amross Subach-Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:09:00 - [26] - Quote Report all i have to say is this is a beautiful idea, its long over due. i have been playing seance before POSs and they were sexy at the time, but now its old and overdue.
Max Hardcase The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:52:00 - [27] - Quote Report Problem is that turrets currently calculate range and tracking from POS tower. Thats really usefull for AC and Blasters....not!
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:11:00 - [28] - Quote Report Originally by: Max Hardcase Problem is that turrets currently calculate range and tracking from POS tower. Thats really usefull for AC and Blasters....not! If this is true then that point would have to be changed to the respective weapons platform they're mounted on, obviously. It is an interesting issue since I thought about how currently you are able to place guns at any range, however I am unsure if it has any real effect to have things at different ranges. I didn't think it would be a big enough issue if weapons platforms would be introduced, since currently all you see on POSes are large groups of guns anyway (in case of a deathstar).
Syberbolt8 Gallente The Sacred Order of the Space Weasels Industrial Spearhead Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:47:00 - [29] - Quote Report Originally by: sg3s Originally by: Max Hardcase Problem is that turrets currently calculate range and tracking from POS tower. Thats really usefull for AC and Blasters....not! If this is true then that point would have to be changed to the respective weapons platform they're mounted on, obviously. It is an interesting issue since I thought about how currently you are able to place guns at any range, however I am unsure if it has any real effect to have things at different ranges. I didn't think it would be a big enough issue if weapons platforms would be introduced, since currently all you see on POSes are large groups of guns anyway (in case of a deathstar). I Agree this isnt an issue IMO, sure some things like pos gun balancing will have to be done, but its not the biggest issue in the world.
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:33:00 - [30] - Quote Report Edited by: Kokura Nin on 10/11/2009 20:35:52 Edited by: Kokura Nin on 10/11/2009 20:35:37 It is an issue when you look up some of the short range weapon ranges and the shield radius which logically is the min distance any target can be from the tower. Look at the small/medium blaster POS turrets and their ranges...and prepare to

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

New Topic | Reply to Topic