EVE Information Portal

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations

Jump to first DEV post
Author
C C P Alliance
#101 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:24  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
I can confirm that we're not removing CHAs, the Personal Hangar structure is a separate structure and the two can exist alongside each other to meet different needs.

Letting directors and/or CEOs access the member's sections of the PHA is not going to be within our scope for the first iteration due to technical limitations, and I am honestly not sold on ever adding it. These structures are not intended to completely replace CHAs for all purposes, and the added difficulty to rapid evacuation provides slightly more incentive for wormhole invasions.

The Personal Hangar does not have any limits to total storage, which significantly reduces the amount of management that needs to be done to keep it running smoothly.

And a reminder once again, we are not allowing people to build supercaps in wormholes or lowsec, don't worry.
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#102 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:24
Tshaowdyne Dvorak wrote:
Dalcho wrote:
However I agree that ceo/directtors MUST be allowed access to remove items rather than destroying them for afk/on vacation members.


This defeats the purpose of personal storage. Remember, these changes are a stopgap for a full POS overhaul, not the final product. I think that many of us who have to live out of a POS are tired of the theft problems inherent in a poorly designed system. Someone can get director access and clean out everyone's stuff, and it happens all the time in Eve.

I don't think it's the best solution that the only ways to get rid of a player's crap who has left the corp is to blow up the hangar or to unanchor it, but short of a full overhaul of the roles system (which is the clear solution that must eventually be implemented) it's a reasonable compromise that I'm willing to accept in order to have storage completely incapable of being stolen. I'd rather my crap burn in a fire than have it be stolen by some jerk who I didn't approve of, and had no say in, getting a directorship.

On the other hand, since it seems like the personal storage will be available to all members of the corp, maybe there's no upper limit to how much the structure can store. Then it hardly matters whether directors/CEO can access what's in there since it's not depleting valuable storage space for others. If that's the case, the only reason they'd want access to it is in order to take what isn't theirs. The rage of thieves warms the cockles of my heart.

When you get cleaned out by a director, you have serious problems in your corp. Far more common is a general member with general access grabbing stuff from other peoples' hangar tabs. An even bigger problem is when the hangars are secured to prevent low level access, and a mid level player offlines the starbase or removes the fuel, and people come raiding. Frankly, removing director access to eliminate a fringe case, just makes things harder for the more common occurrences like when you have to move your starbase, evacuate, or when someone leaves the corp and doesn't take all their stuff.

As far as my corp goes, security hasn't been a huge issue, and we often ask other people to grab stuff from our tab (and alts share a tab. The issue personal sections fix is the fact that there's only 7 tabs per hangar array so keeping things organized means adding more arrays. Being able to keep things organized with a few dozen people is very important.
Zero Hour Alliance
#103 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:27
Awesome stuff CCP, can't wait to see all this outlined in the blog.

Can I request, with sugar on top and all; while you are working on personal hangers within the POS structures,

Please add a similar mechanic to a station-based corp hanger.
Currently corp members can not launch industry jobs from their personal hangers:
- job needs to be launched from corp hanger
- job can be cancelled by anyone with sufficient flags

If we could launch jobs from a personal space (within the corp hanger) and have jobs return items to their respective hangers; so corp members could not cancel jobs and then run off with a blueprint that's not been nailed down within a special hanger.

#104 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:29  |  Edited by: Drosal Inkunen
Camios wrote:
Ahem.
I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but

ShockedREFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Shocked

Can you please do something about it?
Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard.
In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense.


I also have to wonder why they aren't doing anything about this, at least not yet. Doing something about this would be wonderful for wormhole dwellers, especially.
Illusion of Solitude
#105 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:32
Best dev blog ever. The only negative I pull from this is the inability for CEO/Directors to add/remove from members' hangers. I think enough people have pointed out why this feature is essential.

Seriously, the people complaining about personal storage have no idea how good a thing this is. Recruitment to wormhole corps is seriously problematic due to there being no possibility of securing your stuff from everyone else unless you anchor a tower per player. Personal storage reduces that headache

To the people whining that it'll be hard to share things with their alts - do what you do now and use a standard CHA.
To the people whining that 40,000 m3 isn't enough for mining - store it in a XLSAA, compress or refine it all.

This is a new module which allows personal storage; it should be both limited in space to force people to keep stuff in the pre-existing arrays as well and uncomplicated so we get the damn thing at all.
C C P Alliance
#106 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:34  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Another quick note, Refining Arrays are definitely on our list of starbase issues. I can't say at this time when a fix will come though.
Illusion of Solitude
#107 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:37
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And a reminder once again, we are not allowing people to build supercaps in wormholes or lowsec, don't worry.


<3

Pity I can only like this once.
#108 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:40
Drosal Inkunen wrote:
Camios wrote:
Ahem.
I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but

ShockedREFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Shocked

Can you please do something about it?
Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard.
In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense.


I also have to wonder why they aren't doing anything about this, at least not yet. Doing something about this would be wonderful for wormhole dwellers, especially.


^ that x1000 (seriously i asked around)

Also the personal storage should be a portion of the total storage of the structure.. Anything else just seems rediculous to me. Large corps could benefit by working together without the fitting penalty, that and it is emmersion breaking like the scale of some capitals <- just sneaking that in there (I'm sorry but 2 exhumers in an orca model.. Please)

Still great changes, just my 2 cents :)
#109 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:40
Drosal Inkunen wrote:
Camios wrote:
Ahem.
I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but

ShockedREFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Shocked

Can you please do something about it?
Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard.
In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense.


I also have to wonder why they aren't doing anything about this, at least not yet. Doing something about this would be wonderful for wormhole dwellers, especially.

As an addition, i don't know if it was said somewhere, but i'd REALLY love a generic reprocessing array (even if the refining rate is terrible) that could reprocess stuff affected by scrapmetal reprocessing, yes i'm looking at you metal scraps.

CCP PLS
Vanguard of the Phoenix
#110 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:41
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another quick note, Refining Arrays are definitely on our list of starbase issues. I can't say at this time when a fix will come though.


You're awesome, Fozzie !!!

Thanks....
HROLT CEO
Live Free; Die Proud

Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go!
#111 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:42
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another quick note, Refining Arrays are definitely on our list of starbase issues. I can't say at this time when a fix will come though.


Here comes the like! ;)
Northern Coalition.
#112 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:44
http://imgur.com/lwfTm4E.gif
EVE Down Under 2014 (Australia's very own fanfest)
21st to 23rd November 2014 in Sydney, Australia
www.evedownunder.com
Outlaw Horizon.
#113 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:44
About. Freaking. Time. Really glad to see that CCP is prioritizing the IMPORTANT changes; personal hangars, storage acess anywhere within shields, resizing the anchoring arrows, etc.

+1 ccp
#114 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:47
Arronicus wrote:
About. Freaking. Time. Really glad to see that CCP is prioritizing the IMPORTANT changes; personal hangars, storage acess anywhere within shields, resizing the anchoring arrows, etc.

+1 ccp


So.. You guys took all the damn marmite
Outlaw Horizon.
#115 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:47
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another quick note, Refining Arrays are definitely on our list of starbase issues. I can't say at this time when a fix will come though.



I assume that as part of an improvement, you plan to not only make it efficient to refine at a starbase array, but hopefully will remove completely, or greatly reduce the godaweful time required to refine, or at the very least, increase their capacity by a factor of 50-100, if the time isn't reduced? Always seemed silly to be that stations could do it 'instantly' but control towers couldn't.

Also, any plans for manufacturing arrays? As it is, you'd have to be just plain stupid to build any t2 ship (SHIP, not components) at a pos.
Caldari State
#116 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:48  |  Edited by: LtCol Laurentius
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
These changes are a good temporary measure to alleiviate some of the worst aspects of dealing with and living out of POS.

But they're not a substitute for a proper POS rework. Sooner or later that will have to be done.

Agreed, but "the perfect is the enemy of the good". CSM7 worked very hard to help CCP squeeze out the most bang-for-buck for the development resources available.

CSM8 will have to keep the pressure on to ensure that as CCP develops its longer-term plans, a revamp of starbases is in the roadmap.


These changes seem primarily focused on the WH usecase (not surprising given the CSM active member composition). I'm not saying they wont affect other POS users in a positive way as well, but the industrialist user might consider these changes pretty underwhelming.

Oh well, here is hoping for some clickfest reduction for Christmas.
Scary Wormhole People
#117 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:52
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I can confirm that we're not removing CHAs, the Personal Hangar structure is a separate structure and the two can exist alongside each other to meet different needs.

Letting directors and/or CEOs access the member's sections of the PHA is not going to be within our scope for the first iteration due to technical limitations, and I am honestly not sold on ever adding it. These structures are not intended to completely replace CHAs for all purposes, and the added difficulty to rapid evacuation provides slightly more incentive for wormhole invasions.

The Personal Hangar does not have any limits to total storage, which significantly reduces the amount of management that needs to be done to keep it running smoothly.

And a reminder once again, we are not allowing people to build supercaps in wormholes or lowsec, don't worry.


This addresses every significant problem I could foresee with the stopgaps you guys are putting in. As a part of emergent gameplay, it's a good thing that there's a bit of intelligence needed to decide what goes into a PHA and what goes into a CHA. Do I want directors to be able to move my stuff in case we get invaded? Which stuff? Which stuff can I part with, or don't trust corp leadership to have access to (keeping honest people honest - you might trust your neighbors, but lock your front door anyway)? Everyone hates the thought of losing stuff to invading forces, but this is Eve, and invading forces happen (and should happen!). Either defend your stuff or plan well to protect/evac it. This just adds another delicious layer to that planning.

Great post, as always, Fozzie. You have my autocannon!
R.E.P.O.
#118 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:52
i think the ceo should have the right to take a player who left corp stuff out of his/her hanger in stead of having to unanchor a mod just to clear his stuff out. I agree with the director not having access but a ceo should its his/hers star base
Care Factor
#119 Posted: 2013.04.02 16:53
Sedrie wrote:
Giddyness has subsided slightly, so I will also bandwagon on the private hangar. I will now paint a pretty picture and illustrate a potential (admittedly edge case) problem.

If Timmy runs out in his covops to get that much awaited Galente Dreadnaught skillbook for his alt Billy, he's got nowhere to put said book when he gets back to securely transfer it. Since Billy is on the same account as Timmy, he's got to jetcan it and hope that his mom doesn't come in and declare bedtime and power off his computer in the interim.

There's no station trading in a POS, so without shared hangars between Billy and Timmy, he's got little other options.

Sure, Billy could have gotten the book in the first place, but regretfully he has no covops skills and has to fly through hostile space to get it.

As it stands now, Billy and Timmy have the same roles for access to one tab, and can easily and effortlessly transfer items between the pilots on the same account. This change looks like it will completely eliminate that ability.



The proposed size is also way too small. It will be fine for ammo and modules, but the miners and ship builders who rely on these mechanics will be left out in the cold.


As has been mentioned, Director and CEO should have take privs. Emergency evac is a way of life when living in wormholes. Even if there is time to CTA for defense/moving, there will always be members who are unable to get back to the wormhole. Being trapped in k-space while your baubles go up in flames is not on anyone's bucket list, methinks.


That said, I applaud the effort and eagerly await the changes.

Secure container and a password, anyone?
Care Factor
#120 Posted: 2013.04.02 17:03
Rroff wrote:
Had to check this wasn't posted on the 1st of April lol, goes beyond my expectations.

Kennesaw Breach wrote:

  • Removing sovereignty requirement for Capship Maintenance Arrays? Somewhat win, but also somewhat terrifying. Yes, it'll be nice to be able to store all our vanity dreads and carriers somewhere appropriate, instead of having to anchor SMAs everywhere, one per capital ship. But please, please, PLEASE tell me you're not going down the path of allowing supercaps and titans to be built in wormholes (i.e. no capital ship ASSEMBLY arrays without sov). Don't get me wrong, if it becomes allowed, we'll be the first ones doing it, but it's a bad, bad, bad idea. At this point, no wormhole corp is immune from eviction; everyone in every hole could be evicted by a dedicated force determined to do so. But if you allow wormhole dwellers access to the biggest firepower in the game, you will astronomically increase the difficulty of evicting a well-dug-in corp. As of right now, if we find an enemy POS in our system trying to establish a foothold to evict us, we bash the POS and send the intruders home via pod express, a process taking hours or days. If we had access to supers and titans, we not only could bash their POS faster, but also repel any firepower they managed to bring with greater ease. Effectively, removing the sov requirement to construct titans and supers would greatly increase the position of the defender, and up the ante of the attacker. I'm as big of an industrial carebear as they come, but I don't want to see that, for it would mean greater safety and less fights. The whole point of wormholes is lack of safety. Please don't ruin that.

  • I'd assume that super/titan building won't be possible in a WH, if it is possible it could have some interesting implications.

    Seriously, read the initital dev blog... if they were going to make CSAs available to WH residents, then they'd have put in the blog that the sov requirements on those would be going bye bye too!
    Forum Jump