|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
+1 The pos also needs to be deployable by individual players not for the corp. This allows the player to leave the corp and retain control of the pos, or stay in corp and not worry about directors meddling with his "player owned station" (pos). The pos, when deployed as an individual, will be controlled by the player who onlines it. That player may then grant permissions to specific parts of the pos (on a pos module basis) to individual players, corps, or alliances as desired. IE. the player who onlines it is the owner and may for instance set the corp to be allowed to fuel it, but only he can remove fuel from it, and only he may set the password or set who may enter the pos or offline it. |
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 02:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Andy Landen wrote:+1 The pos also needs to be deployable by individual players not for the corp. This allows the player to leave the corp and retain control of the pos, or stay in corp and not worry about directors meddling with his "player owned station" (pos). The pos, when deployed as an individual, will be controlled by the player who onlines it. That player may then grant permissions to specific parts of the pos (on a pos module basis) to individual players, corps, or alliances as desired. IE. the player who onlines it is the owner and may for instance set the corp to be allowed to fuel it, but only he can remove fuel from it, and only he may set the password or set who may enter the pos or offline it. yeah, this couldn't be exploited or anything.
If you use a pos which was anchored and onlined for an individual and not for the corp, then you deserve to lose anything you bring into it. Get your own pos and use it if you don't trust the owning corp/individual. A POS would be onlined for a corp to take advantage of directorship control and alliance perks like jump bridges, etc. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 01:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Has CCP committed to any specific points of pos mechanics improvements? Do they understand the needs of wormholers regarding poses? Lastly, CCP, you should consider making wormholes sov space. Why not? |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 22:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Andy Landen wrote:POS - Player Owned Station. .. When will it REALLY be player owned and controlled, as opposed to corp owned/controlled? Also, a corp of 1-5 characters (being alts anyway) is really just a person working under the guise of a corp, because the pos mechanics won't let it be player owned.
Has CCP committed to any specific points of pos mechanics improvements? Do they understand the needs of wormholers regarding poses? Lastly, CCP, you should consider making wormholes sov space. Why not? ... Seriously though, being able to anchor a tower in a NPC corporation would be bad, since the owner could never get dec'd.
So? War-decs only matter to pos's in high sec anyway, so..
And if I want to be in a player corporation, a player owned station could be owned by the player anchoring it for self. The corp directors couldn't mess with its security, operations, set-up, contents, etc. If the player changed corp, the pos would still be his. He did pay for it and everything anchored with it. He did spend all of the time anchoring, onlining, and fueling it. He did pay for everything that he put into it, including bpos/bpcs, materials, ships, modules, and everything that the pos produces.
Other proposals: Pos towers which are offline for a certain period of time become (or can be) unanchored and can be scooped. No sense in offline, anchored pos's cluttering space for years, as is common in w-space. Pos may be configured to issue keys based on standings or on a pre-set list of authorized pilots to be used in conjunction with a password to set the ship's shield harmonics to enter the pos. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 01:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Also, allow the pos owner to group batteries together so that they lock and attack the same target together. Make the ECM batteries prefer ships which match their primary jamming type.
Either remove CPU for missiles, or give CPU requirements (even just 1) to all other turret batteries. Not that such a change won't prevent fleets from simply putting all batteries into incap anyway, but no sense bringing undue bias against Caldari weapons systems. We don't see missile launchers going offline when the ship's shields are depleted ..
Add a new pos module (outside pos) for trading which registers goods on the market.
Remove sov requirements for anchoring any pos module.
Give wspace moons valuable stuff to mine with pos's. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Wolodymyr wrote:Andy Landen wrote:So? War-decs only matter to pos's in high sec anyway, so.. Yeah but it's pretty important. No structure that can be anchored in highsec should be anchorable by any entity that is immune to wardecks and always has concord protection. Basically these structures would go up but there would be no way to take them down because there would never be a way for people to shoot it down without getting Concorded. letting individual people own a POS (or any anchorable structure) is a good idea. But if they every go into an NPC corp the POS can't come with them.
Then I propose that CCP allow people to wardec individuals when they are in NPC corps. Even a noob can join a player corp for protection. Or hire mercs to dec the dec'ers and rep the pos. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 13:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ship hangar array should work like station ship hangar. Each player sees the ships that they docked with and have access to nothing else. Unless they transfer that ship to the public section. POS control should completely rest with the pos owner, which initially is the player that anchored the pos. That player can transfer control/pos ownership to another player. The pos owner would have access to all ships, of course. Same with the corp hangar array. All pos modules come together to act like a station with the player docked to it in their CQ managing their own assets and jobs. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 22:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Ship hangar array should work like station ship hangar. Each player sees the ships that they docked with and have access to nothing else. Unless they transfer that ship to the public section. POS control should completely rest with the pos owner, which initially is the player that anchored the pos. That player can transfer control/pos ownership to another player. The pos owner would have access to all ships, of course. Same with the corp hangar array. All pos modules come together to act like a station with the player docked to it in their CQ managing their own assets and jobs. I can only guess you mean Corp CEO when you say "owner", and mean people with the correct roles to transfer and move things between hangers. oh btw bump.
If the pos was anchored for the corp, then yes. I am asking CCP to allow the pos to be anchorable for the individual as well, so that the owner would be the player that anchored the pos, or whoever he transferred ownership to. I would not allow roles for transferring ships between hangars, but if someone has the role to offline the ship maintenance array and unanchor it, then all ships would pop out and be accessible by anyone in the pos, of course. So, on second thought, even allowing the pos owner to move ships out of personal areas of the hangar is a bad idea. So by access and control, I guess what I really mean is view only, or unanchor first and then have access, and control. But if players put their ships in the corp area of the array, then anyone can access and control them.
Might add in something about pos charters for high sec only being given to players anchoring for a player corp. |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
64
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 07:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Did I mention that I want Player Owned Starbases? I mean it, I want Player Owned Starbases. Literally, make them Player Owned. For Corp Owned Starbases (COSs), we already have stations. And let wormholers have their own COS's (stations). Since stations are tied to the next issue of sovereignty, let's get into that a little too.
Let wormholers have sovereignty AND stations (COSs) too, already. What else are they going to do with sov (besides feeling a sense of ownership in their unknown system)? Build supers? Fine, let them. The supers will never make it back into known-space and the wormholes will have an ISK sink and will be very happy to sink their ISK there. Make the wormholers happy; why not? Worried about increased challenges to wormhole invasion (as if that is really a big deal ..), then fine, add a wormhole stabilizer module for the command ship. More toys for wormholers, I say.
Since POSs have defenses, it makes sense that players should manage CPU and PG with stations, I mean COSs, in building defenses and other structures. The time required to take a POS should probably be similar to the COS, AND the ability to take the POS instead of destroying it should follow the mechanics established by the station/COS.
Lastly, allow COSs in sov space to be anchored at stargates, planets, and asteroid belts for basic defense, logistics, and other roles. The corporations did after all earn their sovereignty over that space so they ought to be able to defend key parts of those systems as desired. Remember, every defense structure is not just a deterrent to smaller groups, but also a target for larger groups. |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
71
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 20:31:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:We just need to w8 for the minutes... they are coming soon... and If we dont like it, lets flog CCP =D Ah. So "Dead Horse" is code for CCP. Love it. Got it. ;) |
|
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
71
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 19:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:I thought the point of limiting POS anchoring to moons was to limit the number of available spaces and encourage conflict? If a POS is anchored at a place that some people want it anchored it is likely for many other people to not want it to be there; even if for no other reason than that the POS is helping those people in some way. If a pos is at a stargate defending space by defending the "check point" there will be people who don't want it there. There will be conflict. If a pos defends any resource, there will be conflict. If it is at an asteroid belt, there will be people who don't want it to protect that resource and there will be conflict. When many people don't want the pos there, you will likely see conflict. When any game mechanic allows people to claim a resource that has substantial value or to secure their space, there will be conflict.
If multiple POS are defending a single stargate, then there will be substantial cost in fuel (an ISK sink and profit for miners with increasing fuel prices) for each stargate defended, and cloaky/fast warp (frigs/cruisers) ships will evade them easily. If ships can send probes through the gates and detect enemy POS defenses and camps before committing themselves. Then they can consider force escalations and strategic counters. They can call on allies and plan their entrance through stargates and cynos into the system to take the defenses down.
My conclusion is that there will be more conflict if pos can be placed anywhere. If stargates can be probed, there will be more strategy and multi-alliance teamwork and more large scale conflict.. If POS ownership changes like station ownership, a heavily defended stargate for one side can become a heavily defended stargate for the other side if they prevail. |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
72
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Speaking as a WH dweller, the general consensus is that we do not want docking games in any way, shape, or form to be brought into W-space. Feelings about forcefields are a little more mixed, though personally I like mechanic and gameplay options it offers.
The thing is, none of the services (except WiS) require docking up in a station-type environment. Docking takes the player out of multiplayer space where he can interact with other players in space, willingly or unwillingly, and places him in a single-player station environment where he has minimal and restricted interaction with others, and only when he chooses to interact with them. That doesn't sound like the goal and purpose of EVE, though it is essential for places like Jita and other trade hubs or new player systems ... any highly-populated location. [lots of words..].
1m off of the forcefield and 2001m off of the station are about the same thing. Movement of 1m closer is all that is needed to be invulnerable That pretty much 1-shot your post right there. If anything, the forcefield is more of a "docking" games issue because it is an aggression-neutral process. I think that last point just took out your pod. Re-group and reply or else concede that thousands of pos horse floggers are right.
|
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 18:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Andy Landen wrote:(silly) Have you actually fought on POSes? Have you fought on station undock? If you had done both, you would know the differences, which you clearly don't. Meyta: Watching his pod explode and lacking any intelligent response. Me: Laughing my socks off at Meta and drinking the tears. Meyta, "Uh .. uh .. you ever? .. meanie .. you suck .. wahh."
You know, Meyta, I have even lived in whs, too. I clearly know that as soon as you move from 1m outside the pos shield to 1m inside it, you become unlockable. Being thus immune to fire, it is like you are docked, except you can see the space outside (a feature long overdue for stations).
Now try this with stations: Burn away from a station. You will be 0m for a while, and then the distance will count up. Move to 2001m. Can't dock. Back to 1999m. Can dock, aggression and session/station/network permission pending. Can't see outside in space currently and people can't steal your stuff in stations; unlike in pos's. Space up to 1999m can be bumped until dock accepted; unlike pos.
Make pos indestructible like station, or station destructible like pos. The later would certainly reduce the number of stations in Eve, especially in null sec. Make all stations require fuel, except at sun or moon/planet where energy can be harvested from resources or flares. If we just call them all stations, and make the mechanics the same (destructible) and the cost the same (depending on size and modules added), the only issue remaining would be how to make the transition. Give a deadline before all pos are unarchorable and unanchored and then have NPCs buy them back. Players have to buy and bring out the new stations before then to move everything from the old to the new. |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 06:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:From the last December CSM Minutes: Quote:Unifex stated that what CCP did was spend effort and prototype what would make a good POS system. It would, however, only affect the group of people who manage POSes. Focusing that amount of time and effort on some small singular aspect of the game and delivering only that GÇ£is what will kill the businessGÇ¥.
The atmosphere was notably tense at the point. You have GOT to be kidding us! Here is more evidence of the need to keep flogging this horse. They really don't get it, do they? A system which would "only affect the group of people who manage POSes"? They really don't have the vision that we do.
And call me ignorant, but who is Unifex anyway? |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 23:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
The Pos should be modular capital ship-like structures, player owned, complete with cyno drive, and without limitations on where it can be. If 10 pos could be cyno'd to a system, they could really make a dynamic universe. The station fills the role of a stationary corp controlled base, while the pos is mobile and player controlled. The easiest part is making the pos player anchorable and controlled already.
The pos rework should be really easy: Just make the towers into new capital-type ships which do not have to have pilots in them and stay on grid when pilots sign out, and translate the pos arrays into fitable modules. |
Andy Landen
Exploring Eagles
88
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 22:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
Anyone heard any commitment from CCP on fixing this THE WAY WE WANT? I have already let one subscription expire, and I am losing patience with the other two. I am sure many players have either crossed that bridge or are approaching it. We need a solid time/date commitment or it will continue to be put off indefinitely.. |
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:14:00 -
[17] - Quote
CSM candidates are out and looking for votes. The only CSM candidate who campaigned on fixing the POS is Nicholas Becker. http://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=1212008
Unless I missed something, it seems voting for Nicholas Becker is the best candidate we can endorse to get the pos issue resolved before I get too old for this.
If anyone else sees another candidate making promises about pushing the pos issue, please feel free to add them, but until then, I am behind CSM candidate Nicholas Becker. |
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Andy Landen wrote:CSM candidates are out and looking for votes. The only CSM candidate who campaigned on fixing the POS is Nicholas Becker. http://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidate?id=1212008Unless I missed something, it seems voting for Nicholas Becker is the best candidate we can endorse to get the pos issue resolved before I get too old for this. If anyone else sees another candidate making promises about pushing the pos issue, please feel free to add them, but until then, I am behind CSM candidate Nicholas Becker. Or you can just wait till this winter when the POS changes will be taking place.
Please link that article. They promised big changes last Spring (about March 2012) and here we are today with nothing but an uninformed comment (last December-ish) about few people caring about poses. |
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
Odyssey teaser page:
Quote:.. will bring dozens of changes to player-owned starbases, game UI and beyond.
great. maybe we'll get fireworks and snowballs for poses too. a whoo hoo [circles finger up in the air] yeah. We need CSM pushing this! Vote Nicholas Becker |
Andy Landen
Air Red Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:37:00 -
[20] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Remove the current pos size. Let separate modules add simply to pos running price. ( of course with some limitations) Why i cannot have one pos with (for example) 20 laboratories - that is consuming fuel like 10 normal poses that i need currently.
Sounds similar to the PI mechanics. Love the modularity, and adaptability. +1 |
|
|
|
|