open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked POSs: Flogging the Dead Horse
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (80)

Author Topic

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.08 22:54:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/05/2011 04:48:41
Images have been replaced. Unfortunately, I lost the originals with the forum debacle, but the ones that were linked are an acceptable substitute.

To put it simply, the current POS system is Butt-ugly, lagtacular, overpowered, underpowered, and completely, totally whacky, and fails to live up to the expectations of those who wish to see them for the first time.

This proposal at the very least aims to solve the first and last two issues, whilst providing a way for those who do not have 30 billion to blow on a station to get a suitable level of infrastructure for new 0.0 operations.

In a nutshell, its a modular POS with most of the functionality of a station, depending on the modules attached. How would this all go together? Today's idea comes with pictures!

The heart of the system is a simple interconnecting module. From this modular structure, all modules are referenced, attached, and based within a simple grid system.

Exhibit A

The four corridors allow for easy expansion of the station, and scalable infrastructure can grow with the needs of the corporation. or alliance in possession of it.

Exhibit B

Much like the current POS system, the heart and soul of the station would remain the control tower. For this example, let me introduce Exhibit C, for a small Caldari styled control tower.

Exhibit C

From this control tower, everything else on the POS is referenced. Instead of giving us exact XYZ coordinates of every module in space, they can be instead referenced to the tower and the layout grid on which it is based. After deployment of the control tower, you can begin adding additional structures to the POS to give it the functionality you want it to have. Allow me to present Exhibits D and E.

Exhibits D & E (Large File)

Exhibit D is a storage container module; these provide the storage capabilities for the POS. Exhibit E is a refinery module, which would obviously provide refinery capabilities for the station. Up a certain point, additional refinery modules would provide additional refinery efficiency, though logarithmically decreasing with each one while consuming the same amount of poewr. This could allow larger, more powerful, and more expensive designs to have a place in the universe.

Up to this point, the accessibility remains the same as it is for the current POS, with one user hovering outside the module at a time. To alleviate the issues inherent in that, I present exhibit F; the hangar module. This system is not limited to 1x1 modules, and "supermodules" are a distinct possibility with this system.

Exhibit F

Providing a certain quantity of hangar space (Meters³) depending on size (and expense), the hangar module provides an interface to POS management just like standard stations, allowing simple refining, manufacturing, and possibly even clone bays, depending on the modules that you have installed.

Put it altogether, and you get a simple POS that is easy to manage, expandable, and ranging in capabilities and expense. In its most basic form, I present Exhibit G.

Exhibit G

Here is an optional, more contraversial change that this system would make. If CCP wishes, they could integrate much of a POSs defense into this module system; rather than having free floating, invincible guns, large weapons battery modules could be introduced to the station. Presenting Exhibit H.

Exhibit H

Fully realized, Exhibit I.

Exhibit I (Fully Realised Modular POS)

While this is just a simple example, the potential is there for leagues more complex and powerful bases than those demonstrated here.

Alski
Ministers Of Destruction.
Posted - 2006.09.08 23:12:00 - [2]
 

ShockedVery HappyShockedVery HappyShockedVery Happy i love it! ccp, employ this man!

This is most definitely what my vision of a real fully functional corporate home in 0.0 should be, minus all the annoying problems such as not being able to have more than one person using ship maint hangers and such.

POS’s as they stand now are truly a mess, even when you have one of those few peeps in your corp that are skilled in setting up and arranging pos modules in a nice, tidy and non-disorientating way, its still merely damage control.

10/10 for the 3D modelling as well man, good job, if I idea threads could get stickyed… ’nuff said.

/me *mentally wills random ccp employees to notice this thread, print it out, and leave copys ALL over the office*

Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
Posted - 2006.09.09 01:22:00 - [3]
 

HEy! I wrote this idea months ago (though without hte illus, cred for that)!!!

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=391287

Shaikar
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2006.09.09 05:02:00 - [4]
 

How I wish POS's were like that, it would be brilliant.
POS's today look more like the starbase has exploded, bits of debris (the modules) floating everywhere...

lofty29
Aliastra
Posted - 2006.09.09 06:38:00 - [5]
 

Gotta say - If the first POS i saw was like that, I would have saved up + got one. But...as it is, a bubble and a stick kinda looks crap Confused

Mesuno
Azure Horizon
Posted - 2006.09.09 08:14:00 - [6]
 

It is brilliant - as other posters have already said, it is much more in line with how one would envision a 'bolt it together yourself' station to be. As it stands we have modules separated by kilometers of open space exchanging physical materials between say mining arrays and silos, hangars and control towers with fuel.

I used a POS as an 0.0 base for a while and it was an unsightly bodged mess. My corp now has some mining/manufacturing POS which i try to avoid as they are difficult to get around.

The purpose of the individual modules needn't change, and there is still huge scope for designing your own POS layout via the modular design.And when you think about how we build space stations now - we fly all the bits up in separate rockets and bolt them together in orbit to create one facility.

An interesting variant on this might be to make individual modules targetable still so that once the POS shields go down the attackers can choose to disable guns say, or go straight for the control tower. They could even conquer a POS's modules by replacing the destroyed control tower.

so anyway - a big thumbs up from me

Das Forscher
GreenSwarm
Black Legion.
Posted - 2006.09.09 16:46:00 - [7]
 

*signs and fluffles evel for the awesome artwork*

everyone who ever lived off a POS would eventually love that concept, lets hope a dev sees it Shocked

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 18:36:00 - [8]
 

So, a graphical change...

Er...

No, I'd rather the actual balance issues were changed. Like the issue with POS guns being inside the shield..

Alski
Ministers Of Destruction.
Posted - 2006.09.09 18:52:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell
So, a graphical change...

Er...

No, I'd rather the actual balance issues were changed. Like the issue with POS guns being inside the shield..


i beleave the devs have stated Enouth times now that the people who are responsible for new content are Not the same people who fix the bugs.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 18:54:00 - [10]
 

Incorrect, that's a first-order approximation.

There are teams of people responsible for design, for coding, for testing, for QA, for art and for production, like any games company. Sure, you can't have artists coding... but in this case, you're asking for a graphical/code change just for art reasons which dosn't BEGIN to affect the all-discipline change which is required.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.09 19:07:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Incorrect, that's a first-order approximation.

There are teams of people responsible for design, for coding, for testing, for QA, for art and for production, like any games company. Sure, you can't have artists coding... but in this case, you're asking for a graphical/code change just for art reasons which dosn't BEGIN to affect the all-discipline change which is required.


Not all ideas have to be balance changing or solve all the issues present with the feature that the suggestion pertains to. On a sheer management level this would be worthwhile with how much of a mess it is to even TRY to set up a player owned structure at present. At the very least this will make it easier to set up a reasonable POS. Maximally it could change the way combat goes for a POS altogether, with individually targettable control towers, clone vats, capital killer guns, or hangar bays.

The idea goes beyond an artistic change but even at an artistic level this will dramatically enhance EVE Online's stylistic value, and perhaps the most valueable addition it will make is turning POS setup and management a pleasent, painless experience. Is it worth trying to shut down because you dont see it fixing something else that youre unhappy with?

Nikolus Wrighte
Caldari
Chaos Coalition
Posted - 2006.09.09 19:26:00 - [12]
 

I LOVE YOU EVELGRIVION!

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 19:32:00 - [13]
 

Evelgrivion, the first post has zero in terms of balance changes.

Further, clone vats are for STATIONS and MOTHERSHIPS. 40+ billion investments, NOT the 1 million investment of a POS.

"The idea goes beyond an artistic change"

No, it does not. There are zero statistics or suggestions for balance changes which can adequately be discussed beyond your proposal to trivilise clone jumping destinations.


"even at an artistic level this will dramatically enhance EVE Online's stylistic value"

No, it's a *huge* waste of time for coders and artists, time they could be using to fix the fundermental balance issues with POS. POS setup is nothing to do with those, and is really a complete timewasting sideline (If you want a 3d grid layout, you could do that with a far simpler modification to the existing system).

"style" has to come behind a working system, and POS are horribly broken.

Nikolus Wrighte
Caldari
Chaos Coalition
Posted - 2006.09.09 19:36:00 - [14]
 

atleast they would be horriably broken with good looks

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 19:41:00 - [15]
 

Yes, using the time in which those artists and coders could of been doing something else actually useful

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.09 19:46:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 09/09/2006 19:49:40
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 09/09/2006 19:47:43
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Evelgrivion, the first post has zero in terms of balance changes.

Further, clone vats are for STATIONS and MOTHERSHIPS. 40+ billion investments, NOT the 1 million investment of a POS.

"The idea goes beyond an artistic change"

No, it does not. There are zero statistics or suggestions for balance changes which can adequately be discussed beyond your proposal to trivilise clone jumping destinations.


"even at an artistic level this will dramatically enhance EVE Online's stylistic value"

No, it's a *huge* waste of time for coders and artists, time they could be using to fix the fundermental balance issues with POS. POS setup is nothing to do with those, and is really a complete timewasting sideline (If you want a 3d grid layout, you could do that with a far simpler modification to the existing system).

"style" has to come behind a working system, and POS are horribly broken.


Well first off the clone vat thing can be ignored altogether; at the very least this change could be added relatively quickly; art is pretty easy to do if you ask anyone who actually does it. As for POSs being broken in such a horrific manner, if individual subsystems are targettable and the warfare stops being a game of "hunt down the control tower asap before the guns can get you," the guns themselves stop being invulnerable, stations stop being made impenetrable for extended periods of time thanks to reinforced mode, etc, etc, etc, the current methods of it being broken stop becoming relevent, and perhaps easier solutions can be conceived.

There are plenty of ways to think of off the top of my head to keep other aspects of the POS in balance. Cost, capacitance, skill requirements during setup, maintenance, fuel costs, HP; kill it and you lose your jumpclones stationed there for instance. Perhaps if you try to keep a clone vat, or other specialized modules under reinforced your fuel consumption rates increase or even double. Perhaps you have to put up a reinforcing module to keep other modules secure, modules that consume the power put out by the control tower so the larger the POS, the less power there is to keep everything else operational.

There are plenty of options you can think of if you think outside the current box represented by POSs.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 20:01:00 - [17]
 

"if individual subsystems are targettable"

Okay, then let's have the full proposal for that!

Thing is, I don't see how this ties into your graphical idea whatsoever.


"There are plenty of ways to think of off the top of my head...."

For clone vats, that's up-front investment. That you need to pay down 30+ bil for limited access...

Alski
Ministers Of Destruction.
Posted - 2006.09.09 20:02:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Incorrect, that's a first-order approximation.

There are teams of people responsible for design, for coding, for testing, for QA, for art and for production, like any games company. Sure, you can't have artists coding... but in this case, you're asking for a graphical/code change just for art reasons which dosn't BEGIN to affect the all-discipline change which is required.


Not all ideas have to be balance changing or solve all the issues present with the feature that the suggestion pertains to. On a sheer management level this would be worthwhile with how much of a mess it is to even TRY to set up a player owned structure at present. At the very least this will make it easier to set up a reasonable POS. Maximally it could change the way combat goes for a POS altogether, with individually targettable control towers, clone vats, capital killer guns, or hangar bays.

The idea goes beyond an artistic change but even at an artistic level this will dramatically enhance EVE Online's stylistic value, and perhaps the most valueable addition it will make is turning POS setup and management a pleasent, painless experience. Is it worth trying to shut down because you dont see it fixing something else that youre unhappy with?


QFT Very Happy

Lala Ru
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2006.09.09 20:08:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes, using the time in which those artists and coders could of been doing something else actually useful
OK, so how does an ARTIST fix GAME BALENCE issues? Just changing the look of the modules and how they are placed relative to each other is hardly a major change.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 20:18:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 09/09/2006 20:18:40
Did I say designer? No, I did not. Although you WOULD need a designer to plan the module sizes, that's minor.

No, mostly coder and artist time. Time they could, say, be revising the UI.

It's a GRAPHICAL change you're asking for, after all. That needs ARTISTS to make up the revised modules and add docking points, etc.

Kruugore
Minmatar
Vigilant Justice
Posted - 2006.09.09 20:45:00 - [21]
 

I've learned by now that it's wise to ignore Maya. Just a 'Ideas Forum, Negativity Troll'

As soon as you see the name, just assume it says 'you suck' and move on lol.

Nikolus Wrighte
Caldari
Chaos Coalition
Posted - 2006.09.09 21:58:00 - [22]
 

IDEA!! this idea could be included in the kali graphics update. after all. that entire patch is for graphics.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 21:59:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Kruugore
I've learned by now that it's wise to ignore Maya. Just a 'Ideas Forum, Negativity Troll'

As soon as you see the name, just assume it says 'you suck' and move on lol.


Yes, because you can't refute the arguments and are thus stuck saying "OMG ignore the person who's pointed out the flaws in what I'm saying". Right. So, this idea is evidently critically flawed when this happens.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.09 22:07:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 09/09/2006 22:11:16
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 09/09/2006 20:18:40
Did I say designer? No, I did not. Although you WOULD need a designer to plan the module sizes, that's minor.

No, mostly coder and artist time. Time they could, say, be revising the UI.

It's a GRAPHICAL change you're asking for, after all. That needs ARTISTS to make up the revised modules and add docking points, etc.


Ultimately yes, its mostly a graphical change. However, this proposal is not solely limited to graphical changes - there is also ease of layout, and methods of interaction. Instead of hovering outside the module, all station services will be accessable through a limited capacity hangar.

Conceivably, other changes that could be implemented through this system is destructable weapons systems, individually destroyable modules to limit the general function of the POS... hit and run strikes can become an option rather than the extended sieges that POS warfare currently consists of. I had something else to put in here, but I totally forgot what it was ugh

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 22:18:00 - [25]
 

If there are changes, it needs to be done as part of a fundermental revision of POS operations, graphical changes which do not fix the gameplay issues and would thus need further revision in future are a waste of the devs time.


"implemented through this system"

No, because you're talking pure hypotheticals. If you want to discuss solid possibilities and numbers with the implications addressed, I'll comment on them.

Das Forscher
GreenSwarm
Black Legion.
Posted - 2006.09.09 22:42:00 - [26]
 

evels solution DOES affect the gameplay, because that pos would have one central hangar that you can upgrade, and not 5-6 corp hangar arrays you have to fly to ect., also this could include solbing lots of the stuff that makes a pos annoing

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2006.09.09 23:11:00 - [27]
 


Would just like to add, if this gets implemented, could you also get rid of deadspace walls as separate entities in missions etc.

This is so you don't end up having half blown something up with a series of unconnected walls that look like someone just randomly deleted half the deadspace structure(s)

Syros Davol
Posted - 2006.09.09 23:12:00 - [28]
 

yeah. that would be quite nice.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.09 23:52:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Das Forscher
evels solution DOES affect the gameplay, because that pos would have one central hangar that you can upgrade, and not 5-6 corp hangar arrays you have to fly to ect., also this could include solbing lots of the stuff that makes a pos annoing


So needing a re-write of the entire locking 1 at-a-time locking code for them. Ugh, you make it sound even more attractive.. (it's a lag/duping issue and would need a lot of code to do otherwise..nasty)

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2006.09.10 11:33:00 - [30]
 

Personally I think the idea is superb. Maya may have a point, but I would pay anything to have my POS look like this rather than the cluttered mess it is atm. Hell, when I warp into it, it takes 2 minutes just to load all the modules into the overview.

I don't really care if I have the same problem, but the visual aspect being improved to such a level would easily surpass the lag on warp-in. The lego aspect of it is a little disheartening, but once the colouring and graphics were attached, I don't see it being an issue, especially when seeing your end exhibit.

CCP, please look into doing something like this. I personally don't agree with having clone vats on POS's, but keeping their existing functionality, but the new visual aspect, and also having everything handled via the control tower, and not flying between your 50 modules every time something needs changing would be superb.

Counting all my mobile laboratories as well as corp hangar, I have a total of 32 corp hangars in one system (as every mobile lab has it's own corp hangar). Personally, I think this is overkill, and a royal pain in the ass for logistics.

Fingers crossed that such a well thought out idea is actually looked out by the CCP gods, and they decide in their own opinion if something like this is viable. And hire the damn guy already Smile


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (80)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only