open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [PROPOSAL] Possibly Practical POS Performance Progress
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.10 10:02:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 25/09/2010 11:33:21
(Edited 09-25-2010 to include player-contributed suggestions)

It has been a long standing wish of many EVE players that the design of Player Owned Stations be revisited. However, it should be clear to everyone who is not actually a dead horse that this is unlikely to happen soon.

I would therefore like to kick off a discussion with the goal of identifying small, hopefully easy to implement tweaks to POS mechanics (aka "Low Hanging Fruit") that will at least ease the pain. This should include not only new items but also gather in existing CSM proposals.

My current "cunning plan" is to finalize the list in the first half of October, then crowdsource priorities in time to propose to the CSM at the end-of-October meeting.

Current list of suggestions:

* Relax range restrictions inside POS shields; if you're in the POS, you can interact with all the POS modules, move stuff between them, etc. If possible, this would include onlining and offlining.

* POS fuel warning evemails should tell you how many hours of each fuel component you are running out of.

* Fuel pellets -- perhaps as a new output of PI (but requiring some components that cannot be produced on planets)

* Remote refuel - grabs stuff from corp hangars; limit to regional range (or system in WH-space)

* All POS modules should be nameable (or at least a damn code number on them so we can tell corp hangars apart).

* Manufacturing modules should be able to accept inputs from, and deliver outputs to other modules. Even something as simple as "If there are insufficient materials in my hangar, grab them from this module" would permit simpler pipelines and easier remote management. Or more simply, some sort of remote-move-between-modules interface.

* Anchoring/Unanchoring Queue.

* Fix Ship Hangar Bug that sometimes leaves original ship in space.

* View blueprints that are in structures in space via corp assets and science & industry interfaces.

* Review and revamp POS permissions, please.

* Jump Bridge Tolls

* Reduced time for anchoring, onlining and offlining.

* Update reaction linking interface to be more PI-like.

* Repackaging in corp and ship hangars.

* Personal divisions in corp and ship hangars; corp divisions in ship hangars.

* Access controls at tower-granularity.

* Access and use controls based on standings.

* Improved anchoring UI.

* Courier contracts to and from POS locations.

* Menu and UI improvements to make dangerous actions harder to do by accident (aka, "Ooops, I offlined it again...")

* Improved reactions UI; show timers, what silo stores, etc.

* Show POS cycle timer.

* List of ammo in all guns.

* Make refining arrays and T2 ship arrays useful.

* Don't show items in fuel screen that the POS doesn't use.

* Allow CSMAs to be anchored without sov (or at least in WH space). Note that CSMA != CSAA!

* Cache passwords on client.

* Allow multiple players to anchor and online at a POS at the same time (aka "Wham! Bam! Thank-you, Gang!")

Darveses
Fantastulousification Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.10 10:32:00 - [2]
 

Supported, couple of nice ideas.

What might also come very in handy would be an anchoring/onlining queue and/or onlining/anchoring modules without sitting within 2500m of them.


Also, purely aesthetic though, I'd suggest more variability with module anchoring spots and orientations. Currently it's rather difficult to build an even remotely pretty POS as all modules are pointed in a different direction, and the distances between the mods need to be rather big to "avoid clipping", even if there'd actually be none in the current spot. So a more advanced collision control would be nice.

Ari Kelor
Posted - 2010.09.10 15:28:00 - [3]
 

Great ideas to streamline POS management.

Supported

Raid'En
Posted - 2010.09.10 15:57:00 - [4]
 

yeah anchoring/unanchoring queue is a must, we lost way too much time waiting for the previous thing to be ready to be ready to activate the next one.

allowing things to be done at more than 2500m would also be very welcome.
dunno what would be fair, be having to move an orca 500m because he got bumped while wanting to fuel the pos, and putting items on the corp hangar is a pain.
at least give us 5000meters.

also there's still the strange bug with the ship hangar ; you can take a ship at 3000m, but if you're more than 2500m (and sometimes you even need to be 2000), your current ships won't be stored.
a 5000m range here would be a good thing, we're on the bubble anyway so no risk from outside... it's just to save time and pain.

for the name, something allowing us to see what modules it is when we're clicking on the manage tab would be welcome.
it can be useful for example when onlining things, as if you have more than 1 of the same module you don't really know which one it is.
same for pos guns, without name we dunno which one is it, and even to make a name we need to know xD
give us an effect on the target our mouse is on !
some more infos, like for example distance of the module may be useful.

also i may simply don't anchor things at the good place, but the bumping / stuck problems when our ship is near some modules is a real pain.
i suppose i'm not the only one having my ships stucked on a module while launching warp ?
as i'm on W-space, i may need to warp in any direction as the new sign can be anywhere, so i can't think about that while anchoring modules... because the random position of sign will make any position a potential target for the warp.

btw, talking with pos and wh, think about a word for refitting of tech3 ships ;)

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles

Posted - 2010.09.10 16:14:00 - [5]
 

Automating parts of POS-based industry is a good idea in principle - I think it's reasonable that people should have access to the same sort of flow control as they already do for moon mining. This reduces the amount of work people have to do, but increases their risk exposure, because they have more stuff floating in space at once.

However, when there are so many possible configurations, there's the potential for all sorts of interesting bugs to spring up (e.g. the one that resulted in vast quantities of advanced materials being produced out of nowhere).

Don't we already have renameable structures? Last time I checked it's possible to name labs, but are other structures not so flexible?

Additional request: let people view blueprints that are in structures in space via the corp assets / S&I window, so that jobs can be started remotely. Otherwise, all the other remote management features become much less useful for people who don't have access to blueprints in an outpost / station in the same system.

MNagy
Posted - 2010.09.10 16:26:00 - [6]
 

I would not support the "Remote Refueling".

I want some pos's to run out of fuel when im in a wh.

The fact that someone can auto refuel them from a far I would not like.


Howen
Posted - 2010.09.10 19:50:00 - [7]
 

I think we need total pos reweiv .Including modules rules etc.See "Pos dead horse" tread.
As for changes supported.Very Happy

Uriel Winston
Posted - 2010.09.10 22:53:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: MNagy
I would not support the "Remote Refueling".

I want some pos's to run out of fuel when im in a wh.

The fact that someone can auto refuel them from a far I would not like.




i agree, make it REGIONAL. you can interact with the pos if you are in the same region the pos is. Cool

Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.09.11 04:58:00 - [9]
 

I had a few ideas on this. If we could link Corp Hangar Arrays with the Manufacturing Arrays/Control Towers, we might be able to accomplish the remote move a lot easier with little programming.

Also, since we now have manufacturing PI structures to higher degrees, why not just have the towers need one more advanced fuel, such as Organic Mortar Applicators alone, instead of the different components or pellets. This would make the reactions a lot easier, and create a strong demand for the Oxides, and make the gas planets a lot more valuable (since they're so plentiful right now), and still keep the 'oooh' factor of Plasma planets. This seems like the best combination from the charts.

Overall, I like some of the ideas, and think this could really improve the headache of POSes without adding too much overhead. Supported.

Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2010.09.11 06:39:00 - [10]
 

Supported.

And for the love of all things good.

Redo the damned POS Permissions please!

It's utterly stupid and fail.

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2010.09.11 07:25:00 - [11]
 

Biggest thing for me would be the fuel pellets. I think CCP was kicking that ideal around already too so they mite even have some work done on that one too ugh

H3llHound
Nex Exercitus
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.09.11 09:14:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Raid'En
also there's still the strange bug with the ship hangar ; you can take a ship at 3000m, but if you're more than 2500m (and sometimes you even need to be 2000), your current ships won't be stored.
a 5000m range here would be a good thing, we're on the bubble anyway so no risk from outside... it's just to save time and pain.


The error lies in that when you store and eject from your ship within 2500m of the SMA but your pod then pops out to a position farther away from the SMA than 2500m. The ship stays in space. Happens often especially with big ships.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.11 10:18:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Drake Draconis
Redo the damned POS Permissions please!

It's utterly stupid and fail.

Drake, can you post something about how these might be changed. I am concerned that this might be outside the scope of this proposal; I want to focus on micro-tweaks that will make life easier.

BTW, does anyone know if you can interact with POS modules from outside the shield (if they are close to the edge, for example), or is there already a "must be inside the shield" conditional?

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.09.11 13:30:00 - [14]
 

No more passwords. Your not in the alliance, you don't get the luxury of hiding in the POS shield or using the jump bridge.

Yeah, I know, rage on NAP Train Coalitions, but I don't care.

Syberbolt8
Gallente
The Scope

Posted - 2010.09.11 13:53:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Redo the damned POS Permissions please!

It's utterly stupid and fail.

Drake, can you post something about how these might be changed. I am concerned that this might be outside the scope of this proposal; I want to focus on micro-tweaks that will make life easier.

BTW, does anyone know if you can interact with POS modules from outside the shield (if they are close to the edge, for example), or is there already a "must be inside the shield" conditional?


Providing you have the permissions, roles, or rights to access a module inside a pos you can access any of them as long as your within the array's operational range, it doesn't matter if your in the shield or not.

List of things in no order:

1. Anchoring and Onlining queue.
2.Pos Gunners get pos under attack mails.
3. Fuel Pellets
4. Centralized Storage - Remove the storage for each array that requires storage and make a central storage unit, or allow us to use CHA's.
5. Increase operational range of arrays, or allow access to all arrays while inside the bubble.
6. Tolls for Jump Bridges
7. Access to pos and pos arrays via standings
8. Improve pos array placement during anchoring
9. Reduce times on anchoring and onlining, offlining.
10. Move the "offline" option away from the "manage" option on the context menu.


In addition, the pos UI could use a lot of work, adding the PI linking system to reaction linking would be a step in the right direction.

Oh and of course talking ccp into doing the most of the things in this thread would be great, but we know that's not low hanging fruit.

klyeme
The Mind's Eye
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2010.09.12 05:25:00 - [16]
 

Support

The Breadmaster
Posted - 2010.09.12 07:04:00 - [17]
 

repackage of ships and items in corp hangars/ship maint would be nice.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.13 01:28:00 - [18]
 

Roughly in the order of personal importance:

Access control:
- Personal divisions in the CHAs / SMAs.
- Hangar tabs in SMAs.
- Access control based on individual structures, or at least towers. Currently, when I want a person to be able to offline silos at one reaction POS, I also have to give him privilegies to unanchor every other POS we control.
- Allow forcefield access and using structures (CHA, SMA, JB, cynogens...) based on standings.
- Allow access to labs, arrays, etc. to alliance members (and also based on standings).

Improve anchoring interface:
- Arrows should resize when zooming in/out (see: probing interface).
- The box should not move when your ship moves.
- There should be an easier way to finish the anchoring than right-clicking the arrows.
- Allow locking the camera to the anchoring box.
- Give a visual indication whether anchoring here is possible - i.e. not too close/too far away from the forcefield. Maybe turn the box red in invalid positions.
- (potentially) draw a grid around the POS to aid in precise placement.
- Anchoring / onlining queue.

UI improvements:
- Move the Put Offline button away from Store Ships on a SMA (and similar with other affected structures).
- Give CEOs/Directors/players with necessary role a list of all the towers owned by the corporation and their locations (planet, moon).
- Show a "Lasts For" timer on silos connected to a reaction. It should show the time the silo will empty (if input) or fill up (if output).
- Clearly indicate on silos description which silo can store what.
- Show the POS cycle timer somewhere.
- Show the amount of ammo in POS guns somewhere (without having to fly to each individual gun).

Other:
- Allow repackaging ships / items in a CHA/SMA.
- Allow contracts originating from a CHA/SMA, maybe even courrier contracts with a CHA/SMA as the destination.
- Make Refining Arrays and TII Ship Arrays do something useful.
- Create a POS array to manufacture POS/Sov structures.
- Small issue: You can anchor a TCU next to a POS, but not a POS next to a TCU. It should be either none or both.

haav0c
Posted - 2010.09.13 01:35:00 - [19]
 

Quote:
10. Move the "offline" option away from the "manage" option on the context menu.


IF NOTHING ELSE

kano donn
New Path
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:33:00 - [20]
 

great ideas

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:43:00 - [21]
 

Anything that makes POS management less of a headache is a welcome idea. If we have to start small, so be it. I just hope you make CCP aware that fixing these will make people hate POSes less, not like them.

D Scan
Posted - 2010.09.15 23:34:00 - [22]
 

Nice.

wr3cks
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.09.16 02:47:00 - [23]
 

Supported

Personally, my favorite of these ideas is the "one hangar of stuff" idea. Moving stuff between modules is a pain and doesn't add any enjoyment or interest to the gameplay.

Fuel pellets a strong second; should be trivially easy, too, just introduce a fuel pellet BPO that takes the pos fuel components.

But honestly, all of these ideas are good and none of them are rocket science. Three coders, two days, and a few pots of coffee should be able to check off the whole list.

On the other hand, it's way more work than fixing rockets or blasters or assault frigs, and we've been waiting years for that, so <shrug>

Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.09.19 05:34:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash

- Access control based on individual structures, or at least towers. Currently, when I want a person to be able to offline silos at one reaction POS, I also have to give him privilegies to unanchor every other POS we control.



This.

The role required to change the material type of a silo should also be Fuel Technician, not Starbase Manager or create another for it.

Starchain
Posted - 2010.09.19 08:04:00 - [25]
 

Nice ideas.
Supported.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.19 08:08:00 - [26]
 

Two pieces of low-hanging fruit:

- Allow naming of POS structures. The button is already there, it just does nothing.
- In the fuel screen, show 0 for usage of the items the tower doesn't use (charters!). Or don't even show them at all.

Nischara
Posted - 2010.09.19 13:16:00 - [27]
 

great list Abdiel Kavash:
and, here changed, narrowed down and sorted to my personal taste:


Access control:
- Personal divisions in the CHAs / SMAs.
- Hangar tabs in SMAs (not needed if you have personal divisions)
- Access control based on individual towers. Currently, when I want a person to be able to offline silos at one reaction POS, I also have to give him privilegies to unanchor every other POS we control.
- Allow access to labs, arrays, etc. to alliance members(and also based on standings).
- Allow acces to labs, arrays to corp members without all the roles (wallet, factory manager, etc), i dont want my member to have acces to everything, i just want to allow him to do some personal research/production. currently it's easyer to "rent" labs to alliance member than corp members
- Allow forcefield access and using structures (CHA, SMA, JB, cynogens...) based on standings.

Improve anchoring interface:
- Anchoring / onlining queue.
- The box should not move when your ship moves.
- Give a visual indication whether anchoring here is possible - i.e. not too close/too far away from the forcefield. Maybe turn the box red in invalid positions.


UI improvements:
- Allow renaming of all structures
- Show the amount of ammo in POS guns somewhere (without having to fly to each individual gun).
- Move the Put Offline button away from Store Ships on a SMA (and similar with other affected structures).
- Give CEOs/Directors/players with necessary role a list of all the towers owned by the corporation and their locations (planet, moon).

Other:
- Allow opening containers inside CHA (use take container role for that), so i dont have to switch to industrial to open a GSC
- Allow repackaging ships / items in a CHA/SMA.
- Allow assembling of T3 ships
- Create a new POS array to manufacture POS/Sov structures or use one of the larger ones.
- Small issue: You can anchor a TCU next to a POS, but not a POS next to a TCU. It should be either none or both. (didnt know that, but it dosent make sence)

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.09.21 17:25:00 - [28]
 

All good ideas.

Laxyr
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.22 09:14:00 - [29]
 

Definitely supported

Lax

Hayaishi
Gallente
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2010.09.22 12:09:00 - [30]
 

/signed


Pages: [1] 2

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