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

Vilgan Mazran
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2010.09.22 12:49:00 - [31]

Edited by: Vilgan Mazran on 22/09/2010 12:51:19
First, my main gripes about POSs after having lived out of them for the past 8 months:

1) No way to make someone have config starbase level abilities limited to just a single tower. If you have private POSs, then a config starbase person needs to come to help them every single time they want to change something.

2) Not enough levels of access for structures. For example, to set access to an SMA it must be either everyone, fuel tech, or config starbase. Everyone is obviously not very limiting, and config starbase will typically be directors + 1-2 other people. So across an entire corp and all their POSs, you only have 1 higher level permission you can use.

3) No way to make it easier to offline/unanchor structures without also allowing them the ability to completely offline the tower.

4) Requires config starbase to change reaction chains (at least t3 ones, not sure about t2).

5) POS shields will eject unmanned ships that show a "pilot" if the pos doesn't allow corp access and someone bounces from the shields. The pilot obviously knew the pw to get into the pos, so why are their ships getting ejected later? While its amusing finding free dreads floating in space 200km from a tower, I don't think its an intended mechanic.

6) Inability to anchor capital SMAs without sov. Obviously, anchoring CSAAs should require sov, but why CSMAs? They are not just useful for supercaps. It'd be nice to be able to use a CSMA in w-space instead of anchoring 8 regular SMAs to hold caps, for example.

Some requested fixes:

1) Allow 1 character name to be added to an onlined POS. This person has config starbase equivalent power but only at that pos. This isn't a trivial change, so probably skip this one for now tbh.

2) Add 3-4 other groups that can be selected when determining access to structures. Instead of a dropdown menu being corp, fuel tech, config starbase, it could have those 3 as well as 3-4 others.

3) Break up the unanchor/offline permissions into 2 sets: The ability to unanchor/offline structures at a tower and the ability to unanchor/offline the tower itself.

4) Make it so you do not need config starbase to change t3 reaction chains.

5) Don't eject unmanned ships from a pos, unless (perhaps) the pw is changed.

6) Please remove the sov requirement from CSMAs.

Seth Ruin
Ominous Corp
Posted - 2010.09.22 12:50:00 - [32]

I have no idea how feasible this would be, but:

It would be nice to be able to set the game to "remember" forcefeild passwords. Ideally, cache all the passwords for each POS you visit, but even just having one persistent password saved through session changes, disconnects, etc until changed again would help.

Fantastulousification Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.22 18:12:00 - [33]

Edited by: Darveses on 22/09/2010 18:16:21
My input on "fuel pellets".

It obviously isnt quite as easy as "just add a BPO for pellets and itll be fine", considering the varying fuel requirements for different towers in different systems. To solve that though, I'd have a couple of ideas.

1) The BPO
The options here would be to either make four different BPOs, one for each isotope, or one, while streamlining the isotopes into one type. That would however have a significant impact on ice mining and ice product economy, as it would mean all ice types produce the same kinds of stuff. I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing personally, but could understand anyone who does. It would simplify one small aspect of EVE though, and would also create the option to cut down the four basic ice asteroid types to one.

2) The fuel-pellet-item
As for the item itself, another problem that needs to be solved is that different POSes munch through more fuel than others do (most significant difference there is obviously the POS size, but some faction towers also consume more or less than their normal counterparts. So, by that logic, one BPO producing one item wouldnt be enough for all POSes, as the different components sometimes cant be divided into small enough parts to make POSes use x amounts of pellets per hour and keep the current consumption ratio.
One solution for this would be to treat fuel pellets like R.A.Ms, faction- or mining crystals: make them take damage. x% per hour, once one item is consumed, the POS starts munching the next one.

Small edit: reprocessing the pellets should either not yield anything at all or an amount of stuff equal to "what's left" in the pellet, depending on damage taken, to avoid exploits.

3) Starbase Charters
Even if isotopes were to be streamlined into one type, there'd still need to be five different BPOs for POSes in empire space and low/nullsec.

Couple of solutions here:

a) Get rid of starbase charters
b) dont include starbase charters into the BPO, add them separately
c) streamline empire starbase charters. worse option as youd need one BPO with charters and one without them

-my stuff, probably been proposed and discussed elsewhere already, but I didnt check.

(not supporting cuz I cant twice :P)

Bo Tosh
Posted - 2010.09.23 08:29:00 - [34]


Posted - 2010.09.23 11:58:00 - [35]

Make the control tower have an interface to manage all modules' every function. They're called that for a reason.

In more detail:

A window pops up from the CT interface, where you can manage fitting (methinks same interface as ships can be re-used), containers, run functions, have items moved from one to another (maybe merge them all to one hangar listing?).

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.09.23 12:53:00 - [36]

Edited by: Rainus Max on 23/09/2010 13:02:17
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
* Fuel pellets.

^^^ OH God please please do this

But please eventually add the rest in.

From a POS Director side of things CCP please redo the online/anchour/unanchour timers, they made sense to stop POS spamming but these days I would rather not spend 5/6 hours setting up a tower.

If you want to put a delay on how long before guns become active (to stop towers in hostile space being built instantly) then have a warm up/charging timer that starts from when the gun is online and doesnt slow down the rest of the POS work.

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.23 20:07:00 - [37]

An idea that has been repeatedly proposed elsewhere but not in this thread as far as I see - allow multiple people to anchor/online modules at a POS at the same time. Reduce the time needed to set up a POS, it's not as complicated to implement as a queue, and most of all, promotes teamwork.

Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.09.24 08:43:00 - [38]

Oh man, these would be awesome.

Dietrich III
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.09.24 09:05:00 - [39]

These are all great ideas and are dearly needed. The one idea I'm a little unsure about is the fuel pellet concept but it's not a bad approach.

Tyrion Moath
Browncoat Industries
Posted - 2010.09.24 09:09:00 - [40]

Amazing ideas all. Thumbs up.

Posted - 2010.09.24 09:34:00 - [41]

Definetly needed improvments.

As someone that runs pos in highsec, limitations of pos are clear. Structure management is pain, not to mention managing right to have those managed.

Control distances of stuctures, need to manually go and move stuff from hanger to manufacturing array, etc... Come on we have drone technology nowdays, cant drones shuttle that stuff automaticly in pos? Or can we atleast get links tehcnology that we have for reactions/moonmining? So assembly array can ask materials from hanger and deliver finished stuff to same hanger or different hanger, depending how you link them up.

And definetly add those hours in fuel warnings. now i need to use my own simple php script for that.

Endo Scrote
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.09.24 09:47:00 - [42]

The worst thing about a POS is if you have access to an SMA you can take any ship in there. We need to either password ships, or give everyone an individual hangar rather than for instance the 7 tabs in a corp hangar.

It is so easy for a corp member to steal anything if living in a WH as my corp does...... To my mind that is THE most important thing to fix

Ashirai Sindare
Posted - 2010.09.24 10:44:00 - [43]

Yeah, more roles, or indeed the ability to make roles and assign them different sections of pos to mess around with on your own would be awesome. also, please limit them to a per pos set and, for the love of god, give us some security in the SMA other than assigning people a slot in a nearby CHA to store their ships in...

Theel Maas
The Praxis Initiative
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2010.09.25 05:36:00 - [44]

Edited by: Theel Maas on 25/09/2010 05:37:11
You make a good case.

The control tower should definitely present an interface to interact with all the anchored modules at the POS. Territory control and resource exploitation is so core to EVE's gameplay. The task of controlling POSes should be welcomed, not abhorred.

More roles. More roles. More roles.

Posted - 2010.09.25 07:53:00 - [45]

Edited by: Ovella on 25/09/2010 07:53:29
Originally by: Uriel Winston
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
Well, CCP can always make another skill for that
(that should require Anchoring V Rolling Eyes... or Starbase Defence Management V Twisted Evil)

Trebor Daehdoow
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.25 11:34:00 - [46]

I have updated the opening post to list most of the suggestions made so far. My current plan is to continue this discussion for another 2 weeks or so, then we will do a prioritization crowdsourcing, followed by a CSM proposal at the end of October.

My thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.25 14:22:00 - [47]

Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 25/09/2010 14:23:19
Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 25/09/2010 14:22:19
Another thing that should be easy to implement: On the Processes > Production screen (where you see moon reactions), create an indicator that says "Everything linked properly" or "Reactor output not linked". With the linking interface as it is (it could use a redesign TBH, but that's way more work), this is sometimes not so easy to tell when you are running multiple reactions and mining from the same POS.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.09.26 07:34:00 - [48]

Edited by: Aineko Macx on 26/09/2010 07:49:35
Oh god yes please.

And please fix access to Corp Hangar Arrays and Mobile Labs to Alliance members.
Sure, it's one of the long standing features that never were completed* and CCP stated multiple times they won't do it (even Xhagen said so in a video interview), but we will keep asking for this.

*: The UI options for setting Alliance access exist, but they have no effect whatsoever.

Haxfar Portlaind
Posted - 2010.10.01 18:54:00 - [49]

What's more to say than that i like it?

Trebor Daehdoow
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.17 16:56:00 - [50]

Let the Ballot Stuffing Begin

I have just posted the Possibly Practical POS Performance Progress Prioritization Poll thread. Go there to help prioritize the various ideas that have been proposed.

Thanks for your input into the proposal, and thanks in advance for your thoughtful voting.

count sporkula
Posted - 2010.10.17 18:47:00 - [51]


F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2010.10.18 00:26:00 - [52]


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

These forums are archived and read-only