open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Pos: Onlining/Anchoring Que
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Verys
I Heart Chaos
Posted - 2009.02.22 02:21:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Verys on 01/03/2009 13:01:47
Edited by: Verys on 23/02/2009 12:08:54
I had the idea of adding the possibility of having a que for deploying posses making it possible to stack onlining jobs in the control tower so you don't have to wait for every structure to go online and manually online the next one after 10 minutes. Could also be used for anchoring of course.

A photoshop example:
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Show your support at this thread and or leave constructive critism and i will get back to answer you question as soon as possible.

Anyone who has ever deployed a few posses will support this I bet Wink


OP Update:
I agree that some boundaries should be put into place.
I think there should be a time limit on the starbase itself and next to that an alliance/corp restriction in a fashion where you can only anchor/online 1 pos at a time in the fashion of:

"You can not start a secondary queue or anchor/online another module on a starbase structure in this system as your alliance is too busy doing the essential paperwork for another starbase structure."

If this was to replace the current game mechanics it would limit an alliance of setting up more than one pos in a system at a time also bringing down pos spam, while keeping the sovereignity system in place.

Ofcourse there should also be boundaries in place of how many posses you can deploy per constelation and per region at one time.

Legionos McGuiros
Caldari
Legio Prima Victrix
Imperius Legio Victrix
Posted - 2009.02.22 16:37:00 - [2]
 


Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.22 16:40:00 - [3]
 

supported

Matrixcvd
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.02.23 00:12:00 - [4]
 

so we can go from macro mining to macro pos deployment? whats next?

Verys
I Heart Chaos
Posted - 2009.02.23 01:22:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Verys on 23/02/2009 01:22:49
Originally by: Matrixcvd
so we can go from macro mining to macro pos deployment? whats next?


I take it you have you have never deployed an entire pos?

The waiting to manually have to give all the commands to the pos is a very dull process. Queuing would help greatly as you can at least go and do something else in eve in the mean time while not having to take your pos by the hand to tell it explicitly what to do like it has some kind of short attention span.

Allow me to give you a small example of it currently is:

You: Yes hello I have plans to anchor and online a corporate hangar.
POS: Well I think I could anchor it for you but onlining it right after that? Well I don't know, ask me after I anchored it.

12 minutes later (you didn't want to stare at the screen all the time so you went to make a cup of coffee etc.).
You: Have you started onlining my corporate hangar array yet?
POS: Well no you didn't ask me to do it so I have been staring at that piece of space which seems just a little more black than the other pieces of space.
You: Well ok online the corporate hangar array for me then and make it snappy.
POS: Sure wait another 10 minutes and then give me a new order for a new structure.
You: Can't I just tell you where to anchor and online stuff and be done with it?
POS: No your going to have to do this a million times more because I just cant remember more than one thing.


And how I feel it should be.

You: I have plans to setup 4 silos and a reactor could you anchor and online them for me if you show me where I want to put them?
POS: Sure!

Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2009.02.23 01:36:00 - [6]
 

Regardless of the supports.. it will never fly.

There are too many holes in your idea that could be abused.

I suggest scrapping the idea and starting over.

Right idea... wrong implementation.

some of the holes: Stacking jobs would make dropping POS's very easy to do in 0.0 which cause pos seige warfare a total hell.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Verys
I Heart Chaos
Posted - 2009.02.23 12:13:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Drake Draconis
Regardless of the supports.. it will never fly.

There are too many holes in your idea that could be abused.

I suggest scrapping the idea and starting over.

Right idea... wrong implementation.

some of the holes: Stacking jobs would make dropping POS's very easy to do in 0.0 which cause pos seige warfare a total hell.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg.


I feel this would change almost nothing other than make it more practical for people operating/deploying posses. If i really want to spam posses I just fly around a system and anchor 4 posses at the same time now. Its no like I got not time for that Wink

But I also think that there should of course be a maximum time limit on the que or a maximum amount of jobs you can stack to not make it completely automatic.

And who says you cant kill these unmanned posses last time I heard they only had 50% shield when they were deployed Smile

Aargh
Posted - 2009.02.23 12:37:00 - [8]
 

I recently put up a POS for the first time.

I swear the process was designed by Jack Thompson. As a gaming experience it was like buying what you think is System Shock II, only to find there's a copy of Daikatana in the box.

Anything that would allow you to configure the POS, then set it to online, would be welcome. I appreciate the need to make the process lengthy, to allow a period of vulnerability. I don't appreciate having to sit and watch a clock for several hours, not to mention wait several minutes if I make a mistake.

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.23 19:04:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Vuk Lau on 23/02/2009 19:05:14
Originally by: Verys
Edited by: Verys on 23/02/2009 12:08:54
I had the idea of adding the possibility of having a que for deploying posses making it possible to stack onlining jobs in the control tower so you don't have to wait for every structure to go online and manually online the next one after 10 minutes. Could also be used for anchoring of course.

A photoshop example:
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Show your support at this thread and or leave constructive critism and i will get back to answer you question as soon as possible.

Anyone who has ever deployed a few posses will support this I bet Wink


If we put aside that SOV claiming needs to be detached from POSes and moons, this is the thing I would like to see implemented ASAP. Anyone who was puting up Cynojammer or Jump Bridge tower, or even plain deathstar knows how painfull POS anchor/online mechanics is. It is one of the biggest timesinks in Eve.

Anyway I will raise this issue for the next CSM meeting.

Cpt Iwan
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.23 20:06:00 - [10]
 


Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.23 21:18:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Baun on 23/02/2009 21:18:31
POS onlining is MADDENINGLY boring. The only reason that this mechanic has any place in the game is to add some time for countermeasures in the POS for sov role. As such, if SOV is changed away from moons then we should just remove POS timers or AT LEAST do this.

Dzon Vejn
Posted - 2009.02.23 21:22:00 - [12]
 


ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.23 21:42:00 - [13]
 


PyroChemist
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:17:00 - [14]
 


Athanasia Athena
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:28:00 - [15]
 


Aerek Naus
Knights Of Divinity
Unforgiving.
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:29:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Aerek Naus on 23/02/2009 23:29:23

Arjen1705
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:30:00 - [17]
 


sahtila
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:36:00 - [18]
 


Oh Takashawa
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.23 23:38:00 - [19]
 


Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute

Posted - 2009.02.24 00:02:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Matrixcvd
so we can go from macro mining to macro pos deployment? whats next?


The only difference between a "macro" and how it is now is that some poor, unlucky sap has to sit at the POS for hours and anchor/online each module. Have you ever setup a deathstar by yourself let alone 5 in one sitting? I doubt it. You should go do it before you comment on things you know nothing about.

If you think MM would have any more POS than they do now with this mechanic in, you are mistaken. Fuel is what keeps POS spam in check, the anchoring mechanic is a useless/mindless time sink.

This is a major reason why POS is ugh. Full support.

Treelox
Posted - 2009.02.24 00:53:00 - [21]
 

I suggest two things to balance out your idea.

First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.

Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.


With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.

TL:DR
No for now, balance it better

Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2009.02.24 00:56:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Treelox
I suggest two things to balance out your idea.

First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.

Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.


With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.

TL:DR
No for now, balance it better


THIS
+1 for Treelox

Ignition SemperFi
No Falcons Allowed

Posted - 2009.02.24 01:14:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Ignition SemperFi on 24/02/2009 01:14:05
i support this fully. especially now that you can only anchor 5 towers per alliance, to prevent towah spam

Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
Posted - 2009.02.24 03:16:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Treelox
I suggest two things to balance out your idea.

First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.

Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.


With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.

TL:DR
No for now, balance it better


what he said ^^
add in those changes and I'm happy to say yes to this.

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2009.02.24 04:08:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Yaay on 24/02/2009 04:11:40
The point of POS anchoring is to be a heavy demand. Full setup, a Tower takes 4-6 hours of time. But, you can currently manage 5 at a time in 1 system, meaning 1 person can do the work of 5 if he rotates onlining at towers. That alone is enough.

I refuse to support anything that encourages more tower spamming.


Originally by: Omber Zombie
Originally by: Treelox
I suggest two things to balance out your idea.

First limit the ammount of POS modules to be qued to the levels of anchoring your have. So if you have anchoring 4 you can have 1 module onlining and 3 qued up, etc etc.

Secondly, I really think that there should be a modifier to the time that POS modules take to anchor/online/unanchor. Either tied in to the Anchoring Skill itself (maybe 5% reduction per level), or a brand new skill altogether.


With your current proposal I do not support it, too many advangates as many above me have posted. I do however agree with where you are coming from. Balance it a bit, and you will get a thumbs up from me.

TL:DR
No for now, balance it better


what he said ^^
add in those changes and I'm happy to say yes to this.



While the balance is better in that version, It's still not great. Lets see what changes this patch brings to POS (apparently there are some things in store), then worry about it more. If queing ever were added, the person needs to be limited to modules onlining in system, not per tower, i mean ffs, that'd just be easy street.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.02.24 05:34:00 - [26]
 

The current system seems to be attempting to create game balance through player pain. It's like saying "I don't want you spamming towers, so if you really want to, you have to treat it as a full-time job". I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended that way, but it seems to be how it's worked out, and it's unspeakably horrible game design. If tower spamming is too easy, make it harder to support - more expense being the most likely option, but I'm sure there are others - but don't make a player click one button every ten minutes for a day and call it a game. Nobody wants to pay $15/month for a boring, unrewarding, dead-end job, and yet that's what some players are saddled with now because of this system.

The details may need some work, but the meat of the proposal is entirely necessary.

psykiller
Caldari
THE PAROXYSM
Dark Solar Empire
Posted - 2009.02.24 07:14:00 - [27]
 


Dariah Stardweller
Gallente
NO U111 Enterprises
Posted - 2009.02.24 11:50:00 - [28]
 

Supporting teh cause!1!

Hell Commander
Amarr
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.24 12:25:00 - [29]
 


Axel Vindislaga
Posted - 2009.02.25 04:25:00 - [30]
 

Original poster is too stupid to correctly spell queue so therefore should no be allowed an opinion.


Pages: [1] 2 3

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