Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:44:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Nnamuachs Too bad there are no mineable moons in high sec or this might have merit. There are absolutely no minerals within moons in high security space, generally the only purpose of a high security pos is running labs for research, invention, and from what i can tell, t3 construction at this point.
Sorry, you're right - I had confused myself and misspoke. Near high-sec is what I mean - the barely-low-sec areas as close as possible to hi-sec. There are enough moons in real hi-sec that crowding isn't a serious problem there, and particular moons aren't more desirable than others since it makes no difference what moon you're orbiting.
--------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:46:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Korizan I would say yes the corp can defend its POS. And you should be able to defend yourself.
Hmm a can a worms yes but I think maybe it could provide something interesting @ the same time.
Say Corp A lets there POS run out of fuel. Corp B comes in and starts taking it out after the 24 hour timer comes in to play. Corp A comes in to defend. When corp A fires @ corp B a instant war dec starts for 24 hours. Both sides can open up on each other to fight over the moon.
The price for letting the POS run out of fuel and the price for wanting the moon right now. Concord will not get involved.
And if the corp is in a alliance ? Personally I would rather keep this on a corporation level as it is a corporation Issue not an alliance issue. But I doubt the mechanics would allow it which is a shame cause it should.
And yes someone can keep fueling the POS every other day but it still shows intent and would quickly become a pain in the ass to keep it up. And you could always just war dec them and be done with it.
In most cases though I think more POS's will just get destroyed without the owner lifting a finger. Need to think on this more.
But I don't agree with a 24 hour timer and the POS just goes boom or can be stolen. Too easy especially cause how this would effect POS's in 0.0 Cause if you let a POS run out of fuel you have to un-anchor everything else before it can be re-anchored. ANd you would be surprised how many major alliances in 0.0 and low0sec have issues keeping POS's fueled.
A: Your making a simple solution more complicated. 24 hour war-dec is not a good way of resolving this issue.
B: This is just high sec... call it a CONCORD policy... much like not being able to anchor secure cans in systems higher than a certain sec level.
C: Make it 36 Hours then... but not a week. 2... 3 days at most.
1 Week is too long.
At least your thinking this through...and for that I respect you. But your compromising the balance in the process. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
|
Callie L'Aliel
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 23:22:00 -
[33]
Looks like some alliances are having to re-learn empire...
But, I also agree, there should be a way to hack/steal highsec towers. However, you could always find an offline small with a one man corp and wardec them with an alt corp running amarr gank bs. It won't take long and will be cheap and easy. You can even turn it into a profitable venture if you can find towers that still have modules at them.
|
Aethrwolf
Caldari Home for Wayward Gamers
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 06:50:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Again.... if the tower is offline for 24 hours...no more than 36.
It self destructs or becomes steal able.
You people who ask for 1 week or more.... your just making the problem worse.
The idea is to only hold moons your actively fueling for.. not squatting them like a bunch of jackasses.
If you want the moon that bad.. fuel the damn tower. Otherwise leave.
this.. with a longer timer all ppl would have to do is fuel up the pos with just enough to online it for an hour or a day.. what ever it takes to reset the timer. Absolutely everything is subjective. |
Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 09:55:00 -
[35]
This also is a problem of towers being reserved from the standings game as well. The standings check is ony there for anchoring a tower, so you go around in the 7 days you have good standings for, and anchor a bunch of towers. then, once you really want to use them, you can online and anchor the goodies. it's gaming the system, because teh system allows, and even encourages it. That's not to say that this is right. The entire high-sec pos mechanics should be changed. Offline towers anchoring shoudl decay. Fueling costs should be related to standings (certainly a much higher charter expense with insufficient standings). The 7 day window thing for anchoring needs to change, so that corps must maintain standings to keep their POS affordable.
Howerver, changing this by itself would cause other problems... so many high-sec pos's would become unusable, thereby greatening the slot shortage issue. This should be covered by public availibility of POS slots (with the appropriate changes that this would require). this would allow intrepid individuals who DID maintain their standings to offer the slots up for rent. This would remove the necessity for a lot of those 'placeholder' towers out there.
System Influence |
Darwin's Market
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:28:00 -
[36]
won't someone just fuel the tower and charge more for the pos selling to counter any offline pos removal idea?
|
Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 13:07:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Darwin's Market won't someone just fuel the tower and charge more for the pos selling to counter any offline pos removal idea?
totally depends on the costs involved.
System Influence |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 14:33:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Darwin's Market won't someone just fuel the tower and charge more for the pos selling to counter any offline pos removal idea?
Yes.... but it makes it go from a no effort type of situation to an bloody annoyance. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 10:21:00 -
[39]
It was raised on CSM 2.0 meeting on Iceland, you can read it in Meeting minutes
There were lot of ideas floating around, but sadly not solid solution, tho CCP showed desire to solve this issue.
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 11:11:00 -
[40]
System doesnt need to be fixed. Mechanics are ingame already for fixing this issue.
And on top of all that. The only excuse for "reserving a moon" in highsec really is only a lack of moons. There's no reason you need to reserve a moon in hopes of being able to mine it in the future as it's basically certain they will never let us mine.
Quote: Whereas previously with a can you could just destroy it with enough firepower without declaring war
lol what?
War is like 2mil. You retract soon as the objective has been completed. Easy. You're suiciding cans in highsec? lolz! ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:40:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Korizan
Originally by: Drake Draconis Again.... if the tower is offline for 24 hours...no more than 36.
It self destructs or becomes steal able.
You people who ask for 1 week or more.... your just making the problem worse.
The idea is to only hold moons your actively fueling for.. not squatting them like a bunch of jackasses.
If you want the moon that bad.. fuel the damn tower. Otherwise leave.
Well RL comes into it unfortunately and that is why I say 24 hour and it can be destroyed and then one week and it can be stolen. I really don't like the idea of it just self destructing that is too easy and NOT EVE. That does not create a problem cause if you want the moon that bad then destroy it. IF not then wait the time and see if you can steal it and make a profit.
How about to actually play the MULTI-player game? Let the towers unanchor at first DT they have met offline. Simple solution, obvious and straightforward. Less junk in space - less lags for everyone. My support. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Ankhesentapemkah
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 23:04:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 08/04/2009 23:05:25 We already discussed this with CCP, they think this situation is undesirable.
CONCORD not protecting offline POSes was discussed, as well as hacking. ---
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Limited Liability Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:21:00 -
[43]
Not sure if anyone has mentioned "Unanchoring Drones" yet?
Yes... they haven't been added. But they are in the database.
And while there are a great many items on the database that aren't added to the game yet... take a look at your Overview settings. There's actually a block to display Unanchoring Drones specifically.
|
Karentaki
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 11:46:00 -
[44]
Supported for hacking of offline POS's. It should require hacking 5 though, and take a VERY long time (think about half an hour). Maybe implement an 'advanced codebreaker' for hacking POS's, and make it have a 5 minute cycle time with about a 10% chance of success. Once hacked the POS would then display an 'unanchor' option ONLY to the person who hacked it, and this would take the normal time.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Efrim Black
Gallente Apellon
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 17:49:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Not sure if anyone has mentioned "Unanchoring Drones" yet?
Yes... they haven't been added. But they are in the database.
And while there are a great many items on the database that aren't added to the game yet... take a look at your Overview settings. There's actually a block to display Unanchoring Drones specifically.
WALLHAX!
|
Kralin Ignatov
The Colour Out of Space Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 19:16:00 -
[46]
if anything, an offline pos should not have its x million shield hit-points
|
Mistress Evita
Booze and Hookers
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 19:28:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Karentaki Supported for hacking of offline POS's. It should require hacking 5 though, and take a VERY long time (think about half an hour). Maybe implement an 'advanced codebreaker' for hacking POS's, and make it have a 5 minute cycle time with about a 10% chance of success. Once hacked the POS would then display an 'unanchor' option ONLY to the person who hacked it, and this would take the normal time.
I like this idea. One thumb up.
|
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 04:58:00 -
[48]
Agreed. Taking down an offline large tower takes a ton of firepower even in 0.0. On SiSi I asked for help to destroy an offline tower so I could anchor one...took almost 2 hours. We had 4-5 dreads and around 10 more battleships.
Small towers...meh. High-sec large towers = no way of getting rid of it without spending literally hours and hours shooting at it.
Perhaps restrict high-sec POSs to small/med towers? Or just small?
Supported.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |