EVE Search - Proposal: Allow POS Theft

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Proposal: Allow POS Theft

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Isaiah Harms	Posted - 2010.07.13 03:26:00 - [1] Hey you CSM's. I have a serious in-game gripe: Why can't I un-anchor somebody else's POS? To date I have found 2 POS towers that had no forcefield bubble or any other defenses. My attempts to un-anchor was disallowed. No such option. Kaput! Is it truly fair that I cannot un-anchor a POS that some other corp left without fuel and undefended? It's a mobile structure after all! I'd be 600 million wealthier or at least have 2 additional towers, but noooooo. It was launched for THIS corp and I CAN'T just come along and steal it! That'd be like - piracy. Shucks, I kind of wonder what CCP was thinking.
Laina Delapore Red Sun Industries	Posted - 2010.07.13 08:15:00 - [2] Edited by: Laina Delapore on 13/07/2010 08:16:45 Edited by: Laina Delapore on 13/07/2010 08:15:51 It is a source of continued, albeit mild, annoyance to me that I can't tidy the local system of the offline, abandoned Faction towers dead corps have left behind them without paying to wardec them and thus, blowing these multi-million items up, rather than stealing them for profit. Let's expand on the proposal: How do we handle the mechanics of 'hostile' unanchoring? Let's create a Anchoring Disruption Unit [ADU]: an anchorable module (2500m3, cost circa 100mill) which disrupts the control codes in an anchored and offline structure, causing it to begin its unanchoring cycle ADUs take 60 minutes to anchor/unanchor, 2 minutes to online. Once online they project a field around them, affecting every anchored and offline structure within 10km. The owning pilot/corporation of the ADU gains an aggression flag to the owning pilots/corporations of any affected structures. ADUs become vulnerable to attack once they are online. ADUs can be deployed in any space where objects can be anchored. Pros: Space garbage collector becomes viable. Offline space junk can be recycled. Cons: Too easy? Too complicated to implement? Cost of ADU means small non-faction towers still non-proit operation. Thoughts?
Galdornae Caldari Locus Industries	Posted - 2010.07.13 08:53:00 - [3] No. This is a terrible idea. Why should someone who say... can't play the game for a week lose their hard-earned investments this way because their POS went offline? The mechanic, as annoying as it seems sometimes, works this way for a reason. If you really want those POS mods or the spot, you'll have to wardec them and get out your guns just like the rest of us. Not Supported.
Laina Delapore Caldari Red Sun Industries	Posted - 2010.07.13 09:28:00 - [4] Originally by: Galdornae No. This is a terrible idea. Why should someone who say... can't play the game for a week lose their hard-earned investments this way because their POS went offline? How would this be different than if your POS went offline because you weren't there for a week and you got wardecced in that time and it was exploded? You still lost your hard-earned investment, it just got blown up instead of stolen. Or is your contention here that this would make a POS too vulnerable to theft by smaller operators who would not normally be able to muster a large fleet to explode it?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.13 12:25:00 - [5] Edited by: Gypsio III on 13/07/2010 12:26:41 Originally by: Laina Delapore words Sounds reasonable. Hacking unit (ADU thingy) requires Hacking V and has volume 2500 m3, costs around 100 mill with somewhere in the region of 100k EHP. You anchor it next to an offline tower (trying to hack an online tower obviously doesn't work) and activate it on the offline tower. A mail is sent to the POS owner that their POS is being hacked. He has 24 hours to blow it up, or he can just refuel the POS and raise the force field, which immediately halts the 24 hour hacking cycle. If the 24 hour cycle completes, then anyone is free to unanchor the tower.
Thy Collector	Posted - 2010.07.13 12:40:00 - [6] I support this. If someone can steal an 80Billion ship that was stupidly left unmanned inside of the forcefield of a fully functional POS that someone just blew up, then someone should be able to steal a 100-600million non-functional structure that was stupidly left un-fueled or turned-off. It makes perfect sense to me. Its like how if you don't password lock your cans, someone can just come along and take it (or they should be able to).
De'Veldrin Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.07.13 14:49:00 - [7] Supported with the following conditions. 1) The structure's status must be offline (not anchoring, unanchoring, etc) 2) Hacking requires an anchorable structure (someone mentioned this earlier and it's a good idea) If your entire corp let it run out of fuel then it's your own damned fault. Keep in mind, a POS is a corporate asset, not an individual one. The argument that someone would lose their hard earned asset because they couldn't play for a week is hogwash. If you're in a corp all by yourself, either learn to plan ahead, or get some friends to join your corp and share the responsibility. --Vel
Robdon Baptism oF Fire	Posted - 2010.07.13 15:25:00 - [8] Agreed, a good idea. Soon WH space is just gonna be full of offlined towers, as I see many on my travels. The only problem with a 24hr timer though, is its a problem for WHs as they tend to close quicker than 24hrs, and its hardly worth sticking around for 24hrs, just to get that tower.
MNagy	Posted - 2010.07.13 15:26:00 - [9] I support this idea. Would be cool to be able to use the hacking module or the decoder as well on a pos that has shields up to be able to steal 1 goodie in the hanger or something. Even be able to hack secure containers left around. Either way - I like the idea.
Cain m Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.07.13 16:33:00 - [10] Edited by: Cain m on 13/07/2010 16:33:26 This could be done, but a few balances would be needed. Named GRIPE (Genuine Reutilization of Inactive POS Entities) XD Anchored towers only (obviously) 4h Anchoring time 64h (2d, 16h) online time in which it can be attacked POS cannot be onlined while the GRIPE is onlining/online All modules have to be removed (kaboom'd or stolen) before the tower itself starts to unanchor Modules take their normal unanchor time, and are automatically queued and unanchored one by one My two cents. Hope ye like the name. Originally by: YouDoNotOwnSalvage You do not in any way shape or form own salvage.

Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind AAA Citizens	Posted - 2010.07.13 18:12:00 - [11] An intersting proposal. I would support this on the condition that the mechanics take into account the cumulative unanchoring times of the modules anchored at the POS and applies a multiplier. For example it takes about 5~6 hours to unanchor all structures at my medium production tower, it would be ass backwards if someone can do all that work in an hour or less, and would lead to exploits such as using an alt to disrupt the anchored state, and saving your self hours of work. The mechanic should really be tooled in such a way that it is more geared to cleaning up place holder towers instead of being a griefing tool against somebody who's POS ran out of fuel for 2 hours. Remember, your looking to steal something that takes quite a bit of work and time to setup, why shouldn't you have to put some in aswell? Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Tribunia	Posted - 2010.07.13 18:21:00 - [12] Originally by: Galdornae Why should someone who say... can't play the game for a week lose their hard-earned investments this way because their POS went offline? You know what, game machnics and game balancing presenting players with totally counter intuitive situations are BAD and should be avoided as far as possible. Also, plan ahead. If you dont, you pay the price and learn to accept the consequences. It s simple, we already do it in real life. Here are a few gripes I have with immersion breaking game balancing and mechanics: 1. Thread topic. Unhindered scooping of abandoned POSs - all their modules, hangars and towers. Running out of fuel and going offline should render the tower and all associated POS modules unanchored. 2. Tractoring of other players containers and even ships. Introduce a range of tractor beams with varying strengt and even allow for tractoring of player pods and ships. Obviously, the strength of the tractor beam should determine the mass it could move. Fit a bigger tractor on a smaller ship and trying to tractor an object with greater mass than your own ship would result in you being pulled towards the heaviner object. If you ar the heavier object, the lighter object will be pulled towards you. Simple and straightforward enough. 3. Being able to board a ship even if its being targetted by another ship. WTF CCP!?!?! 4. Eject POD during warp! 5. Undock in POD if theres no other ship in hangars.
Slimy Worm Sons of Viagra	Posted - 2010.07.13 18:28:00 - [13] If a POS remains unfueled for 24 hours then it should be unanchorable
Industry Queen	Posted - 2010.07.13 18:32:00 - [14] No. I know it's a nice idea and I can understand the issue. but that also means all fittings that are outside a forcefield anchored can be stolen. Lot of people just anchore the batteries and will online them when needed. And if tower is blown away the owner still lost the POS but also the thief get nothing. Well maybe the bill for ammo :) So at this point I would say no. Maybe change if it will be worked out more.
Laina Delapore Caldari Red Sun Industries	Posted - 2010.07.13 19:00:00 - [15] Originally by: Industry Queen No. I know it's a nice idea and I can understand the issue. but that also means all fittings that are outside a forcefield anchored can be stolen. Lot of people just anchore the batteries and will online them when needed. This is true. But I feel you could work around this by stipulating that either the GRIPE/ADU/Whatever only effects POS towers. And yes, in response, I should go back and bold the anchored AND offline part of my original reply. Funny how sometimes, its someone else's proposal that inspires you in a few dull moments when you should be working, isn't it?
Voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2010.07.13 21:30:00 - [16] No fuel for 3 months = unanchorable by anyone. Really the only fair solution I think. Hate Farmers? Click Here
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2010.07.13 23:37:00 - [17] I would want the following. 30 days unfueled. You have to declare war You have to attack the POS to the point where structure is no more then 50% This would destabilize the structure Then you can unanchored it and have to repair it. Amarr for Life
Cyprus Black 4 wing Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2010.07.14 00:11:00 - [18] Edited by: Cyprus Black on 14/07/2010 00:11:14 I come across abandoned POS's in wormholes all the freakin time. Out of fuel and offline. Contacting the owner yields no results because they truly did abandon it. Packing it all up for removal from the wormhole is too much of a logistical hassle so they leave it. I think out of fuel and offline POS's that have been left in this state for longer than one week should receive some sort of armor/structure penalty. Enough of a penalty so that small roaming gangs have the firepower to take it down. ___________________________________ "In the land of predators, the lion does not fear the jackal." -Dexter
Galdornae Caldari Locus Industries	Posted - 2010.07.14 00:32:00 - [19] Originally by: SencneS I would want the following. 30 days unfueled. You have to declare war You have to attack the POS to the point where structure is no more then 50% This would destabilize the structure Then you can unanchored it and have to repair it. This actually sounds pretty good to me, more or less. What I really didn't like about this proposal was the "but why can't I haz your stuff for free with no effort" aspect. But what sencnes suggests is reasonable.
Andreus LeHane Gallente Mixed Metaphor	Posted - 2010.07.14 00:57:00 - [20] Originally by: Galdornae What I really didn't like about this proposal was the "but why can't I haz your stuff for free with no effort" aspect. With respect, one could ask the question about regular scams, Carbon/Charon in particular. -----

Galdornae Caldari Locus Industries	Posted - 2010.07.14 01:07:00 - [21] Originally by: Andreus LeHane Originally by: Galdornae What I really didn't like about this proposal was the "but why can't I haz your stuff for free with no effort" aspect. With respect, one could ask the question about regular scams, Carbon/Charon in particular. I think that's way too different to compare to this. And scams take advantage of people being idiots, not people who are unable to log in for a week or two.
Looby Loo	Posted - 2010.07.14 01:29:00 - [22] Edited by: Looby Loo on 14/07/2010 01:36:05 Originally by: Laina Delapore ADU requires Hacking V and Anchoring V to anchor (may as well get some more use out of Anchoring V beyond T2 Large Bubbles and being the gateway to POS gunnery) Thoughts? Advanced Hacking 4 and I'm sold... Not keen on the wardec idea, this is supposed to be a utility service to a large extent and the currently proposed process will only affect offlined towers. Though it would be nice when, if fuelling a pos, you accidentally move the fuel the wrong way it didn't immediately offline the damn thing and the storage that all your fuel is now in, requiring a frantic 14 jump round trip to buy some more...DAMHIKIJDOK
Cain m Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.07.14 02:59:00 - [23] Edited by: Cain m on 14/07/2010 03:04:36 Not sure where "unanchor anchored pos mods on an online tower" came in... Just make it so you cannot anchor the GRIPE/ADU on the grid of an online/onlining tower and you're good. EDIT: Oh and this thing should have 0 shield regen. **ton of EHP via extra high resistances (more effective RR, forcing attacking fleet to actually kill the defenders and not just blob moar). Maybe after all that, a single 8 hour invuln timer when it hits hull, which only has maybe 25k EHP? Just thinking out loud. Originally by:** YouDoNotOwnSalvage You do not in any way shape or form own salvage.
Laina Delapore Caldari Red Sun Industries	Posted - 2010.07.14 06:12:00 - [24] Originally by: Galdornae I think that's way too different to compare to this. And scams take advantage of people being idiots, not people who are unable to log in for a week or two. OK: please outline to us the scenarios in which your tower goes offline due to no fuel and no one in your corporation to refuel it for "a week or two" in which there is no chance for you and your corporation to PLAN for this eventuality? Please also outline the ways in which your tower going offline for a fortnight unexpectedly and you being wardecced in that fortnight and it being blown up and all its mods removed (stolen) is so very different from someone coming along and un-anchoring your tower? In both instances you're unable to log in and in no position to do anything about the situation. Hell, if you're a small corp there's often going to be nothing you can do even if you are online. At least in this proposal you could go and fuel your tower and set it onlining, breaking the ADU's 'unanchor' cycle. Your line of argument, to me, seems to centre around one man and his alts outfits who have a tower up and routinely let it run out of fuel to; save ISK, cause they can't be arsed to do POS logistics that week, ignored the R&D alt corp for too long, whatever. Why should they be allowed to reap the rewards of a POS without the risk of an equal-sized operation coming along and taking advantage of their laziness in not properly maintaining their multi-million ISK investment? People whose POSes go offline due to lack of fuel are idiots. You get hourly spam from the tower for a whole day prior to it going offline, you can stuff a month of fuel into the fuel bay and its a matter of minutes to move fuel from the corp hangar to the tower. When a tower offlines due to lack of fuel its because someone dropped the ball, hard. People should be able to take advantage of these peoples' fail by methods other than "I pay to declare war on you and blow up your floating space junk." Your multi-million ISK investment, your responsibility to protect it from the depradations of the rest of EVE.
Laina Delapore Caldari Red Sun Industries	Posted - 2010.07.14 11:21:00 - [25] Originally by: SencneS I would want the following. 30 days unfueled. You have to declare war You have to attack the POS to the point where structure is no more then 50% This would destabilize the structure Then you can unanchored it and have to repair it. 30 days unfuelled.... I think we've covered already, the various reasons why, if you let your tower go offline, it's your fault. I fail to see why a number of days that the tower has been offline should be brought into this. There's no requirement for a corp to have been active for X days or for the POS to have been offline for X days before you can pay a couple of mill and blow up the tower. Why should it be any different if you're stealing it in the manner outlined? Why a wardec and bring damage into the equation? If this is in additionto the ADU, why not just make it so you have the option to unanchor a tower at 50% structure without having the new anchorable? Also; I thought of a new name for the ADU. STRuctural Interdiction Protocol Module. STRIP. As in "I'm going to strip your tower."
Crazy KSK	Posted - 2010.07.14 13:23:00 - [26] yes ~o~
yani dumyat Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.07.14 14:27:00 - [27] _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.
Auri Hella Downwind Trading Guild	Posted - 2010.07.14 14:32:00 - [28] Removing offline towers through some other mechanic than just shooting them is something I've wished for for years. There are so many of them out there and they clutter up my scanner.
Neu Bastian Minmatar Valklear Guard	Posted - 2010.07.14 14:42:00 - [29] Not supported. Wardec and steal the labs like everyone else. On a second note: If a structure has been abandoned for a large period of time, say 6 months, maybe something can be done about it. Quote: Neu Bastian Valklear Guard - CEO
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2010.07.14 15:01:00 - [30] Originally by: Laina Delapore Originally by: SencneS I would want the following. 30 days unfueled. You have to declare war You have to attack the POS to the point where structure is no more then 50% This would destabilize the structure Then you can unanchored it and have to repair it. 30 days unfuelled.... I think we've covered already, the various reasons why, if you let your tower go offline, it's your fault. I fail to see why a number of days that the tower has been offline should be brought into this. There's no requirement for a corp to have been active for X days or for the POS to have been offline for X days before you can pay a couple of mill and blow up the tower. Why should it be any different if you're stealing it in the manner outlined? Why a wardec and bring damage into the equation? If this is in additionto the ADU, why not just make it so you have the option to unanchor a tower at 50% structure without having the new anchorable? Also; I thought of a new name for the ADU. STRuctural Interdiction Protocol Module. STRIP. As in "I'm going to strip your tower." It's pretty simple... One man One POS Corps.. He gets into an accident in real life, ends up in hospital for a week, comes back knowing his POS is offline only to find his entire POS is missing.. That's just adding insult to injury. There needs to be a least a little time passing between when it goes offline and when it can be unanchored by anyone... MAIN REASON which will probably change your mind... Corp Member Alts. You have a Corp Member that is a POS Fuel tech with NO OTHER rights (he can't unanchor etc), he knows the tower is about to go offline, instead of fueling the POS, he is looking for some easy profit. He logs into his alt, travels out to the POS, waits for the VERY SECOND the POS goes offline, then starts to unanchor all the MODS and the POS. Sounds reasonable to you? or are you just a greifer? This is why I proposed 1) A reasonable time frame to pass before anyone can unanchor anything. 2) YOU HAVE to declare war. A Wardec warns the entire CORP something is coming. Besides you can't attack structures without Concord coming to BBQ you, Which is why..... 3) Attacking the POS to structure is a reasonable game mechanic. You do NOT have the right to just unanchor, but you can attack it to destabilize the achnor. In fact I would propose anyway even if this proposal is rejected by CCP. I want to declare war on one man corps and attack arrays around offline POSES and unanchor them, without having to destroy the POS. The idea of you can't just warp around looking for offline POSes in a Orca scooping them as you come across them.. That's not good game design. Amarr for Life



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.