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

Amy Garzan The Warp Rats Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.07.14 15:05:00 - [31] -------------------------------------------------- 101010 The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything
Shalamar Bladesinger	Posted - 2010.07.14 15:26:00 - [32] suport. and he is right. you cant just willy nilly just run around in an orca and just pick them up. a war dec must be declared and and a lenght of time must pass to take it.
Javajunky	Posted - 2010.07.14 16:45:00 - [33] Supported - some form of game mechanic to rid our moons for idle assets due to people losing interest in the game without having to get 50 BS's together to solve the problem. Great Idea. Fits well within the Sandbox schema.
Raid'En	Posted - 2010.07.14 19:36:00 - [34] Edited by: Raid''En on 14/07/2010 19:39:47 there's lots of good ideas in this thread what i think useful (almost all have been said) ; * a special module to force the unanchoring * the module need anchoring 5 and hacking 5 * the module have at least the price and the volume of a small tower * can only be used on offline tower, and can't be used to unanchor modules outside bubble range of an online tower * need some hours to works (at least 6 hours, 24h may be too much) * unanchoring time the same / greater than normal unanchoring * need a war dec if the pos is on HS space, and our module can only be targeted by the owning corp on HS * the owner corp got a mail when we online our unanchoring module, and another one for each module we unanchor
Laina Delapore Caldari Red Sun Industries	Posted - 2010.07.15 08:39:00 - [35] Edited by: Laina Delapore on 15/07/2010 08:41:44 Edited by: Laina Delapore on 15/07/2010 08:39:13 Originally by: SencneS 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.. We come back to this week long timeframe. Which is not 30 days. Also, back to the point of: same scenario, he gets wardecced in that time and his POS is STILL gone. Furthermore, as people have stated - a POS should be a corporate venture. Too many 1 man and his Alt outfits have towers up - a POS has ceased to be something special. I'm all in favour of making it LESS easy to maintain one solo. Originally by: SencneS 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? Well, assuming the alt in question brings along a STRIP waits for the POS to online, spends 2 hours anchoring the STRIP, onlines it, waits the 24 hours for its cycle to complete, scoops the POS and its mods and no one else from the corp notices this happening or decides to read the notification that your tower is being STRIPped or the mailbox full of "Tower low on resources" mails...I say tough luck. Originally by: SencneS This is why I proposed 1) A reasonable time frame to pass before anyone can unanchor anything. 24 hours of the tower moaning about being low fuel plus 24 hours for the STRIP to complete its cycle, provides a reasonable timescale, to my mind. Originally by: SencneS 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..... OK, the whole purpose of this proposal was to provide a mechanic to remove offline towers without having to attack them or declare war on the corporation. So, if you want tack having to wardec them on top of the other requirements suggested, why not just amalgamate your suggestion re POS hitting structure rendering it unanchorable without any of the suggestions I've made? As to warning, again, the activation of the STRIP sends a notification to the corporation. I think though, that you're missing the main thrust of the argument here - this is a corporation that has left its "multi-million ISK investment" abandoned in space. They've ignored 24 hours worth of warnings that their "time and effort" in putting up this structure is about to be rendered moot. Originally by: SencneS 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. In my opinion, so is being able to set up massive, expensive structures in space, and just leave them floating, secure in the knowledge that if you leave EVE for a month that the tower will still be there 'cause wardeccing them and assembling a fleet to take out an offline large tower is too much effort for minimal reward. Your POS is at risk if you do not maintain the fuel bay in a proper and timely manner.
Darveses DAEDALUS X The Final Stand.	Posted - 2010.07.15 10:54:00 - [36] STRIP/ADU/whatever - not supported. Stealing/removing a tower is a group effort now and should remain so. I would support making offline towers unanchorable once they hit a certain percentage of shields/armor/sructure though. ---
Rawr Cristina Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2010.07.15 13:31:00 - [37] As soon as POS goes offline and all structures are destroyed, you get an option to Force Unanchor the tower. IMO that should take about 24 hours and the owner would get a notification about it. If nobody shows up in those 24 hours, the tower is yours. If you would rather have the mods than the tower, you'd still need to blow up the tower. - Malyutka (The Virus) -
Ahsekuaw Brother Theo's Monastery The Ancients.	Posted - 2010.07.15 15:56:00 - [38] 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. I like this approach better than the original proposal. I would add one item for the high sec POS's. Any high sec POS that is unfueled for 120 days gets reclaimed by Concord and is removed. Ahs
Drifnir Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2010.07.15 19:09:00 - [39] supported, if only to clean out all the abandoned towers in W-space.
Ghostau scorpion explorers	Posted - 2010.07.16 05:29:00 - [40]

Laina Delapore Caldari Red Sun Industries	Posted - 2010.07.16 08:34:00 - [41] Originally by: Ahsekuaw I like this approach better than the original proposal. I would add one item for the high sec POS's. Any high sec POS that is unfueled for 120 days gets reclaimed by Concord and is removed. Why all the desire to add "This tower has been offline for X days" to this? Either you can remove a tower by the employment of an anchorable module once its offline or you can attack it and reduce it to 50% structure and then remove it. Personally, in spite of thinking of the ADU, I'm just as in favour of the simple, 1 change required solution of "Tower hits 50% structure, becomes unstable, can be unanchored by hostile forces." Although I'd prefer to move away from the model of; "Must wardec inactive 2 man corp w/ abandoned tower and assemble large battleship fleet for boring hours-long highsec op." I really don't see that there should be any pre-requisite "This tower as been offline for X days." Your tower goes offline, you get wardecced, your tower can be removed or assploded. All this talk of "sufficient warning" goes out of the water when you consider that there's notice from a wardec and notice from the tower itself. 24 hours is considered sufficient notice for people to start shooting your tower when they CAN'T steal it, so it should also suffice for when they can. Originally by: Rawr Cristina As soon as POS goes offline and all structures are destroyed, you get an option to Force Unanchor the tower. IMO that should take about 24 hours and the owner would get a notification about it. If nobody shows up in those 24 hours, the tower is yours. If you would rather have the mods than the tower, you'd still need to blow up the tower. Why should the Force Unanchor take 24 hours? The owner should already know their tower is in trouble - you declared war and then it started sending out "Under attack!" mails. If anyone was going to show up they should've done so before then. It doesn't matter whether your tower goes boom or gets taken away - in both instances its gone. "...as soon as the tower goes offline and all modules have been destroyed." So, would this make a wardec on a corp to remove its tower a choice between blowing up the tower and taking the modules OR blowing up the modules and taking the tower? I'd support that - choose between 500mill in anchored labs or 1.2bill of tower. Want both? Tough. Choose.
Cyrus Doul Cosmic Vacum Cleaners	Posted - 2010.07.16 13:06:00 - [42] I have a map of most the towers in lonetrek i would bet about 1/3 are offline. Ill check when i get home.
Marcus Gideon Gallente Federal Defense Operations	Posted - 2010.07.16 14:51:00 - [43] Since there's so much debate over whether or not you should be able to steal a POS... Why not have them impounded? An active POS burns fuel, when it's out of fuel, it shuts down. Charters are not "fuel", so much as they are an ongoing agreement with the landlords of the system. So charters should continue to be consumed whether the POS is online or not. The mere act of anchoring a tower requires you to give up 1 charter. Then you need to load them into the fuel bay(like they are now). If a tower runs out of fuel, it goes offline. But if a tower runs out of charters, whether it is still online or not, it is immediately impounded. The tower (and all associated modules) are carted off to the station housing a Corp Office. Or another approach, would be to get rid of the Charters themselves, and instead have a rental bill. If the bill goes unpaid, then the POS is impounded. That way, POS belonging to bygone Corps will eventually go away.
rootimus maximus School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2010.07.16 16:57:00 - [44]
Reetoc Kraace	Posted - 2010.07.16 16:58:00 - [45]
Major Stallion Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage	Posted - 2010.07.16 17:49:00 - [46] the problem of "place holder" pos's in high sec is out of control. The only solution to this problem is to tie it to the "need for speed" mechanic that deletes untended items in space which havent been touched for (x) days. Attach a value to POS's...let's say if it hasnt been refueled in 90 days (fair enough amount of time imo) then the tower unanchors and remains at the planet to be scooped to the first party who stops by. Or, if you dont want to go that route, just have the pos deleted from space if it has gone unfueled for 90 days. By refueling, I'm referring to the point where the tower goes offline. If theres no activity at that tower in 90 days from the minute it goes offline, then take it off the moon....
Marcus Henik	Posted - 2010.07.17 12:01:00 - [47] I think being able to unanchor after a month of off line time is reasonable. I cant tell you the number of times we find cold poses in w-space. things that just sit there for ever because noone wants to invest the 12 hours it would take to kill them for no gain other than a kill mail.
DeMichael Crimson Republic University	Posted - 2010.07.26 15:39:00 - [48] Originally by: Raid'En Edited by: Raid''En on 14/07/2010 19:39:47 there's lots of good ideas in this thread what i think useful (almost all have been said) ; * a special module to force the unanchoring * the module need anchoring 5 and hacking 5 * the module have at least the price and the volume of a small tower * can only be used on offline tower, and can't be used to unanchor modules outside bubble range of an online tower * need some hours to works (at least 6 hours, 24h may be too much) * unanchoring time the same / greater than normal unanchoring * need a war dec if the pos is on HS space, and our module can only be targeted by the owning corp on HS * the owner corp got a mail when we online our unanchoring module, and another one for each module we unanchor I agree with everything except the wardec. This is supposed to be a thieving Sanford and Son action, not a full blown corp war action. Also this is only for single offline towers that are abandoned and left to rot in space that have no other structures anchored with it.
Goose99	Posted - 2010.07.26 17:08:00 - [49] 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? 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. ^This Aside from why it shouldn't be done, CCP is terrified of changing any POS related codes, and have stated so. If not for this, they'd probably have made a lot of changes already.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.07.26 19:14:00 - [50] High Sec POSs are always vulnerable to wardec. I like the idea of stealing a POS, however, there needs to be some kind of notification system in place. It also should take a day or so to accomplish it (as with every other POS-related activity). This signature is useless, but it is red.

Kentonio	Posted - 2010.07.27 08:51:00 - [51] Supported. Personally I'd get rid of all the extra crap around the idea tho. If a POS is offline, then let anyone have the power to start unanchoring it. Send a mail to the corp telling them an unauthorized unanchoring is taking place, and have unanchoring take exactly the time it takes normally. Keeping POS's fueled is a pain in the ass, and yes sometimes they go offline. This is Eve. You screw up, and you pay the price for that. This proposal would almost certainly cost me a lot more than it ever made me, but I'm still supporting it 100%.
Brutus B	Posted - 2010.07.29 04:17:00 - [52] Edited by: Brutus B on 29/07/2010 04:18:01 You can steal pos's in highsec now. Here's how: 1) Find a sweet pos. Do intel to see if you can handle the owners if things get lively. 2) Dec the corp. 3) Add all known members into address book. 4) When any of them are online, watch the pos closely and cloaked even before the war goes live. (Some corps try to take their pos's down before a war rather than risk a forced removal.) 5) If they start taking it down, have a cloaky transport get in position to scoop it. Also have other allies on hand to bump away their scooping-ships. (If they do it this way, you can get the tower.) Highsec pos owners are suprisingly likely to do this because most are unaware of how vunerable they are to theft while unanchoring a pos under the false belief they are "safe" till the war dec goes live. 6) Be prepared to remove the pos by force, if they are smart enough to keep it up and online. If they do you get the other stuff after blowing the tower up. (If they force you to do it this way, you get the stuff the tower leaves behind.) For dead pos's of dead corps, just dec the corp and drone/lazer them to death. (Cheapest way) If you want the spot. It'd be nice to take the tower, of course, so I offer tenative support for this. But, don't overlook fun ways you can already relieve someone of their pos toys in empire.
inthebutt	Posted - 2010.07.29 04:41:00 - [53] I'll be honest, having dozens of offlined towers all over eve is annoying at times. However I don't think stealing them is the answer. I think towers that are not kept online should start to receive damaged at an exponential rate till they are destroyed. More exact, something that would emulate the degradation of a structure in space without the proper defense to keep it structurally intact. It would give people a chance to recover or repair and online a tower that was mistakenly left without fuel and the such. It would as far as I understand also help with decreasing trash left over the years by players/corps no longer active. Maybe even adding a positive effect to the servers performance.
Catari Taga Centre Of Attention Middle of Nowhere	Posted - 2010.07.29 12:31:00 - [54] No need to allow stealing them, abandoned control towers should just be garbage collected (i.e. destroyed) just like abandonded secure containers after 30 days. -- Originally by: CCP the data does not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features
Rellik B00n Lethal Death Squad Motivated and Determined	Posted - 2010.07.29 14:36:00 - [55] If its solely the tower (no labs, guns, hardners, ecm or anything) I would support this. Personally I think it would be far better to have a 'cool down' timer (I mean we love timers in eve right?) that runs for say 7 days. a 7 day timer allows players with busy lives to plonk their tower down then return and fuel it etc. If after this time the tower has still not been activated it would become unanchorable by anyone with the required anchoring skills. This has the added bonus that it gives a time when the tower will become a free for all. This gives us all new places to fight. Win - win. So, supported in some implementation. . sig says "We Are Recruiting!"
Hooded Hauler	Posted - 2010.07.29 22:01:00 - [56] 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? Hint - if you don't keep enough fuel in your pos, you deserve to lose it
Brengholl	Posted - 2010.07.30 02:41:00 - [57] Originally by: Catari Taga No need to allow stealing them, abandoned control towers should just be garbage collected (i.e. destroyed) just like abandonded secure containers after 30 days. good idea because it's simple i dont agree with most of the posts here you people are trying to make collecting trash more complicated than taking a 0.0 system offline pos is trash, cloging up the server -(saving a good moon by anchoring stuff is an exploit) but! i like the idea of "stealing" poses because someone can make ISK of someone elses lazyness so just plain and simple, after 30 days the pos can be unanchored by anyone with the normal anchor timer and anchoring skills -maybe after 20 days the owning corp recives mail about their tower permanently being lost within 10 days, because, maybe, just maybe it's possible that someone actualy forgets a tower
Ya Huei	Posted - 2010.07.30 12:28:00 - [58] Totally agree we need some mechanism to get rid of offline POS towers. W-space is littered with those buggers. Not maintaining your assets should cause them to deteriorate and eventually be destroyed/stolen. I'd favor the latter, at least that way somebody profits from it.
Stoogie Cadre Assault Force	Posted - 2010.07.30 21:44:00 - [59]
Omega Flames Last Resort Inn	Posted - 2010.07.31 23:37:00 - [60] I think a 2 day total (that includes time to anchor and online the ADU) time for it to unanchor a pos is good and 50-75 mil cost. If you do use an ADU in low sec without a wardec then you still get the sec hit just like attacking/destroying a ship would give you in pvp. I'm not sure if you should require a wardec in highsec or not, I'm on the fence about that one. ------------------------- "Forsys > WAR Forsys > HUH Forsys > WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR Harry Sunday > loot Forsys > touchT"

Zoe Goyl	Posted - 2010.08.03 05:51:00 - [61] I like the idea. I recently found 8 pos's belonging to 1 corp, all inactive. I joined the corps public chat channel, to find it empty for weeks. Why should this space clutter take up valuable moons. It makes more sense to be able to "steal" it instead of blowing it up. It cleans up clutter, and it keeps active corps on their toes to make sure pos's don't go offline. I like a 30 day timer idea, where an inactive pos has a timer when it can be unanchored.
krickettt ldiocracy Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.08.03 07:33:00 - [62] +1 Oh so many junk towers floating around.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.