EVE Search - When secure container madness will end?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

When secure container madness will end?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aelita	Posted - 2004.12.25 18:14:00 - [1] CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire.
Aelita	Posted - 2004.12.25 18:14:00 - [2] CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire.
Vaughn Zoran	Posted - 2004.12.25 18:19:00 - [3] Originally by: Aelita CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you ALWAYS been able to anchor in .7 and below? I see nothing wrong here as it's intended and let me tell you if I had a can here and it was destroyed at downtime I would surely ***** and hold you responsible.. Now, that being said, the ones ABOVE .7 sec status; yes those should go as they were an exploit getting them there in the first places as I've been told..
Vaughn Zoran	Posted - 2004.12.25 18:19:00 - [4] Originally by: Aelita CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you ALWAYS been able to anchor in .7 and below? I see nothing wrong here as it's intended and let me tell you if I had a can here and it was destroyed at downtime I would surely ***** and hold you responsible.. Now, that being said, the ones ABOVE .7 sec status; yes those should go as they were an exploit getting them there in the first places as I've been told..
Buraken	Posted - 2004.12.25 18:28:00 - [5] I bet 95% of those are from miners that use macro programs
Buraken	Posted - 2004.12.25 18:28:00 - [6] I bet 95% of those are from miners that use macro programs
pshepherd	Posted - 2004.12.25 19:01:00 - [7] or miners who want to avoid ore thieves.... honestly, if they don't use cans and they lose their ore its their fault. And if they do use cans then their ruining the scenery
pshepherd	Posted - 2004.12.25 19:01:00 - [8] or miners who want to avoid ore thieves.... honestly, if they don't use cans and they lose their ore its their fault. And if they do use cans then their ruining the scenery
Rattman	Posted - 2004.12.25 21:16:00 - [9] Originally by: Aelita CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire. Should just make a weekly rental based on the security rating of the system I know I have can stuck all over the universe that I wont ever return to. If there was a way I could just remove them I would All opinions, rambling or not, expressed here are my own and not that of my corp or alliance
Rattman	Posted - 2004.12.25 21:16:00 - [10] Originally by: Aelita CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire. Should just make a weekly rental based on the security rating of the system I know I have can stuck all over the universe that I wont ever return to. If there was a way I could just remove them I would All opinions, rambling or not, expressed here are my own and not that of my corp or alliance
Ulendar	Posted - 2004.12.25 21:17:00 - [11] They should just make tainers pop if they arent used after a sertain amount of time... Originally by: cashman It's time for Eris to get a clue. CCP should make a statement about this. It's the exact same things as what Zombie did, you may not attack in "safe-areas" (empire/within sentry range) without loosing your ship.
Ulendar	Posted - 2004.12.25 21:17:00 - [12] They should just make tainers pop if they arent used after a sertain amount of time... Originally by: cashman It's time for Eris to get a clue. CCP should make a statement about this. It's the exact same things as what Zombie did, you may not attack in "safe-areas" (empire/within sentry range) without loosing your ship.
Karch	Posted - 2004.12.25 22:07:00 - [13] Originally by: Ulendar They should just make tainers pop if they arent used after a sertain amount of time... good idea but i think the system is fine the way it is. when i jump into a belt full of cans, it causes maybe half a second of lag. nothing to worry about. just stop whining about it and either find another belt or deal with it. --- Was it good for you?
Karch	Posted - 2004.12.25 22:07:00 - [14] Originally by: Ulendar They should just make tainers pop if they arent used after a sertain amount of time... good idea but i think the system is fine the way it is. when i jump into a belt full of cans, it causes maybe half a second of lag. nothing to worry about. just stop whining about it and either find another belt or deal with it. --- Was it good for you?
Mirelath	Posted - 2004.12.25 23:34:00 - [15] Originally by: Karch Originally by: Ulendar They should just make tainers pop if they arent used after a sertain amount of time... good idea but i think the system is fine the way it is. when i jump into a belt full of cans, it causes maybe half a second of lag. nothing to worry about. just stop whining about it and either find another belt or deal with it. It's not so bad in a belt. My main problem is with all the spam/advert ones in 1.0/0.9 systems. They shouldn't even be there anyway, they're all abandoned, and they're very annoying to see everytime when undocking/passing through. Not to mention what newbies think when they undock from their newbie stations and see a load of recruitment cans promising great futures, free ships and easy money right outside their station... It'd be nice if after 2 months of no use or something, they'd unanchor and then pop eventually.
Mirelath	Posted - 2004.12.25 23:34:00 - [16] Originally by: Karch Originally by: Ulendar They should just make tainers pop if they arent used after a sertain amount of time... good idea but i think the system is fine the way it is. when i jump into a belt full of cans, it causes maybe half a second of lag. nothing to worry about. just stop whining about it and either find another belt or deal with it. It's not so bad in a belt. My main problem is with all the spam/advert ones in 1.0/0.9 systems. They shouldn't even be there anyway, they're all abandoned, and they're very annoying to see everytime when undocking/passing through. Not to mention what newbies think when they undock from their newbie stations and see a load of recruitment cans promising great futures, free ships and easy money right outside their station... It'd be nice if after 2 months of no use or something, they'd unanchor and then pop eventually.
Siddy	Posted - 2004.12.25 23:39:00 - [17] first you whine baut orethiefs, now this -------------------------------------------
Siddy	Posted - 2004.12.25 23:39:00 - [18] first you whine baut orethiefs, now this -------------------------------------------
Danton Marcellus	Posted - 2004.12.26 00:50:00 - [19] Fusing Containers Convert Stations
Danton Marcellus	Posted - 2004.12.26 00:50:00 - [20] Fusing Containers Convert Stations
kurg	Posted - 2004.12.26 01:03:00 - [21] I agree with the original poster, cans _has_ to decay or you have to have 'parking tickets' these should be incremental, something like: system-sec-rating x days anchored / rating-towards-system-faction x some insane large factor would work also 'hacking'->stealing cans should be possible even the paranoid has real enemies...
kurg	Posted - 2004.12.26 01:03:00 - [22] I agree with the original poster, cans _has_ to decay or you have to have 'parking tickets' these should be incremental, something like: system-sec-rating x days anchored / rating-towards-system-faction x some insane large factor would work also 'hacking'->stealing cans should be possible even the paranoid has real enemies...
Aelita	Posted - 2004.12.26 09:48:00 - [23] Originally by: Vaughn Zoran Originally by: Aelita CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you ALWAYS been able to anchor in .7 and below? I see nothing wrong here as it's intended and let me tell you if I had a can here and it was destroyed at downtime I would surely ***** and hold you responsible.. Now, that being said, the ones ABOVE .7 sec status; yes those should go as they were an exploit getting them there in the first places as I've been told.. I'm not talking about exploit or possibility. If you look at my picture with all these cans EVE looks so ugly. Advertising around gates getting my nerves too. Why billboards still have space for rent text and CCP didn't implement rental service for legal advertisement. Secure cans anchored in space ruin EVE scenery and of course generating load for database. I think EVE looks better before secure cans were added to game. At least DEVs can prevent existence of cans in visible range from any objects. It will prevent client from loading data about these cans. I doubt that a lot of cans make load time longer after jumping thru gate or to belt. It's like pollution and no one like polluted neighborhood.
Aelita	Posted - 2004.12.26 09:48:00 - [24] Originally by: Vaughn Zoran Originally by: Aelita CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you ALWAYS been able to anchor in .7 and below? I see nothing wrong here as it's intended and let me tell you if I had a can here and it was destroyed at downtime I would surely ***** and hold you responsible.. Now, that being said, the ones ABOVE .7 sec status; yes those should go as they were an exploit getting them there in the first places as I've been told.. I'm not talking about exploit or possibility. If you look at my picture with all these cans EVE looks so ugly. Advertising around gates getting my nerves too. Why billboards still have space for rent text and CCP didn't implement rental service for legal advertisement. Secure cans anchored in space ruin EVE scenery and of course generating load for database. I think EVE looks better before secure cans were added to game. At least DEVs can prevent existence of cans in visible range from any objects. It will prevent client from loading data about these cans. I doubt that a lot of cans make load time longer after jumping thru gate or to belt. It's like pollution and no one like polluted neighborhood.
Dufas	Posted - 2004.12.26 10:18:00 - [25] wow that is the worse desk top i ever seen not to mention the color
Dufas	Posted - 2004.12.26 10:18:00 - [26] wow that is the worse desk top i ever seen not to mention the color
Chrisb6122	Posted - 2004.12.26 10:42:00 - [27] Originally by: Dufas wow that is the worse desk top i ever seen not to mention the color I would not say worst, I was more along the lines of "unique", each to there own . Magnet41 > i kill people ingame because i would take a bigger sec if i killed them in rl
Chrisb6122	Posted - 2004.12.26 10:42:00 - [28] Originally by: Dufas wow that is the worse desk top i ever seen not to mention the color I would not say worst, I was more along the lines of "unique", each to there own . Magnet41 > i kill people ingame because i would take a bigger sec if i killed them in rl
S1EY	Posted - 2004.12.26 10:45:00 - [29] i throught ccp were bringing in a flagging system so that if some one takes out of a jettisoned can that is not theres unless in a gang then they would be flagged and could legally be destroyed . or have i heard wrong ? i think that would be a good idea there mining in my mega when a indy come and steals my ore lock him web him WS him and release the drones :)
S1EY	Posted - 2004.12.26 10:45:00 - [30] i throught ccp were bringing in a flagging system so that if some one takes out of a jettisoned can that is not theres unless in a gang then they would be flagged and could legally be destroyed . or have i heard wrong ? i think that would be a good idea there mining in my mega when a indy come and steals my ore lock him web him WS him and release the drones :)
Jenney	Posted - 2004.12.26 11:03:00 - [31] I would like them to let us anchore the new extra big ones with 1m m^3 10m m^3 and 100m m^3 so that we can mine in to them And then make all Anchored cans pop after a week or better still unanchor for a day so every one can loot it then let it pop This should clean up the belts a bit cut down on ore stealing as the secure cans now are just a bit crap for mining in to and as you could move the cans the agent mission runners with loads cans could sell them
Jenney	Posted - 2004.12.26 11:03:00 - [32] I would like them to let us anchore the new extra big ones with 1m m^3 10m m^3 and 100m m^3 so that we can mine in to them And then make all Anchored cans pop after a week or better still unanchor for a day so every one can loot it then let it pop This should clean up the belts a bit cut down on ore stealing as the secure cans now are just a bit crap for mining in to and as you could move the cans the agent mission runners with loads cans could sell them
Jiin	Posted - 2004.12.26 11:10:00 - [33] Originally by: Dufas wow that is the worse desk top i ever seen not to mention the color http://www.deviantart.com/view/12659995/ ^ Mine. :) --- Jiin Proud member of the Neohazard Freelancers
Jiin	Posted - 2004.12.26 11:10:00 - [34] Originally by: Dufas wow that is the worse desk top i ever seen not to mention the color http://www.deviantart.com/view/12659995/ ^ Mine. :) --- Jiin Proud member of the Neohazard Freelancers
Karch	Posted - 2004.12.26 12:07:00 - [35] whine whine whine whine whine! i swear if CCP fixed everything you moaning bastards whine about, you would find more to whine about. secure cans advertising in 1.0-0.9: there are not many of them and yes since they patched it i think they should be removed if empty. secure cans advertising in 0.8 and below: leave them where they are. you cant accidently fly into them since they are 100k away from gates and stations so quit complaining. sometimes a few advert cans have helped me by stuff. secure cans at belts: ITS WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR! secure cans being hackable: they would no longer be secure then, would they? flagging jet can ore thieves: no, no, no and no. if you dont want to get your crap stolen, mine into a secure can and make sure your hauler is fast enough to pick it all up before it fills. if you prefer to jet can mine (like me) then by all means do it but when an ore thief comes along and steals your ****, DO NOT BY ANY MEANS come here and whine about it. the current system is balanced and ethical. leave it how it is! making secure cans bigger: this will lead to super indies and i dont think it should be allowed. can you imagine an itty 5 transporting ships about? it would completely unbalance the game. do not let it happen CCP! --- Was it good for you?
Karch	Posted - 2004.12.26 12:07:00 - [36] whine whine whine whine whine! i swear if CCP fixed everything you moaning bastards whine about, you would find more to whine about. secure cans advertising in 1.0-0.9: there are not many of them and yes since they patched it i think they should be removed if empty. secure cans advertising in 0.8 and below: leave them where they are. you cant accidently fly into them since they are 100k away from gates and stations so quit complaining. sometimes a few advert cans have helped me by stuff. secure cans at belts: ITS WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR! secure cans being hackable: they would no longer be secure then, would they? flagging jet can ore thieves: no, no, no and no. if you dont want to get your crap stolen, mine into a secure can and make sure your hauler is fast enough to pick it all up before it fills. if you prefer to jet can mine (like me) then by all means do it but when an ore thief comes along and steals your ****, DO NOT BY ANY MEANS come here and whine about it. the current system is balanced and ethical. leave it how it is! making secure cans bigger: this will lead to super indies and i dont think it should be allowed. can you imagine an itty 5 transporting ships about? it would completely unbalance the game. do not let it happen CCP! --- Was it good for you?
Aelita	Posted - 2004.12.26 12:10:00 - [37] Karch are you child? You call whining that I point out true problem. Did you even look at my picture? I doubt not so step out of this thread if you doesn't like it, that's all. Get life and play with other childrens.
Aelita	Posted - 2004.12.26 12:10:00 - [38] Karch are you child? You call whining that I point out true problem. Did you even look at my picture? I doubt not so step out of this thread if you doesn't like it, that's all. Get life and play with other childrens.
whejl	Posted - 2004.12.26 12:42:00 - [39] I've posted earlier in some thread that it would be nice if you could use a hauler much in the same way as a countainer, to move stuff directly into it, may it be with passwords or same-corp only. Real cans would stil be useful for ammo dumps and storages in remote areas. Ore thieves will have to find a new profession, there is lots of potential in the griefing bussines anyway.
whejl	Posted - 2004.12.26 12:42:00 - [40] I've posted earlier in some thread that it would be nice if you could use a hauler much in the same way as a countainer, to move stuff directly into it, may it be with passwords or same-corp only. Real cans would stil be useful for ammo dumps and storages in remote areas. Ore thieves will have to find a new profession, there is lots of potential in the griefing bussines anyway.
MinorFreak	Posted - 2004.12.26 13:00:00 - [41] Originally by: Rattman Originally by: Aelita CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire. Should just make a weekly rental based on the security rating of the system I know I have can stuck all over the universe that I wont ever return to. If there was a way I could just remove them I would totally agree with rattman. Those spam containers in .9-1.0 space have been there for a looooooooooong time. Just remove them FFS. how difficult is that? As for containers <0.9 regions that have been there, inactive, set up by inactive corps and defunct player accounts? Can't CCP code a simple decay program like Ultima Online has had for decades? ______________________ Best darned links ingame and out (backup)
MinorFreak	Posted - 2004.12.26 13:00:00 - [42] Originally by: Rattman Originally by: Aelita CCP please it's time to do something with secure can plague. Secure cans close to any object up to 10 000 km should decay at next DT no matter if they are anchored or not. Look how now belts looks in empire. Should just make a weekly rental based on the security rating of the system I know I have can stuck all over the universe that I wont ever return to. If there was a way I could just remove them I would totally agree with rattman. Those spam containers in .9-1.0 space have been there for a looooooooooong time. Just remove them FFS. how difficult is that? As for containers <0.9 regions that have been there, inactive, set up by inactive corps and defunct player accounts? Can't CCP code a simple decay program like Ultima Online has had for decades? ______________________ Best darned links ingame and out (backup)
Tuwile Naldai	Posted - 2004.12.26 14:40:00 - [43] Originally by: pshepherd or miners who want to avoid ore thieves.... honestly, if they don't use cans and they lose their ore its their fault. And if they do use cans then their ruining the scenery lol, good point
Tuwile Naldai	Posted - 2004.12.26 14:40:00 - [44] Originally by: pshepherd or miners who want to avoid ore thieves.... honestly, if they don't use cans and they lose their ore its their fault. And if they do use cans then their ruining the scenery lol, good point
Aelita	Posted - 2004.12.26 18:20:00 - [45] Originally by: Tuwile Naldai Originally by: pshepherd or miners who want to avoid ore thieves.... honestly, if they don't use cans and they lose their ore its their fault. And if they do use cans then their ruining the scenery lol, good point It has flaw. Just go there and check owners of cans. Many of them is not in game anymore :(. It's pollution and as it is it will become even worse problem over time. Secure can isn't solution for miner anyway because it's small and can't be moved easily. If you look at my picture someone who want place new can in belt anyway can't find place to anchor it. I just asking for solution to clean up EVE face again. Secure cans should have limited use and should be limited to grid where no object is placed. That way people will be able store stuff outside station but at least will not create visible mess around... I believe in better solution and some openminded person will find it. Continuing in current practise will lead into ugly miserable EVE living :(
Aelita	Posted - 2004.12.26 18:20:00 - [46] Originally by: Tuwile Naldai Originally by: pshepherd or miners who want to avoid ore thieves.... honestly, if they don't use cans and they lose their ore its their fault. And if they do use cans then their ruining the scenery lol, good point It has flaw. Just go there and check owners of cans. Many of them is not in game anymore :(. It's pollution and as it is it will become even worse problem over time. Secure can isn't solution for miner anyway because it's small and can't be moved easily. If you look at my picture someone who want place new can in belt anyway can't find place to anchor it. I just asking for solution to clean up EVE face again. Secure cans should have limited use and should be limited to grid where no object is placed. That way people will be able store stuff outside station but at least will not create visible mess around... I believe in better solution and some openminded person will find it. Continuing in current practise will lead into ugly miserable EVE living :(

Pages: 1 2 :: [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.