EVE Search - POS changes - here's the first

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

POS changes - here's the first

» 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)
La'Krul Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD. 9	Posted - 2013.02.12 01:23:00 - [1] - Quote So CCP are going to touch POSes to some extent this summer - as yet we don't know how. So, here is the first thing they should do in my opinion that would have a large and positive effect on the game: When a POS runs out of fuel, a 48 hr timer starts to countdown, after which the tower unanchors. Simple, effective, won't require much coding. At present there are hundreds and hundreds of offline anchored POS towers littering high-sec, this is preventing new players in particular from setting up their own POSes. A rookie 2 man corp really isn't going to want to spend an entire weekend shooting at a large tower with cruisers, just so they can use the space, and they shouldn't have to. Yes, I know all about the war dec system but the purpose of it should be to forceably remove other players from their territory, not so that you can remove the unused relics of people who no stopped playing the game years ago. Furthermore, it would create a whole new profession in the game - "POS hunting". It could be super profitable to find an offline (and unanchored) tower surrounded by assembly arrays and labs. A player could make his fortune with a lucky find. I can't see any drawback to this, it would make sense from a mechanics and lore perspective (would Concord really allow space to be commandeered but unused), it would be fair to new players and would help to maintain the concept of Eve as a game with consequences. It would also create some great stories and tears. Make it happen CCP!
Felicity Love STARKRAFT 232	Posted - 2013.02.12 01:40:00 - [2] - Quote I'd just like to see all those "placeholder" POS towers, anywhere in any space - Null and WH's included - just go "pop" like a can after 30 days of zero activity. Keep the server happy -- clean up all the abandoned crap that folks CBA'd to use.
La'Krul Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD. 9	Posted - 2013.02.12 01:48:00 - [3] - Quote Felicity Love wrote: I'd just like to see all those "placeholder" POS towers, anywhere in any space - Null and WH's included - just go "pop" like a can after 30 days of zero activity. Keep the server happy -- clean up all the abandoned crap that folks CBA'd to use. Yeah, the only negative would be to the POS market as prices would drop with people stealing towers rather than buying them - so rather than unanchor the towers should initiate a self-destruct timer. As soon as the POS runs out of fuel, the corp would receive a mail saying "48hr self-destruct has been activated" and they would then have that amount of time to refuel and stop the timer. Another huge benefit to this would be the fights in low and null sec that would occur as a result. The 48hr timer would be visible in space from the moon, so anyone finding the tower would be able to workout when the self-destruct is due to happen. Let's say three different corps spot the tower and all turn up to claim the goods - result: huge fight, with the corp holding the field taking the loot. I think it would be great.
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 2636	Posted - 2013.02.12 02:00:00 - [4] - Quote I vote in favor of towers becoming unanchorable after 2-4 weeks. I've found derelict towers in w-space with setups worth billions but didn't have the firepower to tear them down in a reasonable amount of time. Structure grinding on abandoned structures is pointless. Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Apoc Baltar Militaris Industries Northern Coalition. 2	Posted - 2013.02.12 03:06:00 - [5] - Quote Or Allow derelict poses to be fueled and transferred to a new corp.
Crexa Ion Industrials 24	Posted - 2013.02.12 03:15:00 - [6] - Quote I don't believe for ONE SECOND, that supporters in this thread want POSes gone to "clean" up the server. Just post that you want them gone because you have a reason to put a tower where another exists. "...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?"
Orlacc 216	Posted - 2013.02.12 03:26:00 - [7] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: I vote in favor of towers becoming unanchorable after 2-4 weeks. I've found derelict towers in w-space with setups worth billions but didn't have the firepower to tear them down in a reasonable amount of time. Structure grinding on abandoned structures is pointless. Big time!
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises 1134	Posted - 2013.02.12 03:41:00 - [8] - Quote I prefer the idea that they become vulnerable. We have codebreaker modules. Lets make then useful to unanchor things which don't have power available to them. (Don't need to be online. Just able to be put online. So you wouldn't lose the guns you have anchored but not online near your POS) A tower runs out of fuel. 'emergency backup power' keeps it and its modules safe for a while, then you can unanchor them by spending time running a code breaker on them (not one cycle. that seems too short) FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract.
La'Krul Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD. 9	Posted - 2013.02.12 09:02:00 - [9] - Quote Crexa wrote: I don't believe for ONE SECOND, that supporters in this thread want POSes gone to "clean" up the server. Just post that you want them gone because you have a reason to put a tower where another exists. Well. I don't think anyone has mentioned cleaning up the server and being able to put up a POS rather than that option being exercised by players no longer playing the game was one of the reasons I speciically gave, so I'm not sure what your point is. But please accept this pat on the head for trying to make a contribution. For the rest; I don't like the idea of the tower being transferrable because it would affect the market and it would also mean the new owner would avoid all the work of having to set up the POS.
TheBlueMonkey Don't Be a Menace That Red Alliance 395	Posted - 2013.02.12 12:10:00 - [10] - Quote La'Krul wrote: At present there are hundreds and hundreds of offline anchored POS towers littering high-sec, this is preventing new players in particular from setting up their own POSes 1) war dec corp 2) blow up offlined tower 3) scoop and modules that are left and sell them to pay for the war dec etc 4) anchor your own tower 5) cancel war Seriously, if you can't even do that, then you really have no business having a tower.
Captain Tardbar NEWB ALERT 91	Posted - 2013.02.12 12:18:00 - [11] - Quote TheBlueMonkey wrote: La'Krul wrote: At present there are hundreds and hundreds of offline anchored POS towers littering high-sec, this is preventing new players in particular from setting up their own POSes 1) war dec corp 2) blow up offlined tower 3) scoop and modules that are left and sell them to pay for the war dec etc 4) anchor your own tower 5) cancel war Seriously, if you can't even do that, then you really have no business having a tower. How would you defend yours when someone comes along to smash it? Also, people use them to fish for war decs. Seems reasonable to me. Why all the huff and puff about POSes when you can take them down with game mechanics now. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
TheBlueMonkey Don't Be a Menace That Red Alliance 395	Posted - 2013.02.12 12:24:00 - [12] - Quote Captain Tardbar wrote: TheBlueMonkey wrote: La'Krul wrote: At present there are hundreds and hundreds of offline anchored POS towers littering high-sec, this is preventing new players in particular from setting up their own POSes 1) war dec corp 2) blow up offlined tower 3) scoop and modules that are left and sell them to pay for the war dec etc 4) anchor your own tower 5) cancel war Seriously, if you can't even do that, then you really have no business having a tower. How would you defend yours when someone comes along to smash it? Also, people use them to fish for war decs. Seems reasonable to me. Why all the huff and puff about POSes when you can take them down with game mechanics now. Some people just want an easy ride. The argument of "but it'll take 2 of use hours to take it down in our cruisers" doesn't stand with me either. Get more friends, get bigger ships. Use a bunch of gank fit Oracles with T1 crystals and semi-afk it if you're really that lazy.
La'Krul Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD. 11	Posted - 2013.02.13 01:20:00 - [13] - Quote [/quote]Some people just want an easy ride. The argument of "but it'll take 2 of use hours to take it down in our cruisers" doesn't stand with me either. Get more friends, get bigger ships. Use a bunch of gank fit Oracles with T1 crystals and semi-afk it if you're really that lazy.[/quote] Yeah, such an easy ride. Grinding up the standings, training the skills, researching the BPOs, getting cheap datacores, minerals, etc, then building items and withstanding market fluctuations to be able to sell them for a profit, all whilst having to afford to set up, fuel and possibly defend the POS. Yep, it's certainly easy! Better then to allow people who haven't played the game for literally years to still dictate whether a new player is capable of entering industry on a meaningful level! Please understand, I am in null-sec and can put up as many POSes as I want, I also have one in high sec. It's not really about me - it's more of a benefit for newer players who as yet lack the power and infrastructure to go around declaring wars and shooting POSes. And, as I have said before, they shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous mechanic that redundant POSes simply linger ad infinitum. Personally, I would like to benefit from other people's carelessness and steal their POS goods - it's the sort of accountability that Eve was built on. In addition to that, I have listed several other real improvements to the game as a result of the self-destructing offline POS. In return, no-one has thus far put forth a credible argument against, aside from "I'm a miserable, bitter old vet and I don't like change". I hope CCP seriously consider this idea.
Merouk Baas 536	Posted - 2013.02.13 02:51:00 - [14] - Quote La'Krul wrote: Simple, effective, won't require much coding. LOL
Stonecrusher Mortlock University of Caille Gallente Federation 101	Posted - 2013.02.13 03:03:00 - [15] - Quote The fact I own over 55 high sec towers and can't find space fore more with out having to blow up a tower belonging to a 1 man corp that has not logged on it over 2 years aka gray man pic. I fully support this, just so I no longer have to spend 6 hours in a fleet of abbadons killing an offline large pos because grinding HP sucks.
Oxandrolone Bite Me inc Bitten. 127	Posted - 2013.02.13 04:03:00 - [16] - Quote Agree aswell. wormholes are littered with old pos's when people had their scouts trapped out or whatever and went online. They should be hackable and stealable if they are anchored. but not online, maybe it takes 1 hour to hack it or something.
Jack Miton Aperture Harmonics K162 1397	Posted - 2013.02.13 05:25:00 - [17] - Quote I dont really think it's a needed change outside of highsec. If it is brought in, the timer should be more along the lines of a week+, definitely not just 2 days.
Keno Skir Vectis Covert Solutions 372	Posted - 2013.02.13 05:29:00 - [18] - Quote Support, come on CCP. This is first actual good idea i'v read in general discussion in months. If you have any further thoughts on something i've posted, or want to ask an unrelated question feel free to contact me by EvE Mail or by private conversation if 'm online. BUDDY TRIALS AVAILABLE - 21days plus big ISK bonus and starting assistance
Emma Royd Maddled Gommerils 198	Posted - 2013.02.13 07:18:00 - [19] - Quote And you think this is an original idea? Of all the pos problems that are crying out to be fixed, this is a LOOOOOONG way down the list. If you can't be arsed scouting high sec to find a free moon, or taking the tower by force, why do you want CCP to do your work for you. there are lots of pos problems more important than "wahh I can't find a free moon, CEECEEPEEEE pleeze fix"
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 297	Posted - 2013.02.13 07:19:00 - [20] - Quote While I'm in favor of this in general, I think a POS is something rather solid. Shields, armor and structure should decay over time and the thing just disappear after some three months. If you need it fast(TM) or if you want loot, you should have to put at least some effort into this. And be put at some risk in high sec also by the wardec required. Remove insurance.
Pewty McPew Pillage Plunder And Rape Industries 180	Posted - 2013.02.13 11:11:00 - [21] - Quote La'Krul wrote: So CCP are going to touch POSes to some extent this summer - as yet we don't know how. So, here is the first thing they should do in my opinion that would have a large and positive effect on the game: When a POS runs out of fuel, a 48 hr timer starts to countdown, after which the tower unanchors. Simple, effective, won't require much coding. At present there are hundreds and hundreds of offline anchored POS towers littering high-sec, this is preventing new players in particular from setting up their own POSes. A rookie 2 man corp really isn't going to want to spend an entire weekend shooting at a large tower with cruisers, just so they can use the space, and they shouldn't have to. Yes, I know all about the war dec system but the purpose of it should be to forceably remove other players from their territory, not so that you can remove the unused relics of people who no stopped playing the game years ago. Furthermore, it would create a whole new profession in the game - "POS hunting". It could be super profitable to find an offline (and unanchored) tower surrounded by assembly arrays and labs. A player could make his fortune with a lucky find. I can't see any drawback to this, it would make sense from a mechanics and lore perspective (would Concord really allow space to be commandeered but unused), it would be fair to new players and would help to maintain the concept of Eve as a game with consequences. It would also create some great stories and tears. Make it happen CCP! There are plenty of ways of getting a spot to anchor a POS. If you are too lazy or your corp os to weak to go get one yourself, why should the game be further Darwinized to facilitate your inability to procure a spot for your POS? Eve is work if your too lazy to put forth the effort to get a POS maybe Eve is not the game for you.
La'Krul Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD. 14	Posted - 2013.02.13 18:23:00 - [22] - Quote Thanks, you managed to quote my post but clearly haven't read either it or the rest of the thread. Your response is fantastically unintelligent as a result. I still have yet to hear a legitimate argument against this idea. Anyone else who wants to rant on about "lazinessGÇ¥ can do it elsewhere - it's not relevant to the discussion and it's not a basis for the proposed change. Take your time, read through the advantages I've listed, engage brain and then comment. And as for Eve not being a game for me, B**ch please! I was here before you and I'll be here after you've gone.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 1563	Posted - 2013.02.13 19:33:00 - [23] - Quote Auto-unanchoring doesn't encourage conflict, which suggests to me that a structure-shoot / wardec is the preferred mechanic.
La'Krul Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD. 15	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:32:00 - [24] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: Auto-unanchoring doesn't encourage conflict Really? What's your evidence for that? How much auto-unanchoring have you observed? War decs to remove active towers create conflicts, like I said. There's no conflict involved in sitting shooting all day at a tower that is owned by someone whose account expired 2 years ago! Conversely, have you ever seen what happens when an alliance forgets to pay its sov bill and drops all it's space? Big scramble to take advantage, TCUs getting launched, big fights occuring.
Arronicus Brave Newbies Inc. 186	Posted - 2013.02.13 23:09:00 - [25] - Quote I support Control towers not having shields, when they are not onlined. Or unanchoring after some reasonable (as dictated by CCP, reasonable, so probably 2 weeks) timeframe. There are a ridiculous amount of small control towers anchored in highsec, just to hold moons, and the fact that they have over 15 million hitpoints because they have full shields, even when not onlined, is ridiculous. Give them ~1 million EHP, 1.5mil for meds, and 2mil for larges. This would allow you to wardec a corporation, and efficiently destroy placeholder towers without having to sit a fleet of 20 ships on the tower for an hour.
Sentient Blade Walk It Off 770	Posted - 2013.02.13 23:28:00 - [26] - Quote 48 hours is a bit too short IMO. Make it 21 - 30 days and you've got a deal.
yopparai ASTARTES CORP Hashashin Cartel 1554	Posted - 2013.02.14 00:54:00 - [27] - Quote La'Krul wrote: A rookie 2 man corp really isn't going to want to spend an entire weekend shooting at a large tower with cruisers, just so they can use the space, and they shouldn't have to. Yes they should have to spend time to gain the moon. This will also prepare them for the rest of their eve career which will see their weekends filled with shooting at large towers. Yopp
flakeys Arkham Innovations Paper Tiger Coalition 829	Posted - 2013.02.14 09:25:00 - [28] - Quote TheBlueMonkey wrote: Captain Tardbar wrote: TheBlueMonkey wrote: La'Krul wrote: At present there are hundreds and hundreds of offline anchored POS towers littering high-sec, this is preventing new players in particular from setting up their own POSes 1) war dec corp 2) blow up offlined tower 3) scoop and modules that are left and sell them to pay for the war dec etc 4) anchor your own tower 5) cancel war Seriously, if you can't even do that, then you really have no business having a tower. How would you defend yours when someone comes along to smash it? Also, people use them to fish for war decs. Seems reasonable to me. Why all the huff and puff about POSes when you can take them down with game mechanics now. Some people just want an easy ride. The argument of "but it'll take 2 of use hours to take it down in our cruisers" doesn't stand with me either. Get more friends, get bigger ships. Use a bunch of gank fit Oracles with T1 crystals and semi-afk it if you're really that lazy. I have done it the way you described when i had to plaace my towers.So that cleared up i fully agree with them popping after a month.It's just stupid that you can leave stufff hanging in space for years.They did the same for cans and such years ago so why are towers any different? We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation 258	Posted - 2013.02.14 13:11:00 - [29] - Quote disagree with OP change idea for a couple important reasons. 1. Timers after fuel expires is just complicating things 2. Un-anchoring towers rather than destroying them is a kind of nerf to tower building industry They should after the fuel runs out, have zero shield, but keep their armour and structure making them a LOT easier to grind through. This should stop 'placeholder' POSes and allow easier cleanup of space litter while keeping industry folks a bit happier.
La'Krul Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD. 18	Posted - 2013.02.15 01:54:00 - [30] - Quote Vyktor Abyss wrote: disagree with OP change idea for a couple important reasons. 1. Timers after fuel expires is just complicating things 2. Un-anchoring towers rather than destroying them is a kind of nerf to tower building industry They should after the fuel runs out, have zero shield, but keep their armour and structure making them a LOT easier to grind through. This should stop 'placeholder' POSes and allow easier cleanup of space litter while keeping industry folks a bit happier. 1. Just nothing complicated about the timer. POS runs out of fuel, self-destruct countdown starts. How could anything be easier? 2. I agree, that's why I said it should be a self destruct, to protect the tower market. I wouldn't care if it was a two day timer, two week timer, whatever.

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

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,06s, ref 20251018/0130
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.