Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 73 post(s) |
Nestor II
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 11:21:00 -
[1]
To clean up Roid Belts is to change the Secure can distances from the belts, instead what it is now make it 300km from the belts. If a can is less than 100km, let the rats pop it for target practice.
If you think about this, it is one that quite a few of us hate, going to a belt and seeing more secure cans than roids there.
|
Solar Sailor
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 11:36:00 -
[2]
Umm WTF? do you mean 30Km?? That would make it impossible to mine into them.
I think the distances are fine, however, I do agree with the rats shooting them, you want a can to be safe, put it in your hanger. ------- Bringer of Squirrelly Wrath - Foaminian Card Cult
|
Nestor II
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 11:41:00 -
[3]
Well you have to travel the the secure cans anyway, so why not just travela alittle further to get to them. It also makes a good warp point if you get overwhelmed with rats and you are in a mining vessel.
A quick warp to the can and wait till help arrives or the rats leave, just keep lined up on the can and all is good.
|
Sergeant Spot
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 12:13:00 -
[4]
I've suggested the following before, and will continue suggesting it:
Require a tiny "rent" (or "maintanence fee" if you prefer) for anchored secure cans. A fee so small, even the newest noob would have no problem with it. 1 isk a month. If the fee is not paid, your cans pop.
MANY anchored secure cans are abandoned. Such a fee would probably eliminate 95% of the anchored cans in Eve within one month.
|
Jherek Cornelian
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 12:37:00 -
[5]
id certainly be abandoning mine if they charged me 1 isk to maintain them
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 12:38:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot Require a tiny "rent" (or "maintanence fee" if you prefer) for anchored secure cans. A fee so small, even the newest noob would have no problem with it. 1 isk a month. If the fee is not paid, your cans pop.
MANY anchored secure cans are abandoned. Such a fee would probably eliminate 95% of the anchored cans in Eve within one month.
The only problem is that if the fee is so small even the newest noob has no problem with it, then it won't be enough of an incentive to clean up your cans. For example, say I have a can out somewhere. I'm not using it right now, but it's easy to go fetch if I want a can sometime. But it's not worth the trip unless I actually want the can. If I am likely to use it again before the rent exceeds the cost of a new can, I'll keep the can there. If not, I'll let it pop. If it takes more than a few months to cross that line, I may just forget it's even costing me to keep it out there "just in case".
Not to mention the owners of many abandoned cans might not even remember they are there, so you'd have to have some facility for either remotely unanchoring them, or at least re-discovering their location (including the ones hidden at safespots you no longer have the BM for). If they have currently used cans, they will probably pay the token rent for every can, to make sure none of their current ones is popped by mistake.
You can do anything. But you can't do everything. |
matoni
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 13:16:00 -
[7]
If secure cans that have been in disuse for a month went pop, that would solve the littering problem. I don't see why it couldn't be implemented, since the cargo containers are programmed to pop after an hour or so.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 13:20:00 -
[8]
Let us be able to hack into the secure cans, and a) gain access to the contents, and b) unanchor them and take them away.
Hacking would take an immense amount of time, but anyone doing a mining operation would be actively using them and have time to haul their minerals (or whatever) away before a successful hack could be done. But if people leave their cans for days on end, then all it takes is say 15-20 minutes of hacking by someone to get the can. :)
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 13:31:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Winterblink Hacking would take an immense amount of time, but anyone doing a mining operation would be actively using them and have time to haul their minerals (or whatever) away before a successful hack could be done. But if people leave their cans for days on end, then all it takes is say 15-20 minutes of hacking by someone to get the can. :)
Sure they'd get the minerals away, but what about the can itself? If you wait for the hack to happen, its a race to who can click "scoop" first. If you unanchor it yourself, it's a race to who can click "scoop" first. Such a system would basically be a licence to steal cans.
Refinements to the system would need to include:
1) Hack aborts if the hacker moves too far from the target can. 2) Hack aborts if the hacker cloaks. 3) Container eve-mails the owner whenever a hack is started 4) Hack aborts if the hacker is ship-killed. 5) Pods cannot hack. 5) Initiating a hack flags you to the owner of the can (similar to the proposed flagging of ore thieves).
You can do anything. But you can't do everything. |
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 15:17:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Matthew Sure they'd get the minerals away, but what about the can itself? If you wait for the hack to happen, its a race to who can click "scoop" first. If you unanchor it yourself, it's a race to who can click "scoop" first. Such a system would basically be a licence to steal cans.
Refinements to the system would need to include:
1) Hack aborts if the hacker moves too far from the target can. 2) Hack aborts if the hacker cloaks. 3) Container eve-mails the owner whenever a hack is started 4) Hack aborts if the hacker is ship-killed. 5) Pods cannot hack. 5) Initiating a hack flags you to the owner of the can (similar to the proposed flagging of ore thieves).
Exactly. I left out details like this to spur discussion on the point. But yes, that's precisely the type of caveats that I had in mind. :)
|
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 15:37:00 -
[11]
Quote: The only problem is that if the fee is so small even the newest noob has no problem with it, then it won't be enough of an incentive to clean up your cans. For example, say I have a can out somewhere. I'm not using it right now, but it's easy to go fetch if I want a can sometime. But it's not worth the trip unless I actually want the can. If I am likely to use it again before the rent exceeds the cost of a new can, I'll keep the can there. If not, I'll let it pop. If it takes more than a few months to cross that line, I may just forget it's even costing me to keep it out there "just in case".
Don't allow remote payment of the fee. Just put a coin slot on the can. If you don't pay 25isk per week into the thing, pop.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 16:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Winterblink
Originally by: Matthew Sure they'd get the minerals away, but what about the can itself? If you wait for the hack to happen, its a race to who can click "scoop" first. If you unanchor it yourself, it's a race to who can click "scoop" first. Such a system would basically be a licence to steal cans.
Refinements to the system would need to include:
1) Hack aborts if the hacker moves too far from the target can. 2) Hack aborts if the hacker cloaks. 3) Container eve-mails the owner whenever a hack is started 4) Hack aborts if the hacker is ship-killed. 5) Pods cannot hack. 5) Initiating a hack flags you to the owner of the can (similar to the proposed flagging of ore thieves).
Exactly. I left out details like this to spur discussion on the point. But yes, that's precisely the type of caveats that I had in mind. :)
You realise that it means you basically can't leave anything in a secure can (amo etc.) in a system somewhere? Hence basically elminating a LOT of good uses.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Dakath
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 16:46:00 -
[13]
I would prefer that if the owner does not show up and open the can for 30 days it goes pop.
Or let us steal them, as Winterblink suggests.
1000 baby bunnies were slow-roasted alive to create this signature line.
We Hate Bunny |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 16:55:00 -
[14]
Somewhere in Detorid, there are ten giant secure cans anchored on behalf of Unity Fusion.
The corp no longer exists. I haven't been to Detorid in almost two years. I no longer have the bookmark for the safe spot, and I don't remember the name of the system they were in.
I'd be kinda happy if those things were to be deleted by the Intergalactic Janitor Service. They're not much bothering anyone else, because nobody even knows they exist - but the ones anchored in newbie systems, Luminaire, Nonni etc., advertising corps that no longer exist, inviting you to buy things that were nerfed to oblivion 18 months ago .... they should go.
How about instead of a fee, have containers VERY slightly degrade over time, and have to be fed 1 unit of tritanium a month? Nobody in the world can't afford to pay 1 trit a month for his cans; and those who can't be bothered, or aren't even here any more, will lose them.
Celt Corp - members of ISS |
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 16:56:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Maya Rkell You realise that it means you basically can't leave anything in a secure can (amo etc.) in a system somewhere? Hence basically elminating a LOT of good uses.
No, you still can (pun!). Hide them in a safe spot and prey someone doesn't scan in the system and come to take your stuff. Why should there be an inpenetrable storage space for you out in the middle of nowhere? If I in my ship am not 100% safe anywhere in the game (while undocked) why should stuff I store in cans be?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 16:58:00 -
[16]
If it ain't relyable, it's worthless in that kind of situation. Just limit the number of cans you can have anchored.
Be FAR more useful.
And you can pop secure cans.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 17:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Maya Rkell If it ain't relyable, it's worthless in that kind of situation. Just limit the number of cans you can have anchored.
Be FAR more useful.
And you can pop secure cans.
I know. So how was it reliable before, then?
And limiting the number of cans would work very well, as long as you kept the number small and limited it on a per account basis.
|
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 17:13:00 -
[18]
Make a weekly 'rent' that goes up by 33% per week. Problem solved imo. --------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
Yslath
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 21:54:00 -
[19]
Having the cans pop after a month is the most logical route. I don't want to hear any arguments against this because if you are planning to leave ammo or spare drones or something somewhere for an event a month ahead of time, you need to sit back and relax because you are playing too hard.
And if that still dosn't work, why not just make them pop a month of inactivity from someone like was suggested before.
|
Sergeant Spot
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 23:47:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Sergeant Spot Require a tiny "rent" (or "maintanence fee" if you prefer) for anchored secure cans. A fee so small, even the newest noob would have no problem with it. 1 isk a month. If the fee is not paid, your cans pop.
MANY anchored secure cans are abandoned. Such a fee would probably eliminate 95% of the anchored cans in Eve within one month.
The only problem is that if the fee is so small even the newest noob has no problem with it, then it won't be enough of an incentive to clean up your cans. For example, say I have a can out somewhere. I'm not using it right now, but it's easy to go fetch if I want a can sometime. But it's not worth the trip unless I actually want the can. If I am likely to use it again before the rent exceeds the cost of a new can, I'll keep the can there. If not, I'll let it pop. If it takes more than a few months to cross that line, I may just forget it's even costing me to keep it out there "just in case".
Not to mention the owners of many abandoned cans might not even remember they are there, so you'd have to have some facility for either remotely unanchoring them, or at least re-discovering their location (including the ones hidden at safespots you no longer have the BM for). If they have currently used cans, they will probably pay the token rent for every can, to make sure none of their current ones is popped by mistake.
My objective with this idea is to ONLY get rid of abandoned cans. Any can that is not abandoned should remain as easy to use, and as long term as it is now.
95% of the cans in Eve would pop within a month with this idea. The 5% that dont are the ones that are not forgotten and abandoned, and should remain hassle free.
|
|
Orb Lati
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 00:00:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Orb Lati on 01/10/2005 00:00:49 i would suggest that a 30 day inactive timer would be great. However the cans shouldnt pop at the end of that time, just unanchor then so they therefore become avaible to anybody to scoop.
The advantage here is that you open up another income source for a subtrade. ie finding and collecting abandoned Sec cans. "We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible"
|
Ekscalybur
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 00:02:00 -
[22]
I don't even care if the abandoned cans are gotten rid of. I simply want the option of removing them from sight. They are already not in my overview, but I also want them gone from the game screen. Them being collidable objects and becoming invisible wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I'm already extremely limited in how much control I have over my ships trajectory (with straight line from current position and orbiting being the ONLY flight commands I can give), so I'm not worried that I'd bump into them.
I'm just sick of seeing them. I'm sick of them looking exactly like the loot cans, or cans I dropped, and the ordeal of trying to find the needles I want in a stack of needles. Flying into a roid belt and seeing my screen instantly fill up with 50+ little white diamonds is my biggest pet peeve in Eve (that at least proves I'm pretty happy with the game :P).
|
Mark Galean
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 00:24:00 -
[23]
30 days pop or auto-unanchoring unused cans ( pop sounds better :) )
Signed!
|
Kerushi
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 00:48:00 -
[24]
cans have an id number add an "last open" column when opend, a new date is added to that can if a can hasn`t been used for 2 weeks, during server downtime any can that hasn`t been used for 2 weeks pops
they run all the heavy scripts during dt nway so 1 more minute for startup won`t hurt for cleaning out the cans
might even save up 10% network traffic as we don`t have to load 1000000 cans
|
Magnum III
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 02:39:00 -
[25]
I have not seen any dev comment on the multitudes of cans and so I don't think they are doing anything about it.
So a better question is why don't they care about cleaning up the space?
It is not like it would be unrealistic to do so.
|
Erik Pathfinder
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 04:38:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Winterblink Let us be able to hack into the secure cans, and a) gain access to the contents, and b) unanchor them and take them away.
Hacking would take an immense amount of time, but anyone doing a mining operation would be actively using them and have time to haul their minerals (or whatever) away before a successful hack could be done. But if people leave their cans for days on end, then all it takes is say 15-20 minutes of hacking by someone to get the can. :)
The problem with this is that someone who DOES use all their cans regularly has no way of preventing a hack n' steal of their cans if they are offline for those 15-20 minutes. It would be too easy to observe someone, wait for logoff, then hack n' steal. ------ (\_/) (O.o) (> <) |
Rafein
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 06:40:00 -
[27]
let them degrade over time. if they are not repaired in a week, they go pop.
plenty of time to get a replacement out there, or get yor repaired.
and I always though you the number you can have active should be limited by your anchoring skill.
|
NATMav
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 07:18:00 -
[28]
One month of no access and they unanchor sounds very good. It has to create some load on the cluster keeping track of all those items that easily outnumber the player count, quite similar to the orphaned drone problem. Founder and CEO TribalWar, Inc. http://www.tribalwar.com |
Snake Jankins
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 15:40:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Snake Jankins on 01/10/2005 15:43:53
Originally by: NATMav One month of no access and they unanchor sounds very good. It has to create some load on the cluster keeping track of all those items that easily outnumber the player count, quite similar to the orphaned drone problem.
I thought that this is already implemented. Ok, not after 1 months but imho secure cans disappear after some weeks if they are not accessed in the meantime. ( Well, I should check a belt in Pashanai. I was mining there a year ago or so and placed 10 giant containers there. I'm quite sure that they have disappeared.)
|
Tenacha Khan
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 16:04:00 -
[30]
Anchored cans go pop after 2yrs
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |