| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Treylon
   |
Posted - 2003.08.12 17:37:00 -
[1]
This is getting insane, secure containers are floating about everywhere. And they are persistant. Corps using them to make grafiti and such. The bad thing is that this lags ppl just like when M00 would do this at blocades with normal containers. These secure containers need to be able to be destroyed or somthing or this abuse will continue and we'll see junk all over. Please CCP tell me you are going to fix this.
|
trap
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 17:43:00 -
[2]
Edited by: trap on 12/08/2003 17:44:07
agreed. i think there should be limits set to secure containers. not only do they litter space but it also gets rid of all risk for ppl traveling with high price items. i think secure containers should only be password protected when the user jettisons it from the cargo and sets the password. if they are carrying the container and get blown up the secure container should now lose all password protection it previously had, also add a "self distruct container" option so this trash can be disposed of.
----------------------------------------------
[ 2003.11.20 05:35:28 ] Jade Constantine > looks like you blasted the crap out of a load of our ships again |
drunkenmaster
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 17:47:00 -
[3]
Hopefully, the hacking tools will be available soon. Then we can take out such eyesores as the corp ads at gates...
.
|
Entity
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 17:52:00 -
[4]
You can destroy secure containers.
Make sure you got lots of coffee and a good book while trying though 
 |
Tenzo
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 17:56:00 -
[5]
hehe i saw someone copied your XFI with a MD! the other day as i flew past...
Goddamn Graffiti artists need to be shot...
|
Mark A
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 18:55:00 -
[6]
I think they should make ships from the same stuff they make secure cans from.
____________________________________
|
Corsayr
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 18:56:00 -
[7]
Why not just add the word SUX to the end of the corp ad's. 
|
Draco Darkmatter
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 18:59:00 -
[8]
That is an interesting point. How is it that they can a make a secure container that is near impasible to destroy for less then the cost of a basic Frig? How much of the material would it take to make armor for a ship.
"Reality is just a myth...
...or so they tell me." |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 19:00:00 -
[9]
Ummm.
I've wandered all over the place lately and the only secure containers I've seen were the ones used in the XFI trickery.
As for them being indestructible?
Thats cool.
Still, there should be a reasonable time limit on their existence - 5 days or something.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Alpha Centauri
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 19:05:00 -
[10]
We use secure containers for deep space mining.
Time limit is a silly idea as it does not help those who use them legitemately, and it would be annoying having to pay out for new cans AND transport them 30 jumps everytime they auto-destruct.
Can's should not be aloud to be laid at gates or stations, that would solve the issue.
Hacking - fine.
Destructable - fine.
Time limit - would suck.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 19:11:00 -
[11]
 Quote:
We use secure containers for deep space mining.
Time limit is a silly idea as it does not help those who use them legitemately, and it would be annoying having to pay out for new cans AND transport them 30 jumps everytime they auto-destruct.
Can's should not be aloud to be laid at gates or stations, that would solve the issue.
Hacking - fine.
Destructable - fine.
Time limit - would suck.
Time-limit isn't a good idea..yet being able to destroy them in 5 mins is?
/boggle
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Shinana
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 19:38:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Shinana on 12/08/2003 19:38:29
I also agree something must be done. If hacking is how they plan to do it, then that'd be best. If I have an hour or two hours to spare, I should be able to break into a secure container. Failing that, given effort, I should be able to blow it up.
To paint an example, my mates and I nailed an indy who was pretending to afk (just backstory, save your flaming for another thread, please). As I had already cargoscanned him, I was expecting some bps to pop out. Naturally I was quite surprised when about 6 large secure containers did! No worries, I thought. I had to admire his quick thinking about putting them into these tainers.
Another few cargo scans later, I figured out which secure container held the bps, now off to TTI Nexus (thanks tti for this) to find out the hp of a large secure container. What's this??? 10....million...hp. Assuming I did 100 damage a shot, this will take me 100000 rounds of ammo, or about 2 million dollars, or about 41 hours, to bust open. Even then I'd have no guarantee of anything useful at all coming out (this is a question, when you destroy these tainers, I assume the stuff inside is destroyed as well?).
I think there does need to be some counter against these tainers, as the person came back and got his tainer with the bps (good for him, quick thinking), but left all the others there to litter the place up! Keep EVE beautiful
|
Bruenor
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 19:51:00 -
[13]
Why not have the gate guns destroy player cans(not npc loot cans) and call them nav threats. As far as secure cans in the asteroid fields an unattended decay rate of 5 hours is probs more than enough...hell, have a small 15 minute window just before the 5 hour timer lapses where the can is free game and accessible...no point wasting unclaimed ore:> Can you imagine the ore thieves camping unattanded cans for 5 hours....at least you would know where they are:> |
Bruenor
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 19:52:00 -
[14]
If the can is accessed by the owner the time resets and so on:> |
Kimi
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 19:56:00 -
[15]
This is yet another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences".
The idea was that CCP did not want to do anything about ore stealers with standard jettisoned containers, such as making it an aggression to shoot or steal them.
So, they introduced the secure containers - and about 5 other problems that were not foreseen...
And you still have the problem of the ore griefers, because the secure containers are too small to hold any significant amount.
|
Treylon
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 20:01:00 -
[16]
I think there should not be a time limit on them, however there needs to be available other means to remove them. It should not take even 5 mins to destroy them, more like 30 seconds.. tops. There should also be another advantage given to them - infinite cargo space, eliminating the need for multiple tainers floating about and eliminting some of the eyesore. Furthermore the tainers should be treated like drones, as personal property of the owner. If the owner is say within 30km of his own tainer and somone fires on it, it's considerd an attack by concord. Otherwise if the owner is further than that from his tainers it becomes public domain, still password protected, but able to be destroyed or hacked without reprisal. Cargo containers under the owners protection should have the same icon as drones. When the owner is away, they should appear as normal containers. This i feel would keep the usefullness of the secure containers while at the same time curbing their abuse.
|
Quantum Gopher
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 20:17:00 -
[17]
How about Concord Salvage Operations?
Cans left in space unused for a certain number of hours/days could be "salvaged" by Concord employees (either actual ships or during server down) and held at the nearest appropriate Concord facility for pickup. Possible charges/fees could apply. An EVEmail could be sent informing the owner of the cans.
Q. Gopher
__________
I know...it's only ROCK and roll, but I like it!! |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 20:26:00 -
[18]
"Time limit is a silly idea as it does not help those who use them legitemately, and it would be annoying having to pay out for new cans AND transport them 30 jumps everytime they auto-destruct"
Make them self-destruct after they remain in space for 2-3 days. Even make it so accessing them prolonges the lifetime of the container for another 2-3 days. This way as long as you make active use of your cans, you get to keep them.
Though i don't see why you shouldn't have to pay for new ones every now and then. Really small price for what's essentially one's personal pocket space station...
For that matter, same should be happening to all those abandoned n00b ships and pods...
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 20:43:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Jash Illian on 12/08/2003 20:44:14
I had this discussion last night with someone concerning the persistance of secured containers. There might actually be a plan involved. Or at least I could discern a pretty damn good reason for them being persistant. So yall might not want to go shooting yourselves in the foot with Ye Ole Sawed Off.
Simply put, imagine:
Station Construction Platform + Ungodly Mineral Requirements - Persistant Containers Left At Location = Having to mine the required minerals and deliver them to the vulnerable platform sitting in space over a looooong period of time.
Versus:
Station Construction Platform + Ungodly Mineral Requirements + Persistant Containers Left At Location = Delivering required minerals in batches while keeping the platform safe until all the minerals have been collected.
Hacking ability will take care of the graffiti artists.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 20:51:00 -
[20]
 I foresee a massive huge completely enormous problem with player-owned stations.
Does it disappear 2 mins after the person running it goes offline?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Relic
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 21:59:00 -
[21]
Quote:
I foresee a massive huge completely enormous problem with player-owned stations.
Does it disappear 2 mins after the person running it goes offline?
No, and expect rich corps to use 31 stations to write their names big in the sky.
(I know it can't be done, but it would look cool the first time you saw it :)
Relic
|
Alpha Centauri
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 22:01:00 -
[22]
Quote:
Time-limit isn't a good idea..yet being able to destroy them in 5 mins is?
/boggle
If you can not find my cans you can not destroy them.
|
Alpha Centauri
|
Posted - 2003.08.12 22:07:00 -
[23]
Also, you guys are looking at this in a very biased point of view.
You probably do not use the can's actively like we do, a hazard to you, but a life saver for us.
Putting a time-limit on cans would destroy our productivity. We actively use can's for deep space mining.
I bolded the above so you might catch my point this time.
I do not want to have to make 30 jumps every time my cans pop with another 40+ cans.
I take it none of you have to do this, possibly because you do not mine high grade ore, ore you are in a stingy alliance where you got life easy with a station in system to ship your ore too.
Simple solution, no cans at stations or gates, why would anyone want to lay them there anyway?
|
Treylon
|
Posted - 2003.08.13 03:41:00 -
[24]
bump
|
Veridet Faulk
|
Posted - 2003.08.13 03:48:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Veridet Faulk on 13/08/2003 03:53:44
Edited by: Veridet Faulk on 13/08/2003 03:52:10
Quote:
bump
I quote from the great book of forum rules from passage #10, and CCP said onto the masses...
Quote:
Spamming and bumping are prohibited.
ōSpam" is considered to be repetitive posting of the same text again and again or posts which have no substance but are designed merely to increase the users post count or to annoy other forum users. Bumping posts in order to keep them near the top of the list is also prohibited. Posts of this nature are not conducive to community spirit and are unwelcome.
And then there was no more bumping and a wealth of fresh new information, and newcomers saw it and it was good.
Many thanks..
Veridet Faulk
"Well I have seen the contestants and I feel that I am especially attracted to Veridet Faulk. I know that she is a member of the Polaris Corporation that operates inside Jove space, and JovianĘs are particularly hideous, but she is different. I feel particular heart warming friendliness from herą if you know what I mean"- Playboy Enterprises
Forum Rules | EVE Online Support |
Nyrram
|
Posted - 2003.08.13 18:58:00 -
[26]
Treylon, infinite cargo space is not a good idea for portable cargo cans..
They are set up as they are for a reason, so that you can't fit more in an industrial than you could without the cans... in fact, you can fit less..
I don't know the m3 specs of the secure cans, so please don't flame these numbers, as I KNOW they are probably not correct, but let's say we have one canister option with 250m3 space consumed with 225m3 space inside.. that measns you are using 250m3 of your industrial ship's cargo hold to transport the canister, which may or may not have up to 225m3 of items inside.. you are trading off 25m3 for the security of the canister..
Now say that the canister held 25,000m3 like other canisters.. how are you going to transport it? Are you suggesting that a 250m3 canister should be able to hold 25,000m3 of stuff? If so, you are an afk trader's wet dream.
That said, yes, they should implement more sizes to these canisters, such as 1000m3 and 2500m3 varieties.. that would make them much more convenient in the long run, and for pete's sake, lower the hp on them..
As for making it a "crime" to fire on them.. I'd be OK with that as long as the owner has to be close to the canister... otherwise we have a similar problem as with drones.. go drop 100 drones at a noobie stargate and leave them there (only 10 trips with drone interfacing and 10 per trip).. If someone targets the drones to clean out the lag, they get ganked by Concord..
--
Nyrram |
Milos Oberonov
|
Posted - 2003.08.13 19:17:00 -
[27]
Quote:
How about Concord Salvage Operations?
Cans left in space unused for a certain number of hours/days could be "salvaged" by Concord employees (either actual ships or during server down) and held at the nearest appropriate Concord facility for pickup. Possible charges/fees could apply. An EVEmail could be sent informing the owner of the cans.
Ooooh, I like that. Strip-mine all you like, and CONCORD does your hauling for you! 
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will one day plow for those who don't." -T. Jefferson |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.08.13 19:32:00 -
[28]
"You probably do not use the can's actively like we do, a hazard to you, but a life saver for us.
Putting a time-limit on cans would destroy our productivity. We actively use can's for deep space mining.
I bolded the above so you might catch my point this time.
I do not want to have to make 30 jumps every time my cans pop with another 40+ cans."
I catch your point just fine, thank you; now please be so nice and do the same with mine:
Make them self-destruct after they remain in space for 2-3 days. Even make it so accessing them prolonges the lifetime of the container for another 2-3 days. This way as long as you make active use of your cans, you get to keep them.
... i bolded the essential part so it's hopefully easier to grasp and doesn't get you too worked up to read further than the first sentence...
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.13 20:40:00 -
[29]
I love it when j0sephine gets all strict and dominant.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.08.13 21:02:00 -
[30]
Quote:
I don't know the m3 specs of the secure cans, so please don't flame these numbers, as I KNOW they are probably not correct, but let's say we have one canister option with 250m3 space consumed with 225m3 space inside.. that measns you are using 250m3 of your industrial ship's cargo hold to transport the canister, which may or may not have up to 225m3 of items inside.. you are trading off 25m3 for the security of the canister..
Actually the reverse is true.
A Medium Secure Container takes up 325m3 of cargo space in a ship's hold. Yet that same container holds 390m3 of cargo inside. Essentially they can act as cargo expanders.
An industrial can actually drop off more cargo capacity than it is capable of holding without the containers.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |