Wardec the corp and shoot the POS.

If there's no fuel, it will not go into RF, and if they're actually inactive, there's no risk to you.

If you want real estate that someone else already owns, either convince them to leave or force them to leave.

That really should only apply to active POS's.

I don't understand why any group should have to waste hours to burn down an inactive/offline pos.

It's taking up real estate at 0 cost to the owner.

If they aren't paying upkeep as in fuel to protect it, I see no reason why any single player or group should have to burn hours of play time to remove it. If they want to keep that real estate they need to maintain it via fueling it. None of this AFK real estate owning B.S.

If you want something that someone else has, why shouldn't you have to fight for it?

I would like to turn that question back on you, if I may.

If you aren't going to maintain something that you own, why shouldn't someone else be able to take it from you?

Or rather, why should someone else have to fight if you aren't even doing the basic upkeep in the first place?

They can. By the same mechanics they can take anything else in space that you own.

POCO => Shoot down, erect your own
TCU/iHub => Shoot down, erect your own
Station => Shoot down, claim
POS => Shoot down, erect your own

Notice the pattern? How every single structure has to be shot down, whether or not the defender chooses to put up a defense?
You get to decide if the thing you want is worth the effort of taking it, then the defender gets to decide if the thing they have is worth the effort of keeping it. If you both decide it's worth it, you have some fun. If the defender decides it isn't worth it, you still have to put in the basic amount of effort to get your reward.

Trying to imply that a requirement that you shoot something to take land means you cannot take land is simply dishonest.


Basic upkeep for a POS, like every other structure, is having an open corp. If you don't have one (meaning you've disbanded the corp), anyone can send the GMs a petition and they'll remove the POS. Fueling it simply provides you with the ability to do things with it.

I'm noticing a very bad pattern. Just because that's the way things are now does not mean that's the way they should be.

I personally think bashing structures being the only solution to all those things is **** game design, and hackable dead sticks would be a good first step towards improving that.

I would like to turn that question back on you, if I may.

If you aren't going to maintain something that you own, why shouldn't someone else be able to take it from you? Or rather, why should someone else have to fight if you aren't even doing the basic upkeep in the first place?

Ok, why shouldn't you have to fight to take something from someone who currently has it?
So far, in this thread and others like it, I've seen what boils down to "Because I don't wanna" and "Because I'm too lazy" which are both pretty terrible reasons.

Actually in this thread and threads like it we get people like you who don't seem to have the basic logic skills to see that someone shouldn't have to attack an inactive POS to take it. Its defenses are down, therefore it should be vulnerable to other means than simply pointing guns at it and blowing it up. Your argument is on par with the idea that an abandoned home should not be at all recoverable by anyone other than the original owner (even if they are on the other side of the planet and can't be bothered with it), and that instead all abandoned homes should legally require explosive demolition for someone to claim the land they are on.

People who suggest abandoned POS's be hackable are looking for more tools to work with so that the game is more interesting. People like you want nothing but a hammer in the toolbox. It's really not hard to see which would lead to a better game, yet the structure-bashing-for-all-the-things people completely fail to see it.

I think the point that Zvaarian is trying to make here is "Why does a structure grind have to be the only answer to everything in EVE?"

So, you're saying POSes should be hackable because you don't wanna shoot them and you're too lazy to shoot them.

Anyway, abandoned POSes can be taken down by petition. Offline POSes are not actually abandoned.

Your argument that an offline POS is abandoned is on par with the idea that your house is abandoned because you turned off the lights to save electricity before going on vacation. Anyway, the rules of real life have vastly different design goals than those of EVE (EVE's rules are designed to encourage blowing things up, RL's rules are, well, not).

Now on to the question you've been dodging all thread:
Why should you be able to attack someone's stuff without putting any effort into it and without putting your assets at risk?

Because they have allowed the ******* shield to drop! Am I speaking another language here? Once the fortified aspect of a fortification is gone it should be claimable by anyone unless it is actively defended. This would seem obvious no? If a fortress no longer has its walls and no longer has a garrison, must I blow it to smithereens with tanks and bombs?

Hell if your only concern is that players incur no risk in the endeavor, trigger some kind of timer on the first hack, send a notification to the owning corp, and then after the timer ends allow the hacker to attempt a second hack to take control of the tower. All it would take to cancel the timer would be to put in some fuel and online it. And now you have the risk to the assets of the hacker that you want, and the game has a toolbox that suddenly has a screwdriver as well as a hammer in it. Game improved.

Because they have allowed the ******* shield to drop! Am I speaking another language here? Once the fortified aspect of a fortification is gone it should be claimable by anyone unless it is actively defended. This would seem obvious no? If a fortress no longer has its walls and no longer has a garrison, must I blow it to smithereens with tanks and bombs?

I think the a POS without fuel should experience orbital decay and drop out of orbit, get sucked into the planet and pop.

You should not be able to use it as a place marker for the future. No fuel, no orbit, no tower.

I think that's the real root of my feeling that dead sticks should be removable without having to be bashed. The EVE landscape is littered with these things, and forcing people to bash them to get rid of them is why.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Debris-GEO1280.jpg

Yep, things decay and fall out of the sky if they're unfueled. Oh, wait.


If nobody wants the real estate, why shouldn't they remain?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Debris-GEO1280.jpg

Yep, things decay and fall out of the sky if they're unfueled. Oh, wait.


If nobody wants the real estate, why shouldn't they remain?

But thats the point. A Starbase is neither defenseless, nor completly inactive just because their shields are down. They are still anchored, meaning they keep the minimum of operation to keep their orbit and have their shield, armor and structure hitpoints supplied. They even recharge shields without the forcefield online. You mistake the difference between the Forcefield and the Tower itself. The forcefield is an optional function of the Tower and only the forcefield requires fuel.
like a ship is basicly self powering and requires fiel and ammunition only for certain of its aspects.

Moon warpins are at ~5000 km from the moon. At that altitude, active station-keeping should be required to remain in orbit. Therefore, an unfueled POS should, in fact, decay and burn up. Why do you think Mir fell out of the sky once the Russians decided they won't keep boosting it up? Why did Skylab deorbit when the Americans were done with it? Why does the ISS require boosting?

Not sure what you are trying to illustrate with that. I mean your argument up to this point has be the opposite of reality-based. In reality a space station without active defenses could easily be subverted without violence. This is true even today with our very limited technology.