Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Niskin
League of the Lost
54
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 21:45:49 -
[1] - Quote
I'm not talking about the force field, those shut down when the POS goes offline as they should.
Under the current mechanics an offline POS still has it's full shield value and shield regen with base resists. All arrays that provide resists and defense will be offline and will not contribute to that, but those base values can be quite substantial. To me it seems silly that an offline POS is just as hard to kill as an online POS with nothing anchored, except possibly that the online POS could go into reinforced if stronted.
How is this affecting people in High/Low/Null sec? I'm curious to see what other people's opinions are about how this works.
To give an example, an Amarr Control Tower (Large) has 40m shield HP's and 8m hull HP's. I personally think that when they are offline you should only have to worry about the hull HP's but I don't know if this would unbalance things in other areas of the game. I also know that POS code is not something that is likely to be touched before a full revamp is done, but maybe this is something that could be easy to change.
To be clear, a change of this type would benefit me as a person living in a wormhole. There are abandoned POS's everywhere and I want to kill at least one and steal the anchored modules for myself. But I can also see how this change might hurt others, so I'd like to see what other people think about it. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1359
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 23:52:37 -
[2] - Quote
Bring more/bigger guns/drones. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
2029
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 23:56:43 -
[3] - Quote
I too believe offline --> someone doesn't really care about (or use) the POS --> should be very easy to put it out of it's (lonesome) misery.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
1865
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 01:48:28 -
[4] - Quote
This kind of topic comes up more regularly than my bowel movements. It is being looked at by the CSM and CCP (read the minutes) and, yes, shield HP values have been raised in the past on these forums.
I think the point which needs to be made is that highsec is cluttered with lots and lots of dead sticks. To remove them from a moon which you wish to use, you have to invest hours in boring, thankless shooting of passive structures - this is bad game design.
In fact, when the ability to anchor POSs was thrown open for 0.8-1.0 space, some systems saw a rash of small placeholder POSs anchored on all the moons to squat them; they require a wardec and hours and hours of pointless F1 AFK to remove. Given who owns them, this is the whole purpose of the exercise; to troll wars and use EHP and boredom as a defence against havving your squatting removed.
This is pretty bad game mechanics, taking advantage of unbelievable wads of EHP on passive dead towers, protected by nothing more than a 24 hour war dec mechanic. Then, it taakes 15 minutes to online it so that if it is being shot, you get to take advantage of the stront you've jammed into the bay.
Yeah, that's exciting emergent gameplay, right there!
J's before K's.
Prolapse. Turning holes inside out with pew pew.
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
55
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 02:31:26 -
[5] - Quote
Get more supers. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
61
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 03:47:09 -
[6] - Quote
Eldwinn wrote:Get more supers. Good for nul and maybe low but can't bring them into high sec.
Considering the standings required to anchor a POS and the difficulty in achieving them it is not surprising CCP set them up this way back in the old days. With the standing requirement gone at least this part of it no longer applies and is no longer a factor.
Dead sticks as you call them and what to do.
Is it really dead or only offline when you looked at it? many corps even those in low only online a POS when they have need for it, it is to expensive for them to keep them online when they have no need for it.
Does it belong to an active corp and may be offline for the above or many other legitimate reasons?
Or does it belong to an actual dead corp? If so then these are the ones that CCP really needs to look at. But what do they do about them and how to go about removing them from the game?
To me this is a difficult situation, having been through more than a few high sec POS bashes including several that were offline I understand the problems. However I am not sure that making them easier to destroy is the best option either.
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
54
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 04:21:30 -
[7] - Quote
The one I want to blow up is in a Class 2 Wormhole. It's possible the owners abandoned it, or logged off and unsubscribed. Or maybe they lost it and haven't found a way back to it yet, but I think that's unlikely. There are actually 3 offline POS's in this wormhole, two Amarr large's with lots of stuff anchored and one lonely Minmatar large, all by itself.
Caps can't fit in this wormhole so they aren't an option unless you build them here. Honestly if they said offline POS's would no longer regen shields I'd be happy with that. At least then I could shoot at one for a while and not lose my progress. I just want to steal the hardeners. Ok, maybe a few other things too... |
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
805
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 06:40:29 -
[8] - Quote
It does seem odd, though to be honest, making them easier to blow up doesn't sound like the best idea. While I wouldn't necessarily support a tower being immediately removable if it loses fuel, I do think after some time spent inactive, a dead tower should either unanchor by itself, or there should be some way to self destruct or unanchor it yourself.
It's a topic that comes up fairly frequently. |
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
1273
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 06:52:47 -
[9] - Quote
You really should be allowed to hack offline POS so you can take them over, or loot them, or just take the anchorables and tower to sell. Would be a new profession. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
1246
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 06:53:14 -
[10] - Quote
If they could make OFFLINE towers a semi-legal target like an MTU, that would be cool... but yea. no shields in offline, or auto-unanchoring after 2 weeks offline would both be nice. |
|
Luwc
Confederation of Independent Contractors Swamphole
286
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 08:16:35 -
[11] - Quote
well its still a pain to take em down...
http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
|
Ceawlin Cobon-Han
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 09:53:06 -
[12] - Quote
I'm with the OP on this. A tower with no power can't maintain a shield, yet the POS does so. It sounds wrong, because it IS wrong. The whiners against losing the shield are those cheapskates who leave pos's around the place with no intention of keeping them fuelled.
Also make the pos hackable when powered down. A successful hack starts the unanchor cycle, after which the hacker can pick up the pos and fly to the nearest station for a quick sale. Another possibility is a successful hack makes the POS the property of the hacker, allowing the hacker to have a pos in higsec regardless of his faction standing. Just need the certs to keep it there.
However, for the purpose of this topic: lose the shield. YOU LISTENING, CCP? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
753
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 10:07:46 -
[13] - Quote
I'm totally against hacking a POS since the computer systems would 1) be enormous and complex and therefore much harder to crack than the cans in loot sites, 2) Would be powered down other than essential systems support so not much to hack and very easy to defend against hacks.
Hacking makes it too easy to steal/destroy such a large isk investment in my opinion.
However as I've stated before I'm all for shields being 0 without fuel and also suggest that armour/hull takes random damage over time since the maintenence systems are powered down and micrometeorites etc would be peppering the structure constantly. |
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
299
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 10:40:32 -
[14] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I'm totally against hacking a POS since the computer systems would 1) be enormous and complex and therefore much harder to crack than the cans in loot sites, 2) Would be powered down other than essential systems support so not much to hack and very easy to defend against hacks.
Hacking makes it too easy to steal/destroy such a large isk investment in my opinion. Ignoring the RP crap this broadly makes sense but only if a tower becomes instantly hackable the moment its unfuelled. A grace period of a week or two say would give people time to get sorted. If they don't, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let some enterprising type come along and make a few quid.
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
754
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 10:55:41 -
[15] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I'm totally against hacking a POS since the computer systems would 1) be enormous and complex and therefore much harder to crack than the cans in loot sites, 2) Would be powered down other than essential systems support so not much to hack and very easy to defend against hacks.
Hacking makes it too easy to steal/destroy such a large isk investment in my opinion. Ignoring the RP crap this broadly makes sense but only if a tower becomes instantly hackable the moment its unfuelled. A grace period of a week or two say would give people time to get sorted. If they don't, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let some enterprising type come along and make a few quid.
They still can by blowing up the tower. Time it right and you have a much smaller grind, tim it wrong and someone gets there first and scoops the modules/loot. You should always have to put yourself at risk by being suspect to blow it up though, and then spend the time there doing so. Just my opinion of course but i kind of like the armour/hull loss being an implicit countdown timer with people queueing up to see who can pick the right time to kill it. |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
713
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 10:47:38 -
[16] - Quote
BS hull with XL sized weapons, like the Tornado or Talos . Suggest it because lots of players don't want to fly caps, hate hot drops, want to destroy caps, but won't train to fly them. With caps using gates now, a mobile ship hull like the Hyperion that has no T2 version fitting XL short range guns with no damage bonus but to tracking as BS sped would kill it would do more damage than a 2-3 pilots in normal BS. Needs more fleshing out but the idea is to put bigger guns in smaller hulls, they won't replace a deadweight but would increase the DPS of a single pilot, works for POS bashing in highsec too |
Lugh Crow-Slave
198
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:07:28 -
[17] - Quote
With the new guns you can pump out over 2k dps with a naga/talos so its not as hard to deal with anymore.
this would greatly affect WH as POS warfare is still kind of a thing there.
if you want the moon work for it |
Jur Tissant
The TERRA Guardians of Serenity
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 13:58:13 -
[18] - Quote
Curious, I didn't know that's how it worked.
Still, not a huge deal, but I do support being able to take over offlined POSes. Seeing the tower go to waste is a sad sad thing. |
Niskin
League of the Lost
56
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 14:16:09 -
[19] - Quote
I'm going to list out some options that could be used to change how offline POS's work. They will progress from minimal impact to maximum impact. One key to these is that when you online a POS the shields don't stay at 100%, they drop to 25% or 50% or something like that. I don't know the specifics because there may be a difference between onlining a new POS and onlining a POS that was online before.
A) When offline, POS's would not regen shields.
B) When offline, POS's would not regen shields and would slowly lose shield HP until they hit the percentage they would jump to when onlined. At that point they won't lose anymore unless shot, but still will not regen.
C) When offline, POS's would lose all shield HP's and would not regen
D) All of (C) plus hull HP's would drop slowly over time, allowing for the POS to die on it's own and the anchored arrays to rot after the 30 day limit or whatever it is.
I think (D) is probably going too far, (B) and (C) are in the area of what I'm looking for, but (A) would still be an improvement. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1360
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 15:13:23 -
[20] - Quote
Niskin wrote:I'm going to list out some options that could be used to change how offline POS's work. They will progress from minimal impact to maximum impact. One key to these is that when you online a POS the shields don't stay at 100%, they drop to 25% or 50% or something like that. I don't know the specifics because there may be a difference between onlining a new POS and onlining a POS that was online before.
A) When offline, POS's would not regen shields.
B) When offline, POS's would not regen shields and would slowly lose shield HP until they hit the percentage they would jump to when onlined. At that point they won't lose anymore unless shot, but still will not regen.
C) When offline, POS's would lose all shield HP's and would not regen
D) All of (C) plus hull HP's would drop slowly over time, allowing for the POS to die on it's own and the anchored arrays to rot after the 30 day limit or whatever it is.
I think (D) is probably going too far, (B) and (C) are in the area of what I'm looking for, but (A) would still be an improvement.
I think you need to stop asking for thins to be handed to you and re-read post number 2. Why are you unwilling to bring what is necessary into that WH to get it while others have been doing it? Laser and drone ship are what you are looking for. |
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
58
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 15:57:12 -
[21] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:I think you need to stop asking for thins to be handed to you and re-read post number 2. Why are you unwilling to bring what is necessary into that WH to get it while others have been doing it? Laser and drone ship are what you are looking for.
This is the Features & Ideas Discussion subforum and this is a post about an idea to change a feature. I'm not demanding a change, I'm not saying this needs to change or I'll quit. My post presented an idea and asked for feedback on how it would affect others. Nothing I've posted is unreasonable, nor was it asking for a hand out. EVE is big, there are lots of mechanics involved. Not every one is perfect as designed. I'm simply asking "Should it work this way, or should it work another way?"
If this mechanic doesn't change that's fine, it just means I'll be less likely to try and blow up offline POS's. If I do try it will likely be with lasers and drones, but my understanding is that process could take upwards of 11 hours just to reinforce under current mechanics. At least if regen went away I could spread that out over time. So that would be nice, but it's not hurting me to leave these POS's up either. If CCP is interested in more offline POS's being killed then I think my range of proposals are fair and should be considered. If CCP is not interested in more offline POS's being killed then they would be smart to leave things as they are now, and I would understand that.
But let me just say that regardless of whether anything changes, it is quite silly that an offline POS has full shields and regen and that the moment you online it the shields DROP to some lower percentage and regen back to full again. It seems like an oversight to me. |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
1259
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 17:50:02 -
[22] - Quote
I agree with the OP, but perhaps to add a compromise to those claiming that there should be some differential between an abandoned POS and a recently offlined one. How about have the shields lose 1% HP per hour after the POS runs out of fuel, with no regen until fuelled again. Thus it will take just over 4 days to completely run down by itself if not attacked first.
CTRL-Q - Minmatar FW - Low Sec PvP - Euro TZ - New Player Friendly
Contact: Major Trant
In game channel: FeO Public
Recruitment thread: CTRL-Q
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
105
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 17:56:40 -
[23] - Quote
offline pos's are already easier to deal with because they will 100% have no defense of there own, they don't have a reinforcement timer, plus you can get up close to it with short range ammo instead of have to hit from 14-30km away. all those are large advantages to dealing with offline pos vs online ones. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 18:05:23 -
[24] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Hacking makes it too easy to steal/destroy such a large isk investment in my opinion. How can it be too easy when there's a 100% effective defense against it (which goes by the technical term of FUEL YOUR DAMN POS)? |
Jacid
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
59
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:27:45 -
[25] - Quote
+ 1 for dropping shields to 0 for offline poses. It doesn't make sense that a pos has the same defense without being online as it does with |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
760
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:41:09 -
[26] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Hacking makes it too easy to steal/destroy such a large isk investment in my opinion. How can it be too easy when there's a 100% effective defense against it (which goes by the technical term of FUEL YOUR DAMN POS)?
Because hacking is easy compared to sitting there for some time in a suspect state whilst shooting the damn thing...you want it dead then do some work for it is my view. Right now it's too much but that doesn't mean the risk should be removed entirely.
Ed: Also making the towers simply stealble would crash the PI and tower market as it's flooded with stolen sticks. They need to die same as everything else constructed. |
Viktor Fel
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:46:41 -
[27] - Quote
No, they should not. They are offline.
Who is Viktor Fel?
Killboard
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
61
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 02:36:39 -
[28] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Hacking makes it too easy to steal/destroy such a large isk investment in my opinion. How can it be too easy when there's a 100% effective defense against it (which goes by the technical term of FUEL YOUR DAMN POS)? Not always possible to keep it fueled and friend of mine serves as a perfect example. He and a few others are in a small corp and they fuel the POS and uses it for as long as they can afford. When the fuel and ISK run out they unanchor everything but the tower and then it sits there until they can afford to run it again. We may not like it but this is a valid way to make use of something the game mechanics allow. There is already a way to remove the tower use it instead of asking for it to be made simpler.
And yes I do know how hard it is. The last one I was involved in took about 6 hours to take it down. You know what I say that is how it should be you want the space work for it.
I will agree with the OP that an offline tower should not be able to regen shields.
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
368
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 03:16:46 -
[29] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Not always possible to keep it fueled and friend of mine serves as a perfect example. He and a few others are in a small corp and they fuel the POS and uses it for as long as they can afford. When the fuel and ISK run out they unanchor everything but the tower and then it sits there until they can afford to run it again. And if hacking was instituted, you would also unanchor the tower. Not seeing the problem here.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
105
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 06:52:08 -
[30] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Komi Toran wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Hacking makes it too easy to steal/destroy such a large isk investment in my opinion. How can it be too easy when there's a 100% effective defense against it (which goes by the technical term of FUEL YOUR DAMN POS)? Because hacking is easy compared to sitting there for some time in a suspect state whilst shooting the damn thing...you want it dead then do some work for it is my view. Right now it's too much but that doesn't mean the risk should be removed entirely. Ed: Also making the towers simply stealble would crash the PI and tower market as it's flooded with stolen sticks. They need to die same as everything else constructed.
lol who said the hack will be easy. it might take 1-2 hours of hacking to initiate a timer that last 24 hours where you have to come back to hack it again but with 5 people simultaneously and it takes 4-5 more hours to finish.
CCP could very well make hacking a tower take longer than shooting it with a 5-10 man gang. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |