| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Posaltnav
   |
Posted - 2007.02.19 04:37:00 -
[1]
yeah me too... Fueling towers every week gets boring =( and tedious
|
Shameless Avenger
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 05:09:00 -
[2]
/signed!
But it will never happen. :( |
Elenit
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 09:13:00 -
[3]
Checkout: http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/indevelopment.asp
and: http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/plannedfeat.asp
The first lists:
 Quote:
The current Outposts are just the beginning to world domination. They should be upgradeable, both internally (services etc.) and externally (defenses). Likewise, the conquerable Stations as well as Outposts should have the individual services targetable, so that you can gradually disable station functions during a siege which need to be rebuilt from a destroyed state or repaired from a disabled state.
Which could possibly help with fueling as could:
Quote:
Twinned Jumpdrive Structure - Starbases
A structure, which allows you to twin together jumpdrive structures from Starbases.
And finally the 2nd link:
Quote:
Transport Array - Starbases
A structure which can connect to a player owned station or outpost for output materials.
While it lists only output materials - it could also be used for input materials or transferring something to the POS (minerals, manufacturing components, etc). Ideally it will work with anything that:
a) Has a hanger of some kind
b) You have permission to access
|
Matalino
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 17:31:00 -
[4]
Of course if you increase fuel capacity of the towers, you need to balance this somehow so that someone can't put a weeks worth of strontium in there.
|
Intergalactic Quant
Deep Core High-Tech
Neutrino Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 20:37:00 -
[5]
Signed. Monthly refueling is so much more efficient, and not only for those with jobs and other RL comittments. Weekly refuleing as a feature adds neither to the fun nor to the realism of the game.
If strontium is the reason this has not yet been implemented than just make it bigger.
|
Elmicker
Unscoped
Myriad Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 21:47:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Intergalactic Quant
If strontium is the reason this has not yet been implemented than just make it bigger.
That's all well and good if you're operating a highsec research pos, but after operating a system's worth of sovereignty-holders in a 0.0 outpost system for several months, i can tell you that if strontium was any bigger, 0.0 would just collapse, its hard enough to move usable quantities as it is, it takes a surprising amount of strontium to have at least 2 days' worth for each tower, never mind stocking up for dreads for a planned attack.
However, on that same note, /signed for the increase in tower capacities :).
|
Admiral S3
Gallente
Alpha Defense League
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 22:15:00 -
[7]
As to the stront problem.... simple, you make a new fuel bay specifically for stront on the towers.
Small towers have say 6 hours Sront storage space
Medium have say 12
and Larges 24.
Really much more then 24 hours, is not gonna help matters. If your POS is in such dire jeapordy that you can not rally a force to save it in that time frame, well... not only is your POS in trouble but so is your corporation/alliance.
For those who want to be silly howerver, CCP could introduce a stront bay expander, allowing you to add another few hours of fuel, say something like 8 for a small, 16 for a medium, and 36 for a large.
Anyways, yeah really though fueling a tower every week is time consuming work. It takes a massive ammount of effort for corporations with multiple towers to keep them fueled, and with the way CCP has the permissions settings you can not just give the job to everyone, or anyone, you have to have a select trusted few. So making it so you only have to fuel the tower monthly say 28 days, as thats exactly 4 weeks, would be great for everyone, from the smallest newb corp living in empire to the largest corp living in 0.0 space supporting their alliances outposts with 50 some towers.
Quote:
I am the Alpha and the Omega, what is it you wish to start or finish with me today?
|
Kilda Shepp
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 22:18:00 -
[8]
I think if you have to use Charters to keep a High-sec lab running then you should get some benefit for doing so.
Maybe even Faction Standing related. If you have a Faction standing of 7, your fuel lasts 7 times longer.
|
Valgren
A.W.M
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 00:28:00 -
[9]
I agree as well, keeping towers fueled is a pain in the ass that, atleast in our corp, is strictly in the hands of the directors, for security purposes...so now a lot of us are having to spend quality playing time jumping around to towers. Quite annoying.
Val
|
Ulviirala Vauryndar
Cohortes Stellaris
G.U.A.R.D.
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 03:27:00 -
[10]
/signed.
The weekly refuelling is indeed so boring and annoying that almost noone will take responsibility on a voluntary basis.
Oke Cortes, I gif up. You won. 400x80 @ 23,239 bytes ^_^ |
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
Interstellar Corporate Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 04:10:00 -
[11]
I agree, enlarging POS hold would be nice. I best like the idea where strontium has its own "auxilary" storage space, and charter idea that allows an "extention" of the stront. suply. As it is now, running POS' is sometimes painful, especially if you have more than one.
On a related note, I suggest people take a look at the proverbial Dead Horse thread, when it comes to improvements to the POS system and infrastructure in general.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 10:38:00 -
[12]
Tower cargo increase would be pretty nice indeed, as stated there are far more productive things to do than the weekly refueling.
Help me help you. |
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 11:28:00 -
[13]
Agreed.
I'm sure CCP could keep the current limit on Strontium, but increase the space for other materials.
This would improve 'fun' gameplay significantly.
- Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint!
Please read my ideas |
Ichabod Crane
LFC
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 11:31:00 -
[14]
Since theres the issue with overfueling strontium for weeks of reinforced - which, incidentally, making stront weigh more will only return the ammount of available space to normal - I'd probably be more receptive to some kind of automatic refuelling structure.
Say something similar to a silo and coupling array that will basically act as an extension to the tower's existing capacity and feed it with fuel from its own cargo until it runs out. I guess that would need to have presets for 'keep filled up to this ammount' or something so that it knows what levels of each fuel you want.
Naturally it'd have to take up grid and cpu resources for the effort though, since EVE isnt the kind of game where you get an easy time of something without there being consequences
-
|
insulubria
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 11:33:00 -
[15]
A control tower resource silo coupling please, it would mearly link a corp hanger to the hold on the control tower and take from it as needed. Strontium wouldnt even enter as a factor as the pos just wouldnt be able to draw from said arrangement in Reinforcement mode. done deal.
|
Erfnam
Time Cube Syndicate
Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 18:59:00 -
[16]
CCP can just increase the size of the tower and make anything more than x days of stront a petitionable exploit. If you put a tower in to reinforced and it says it'll be that way for any amount of time over the stated limit, petition and ccp simply empties the tower. Attacking party gets an easy kill with little waiting and the tower owner loses for cheating.
Regardless what they do, refueling every week is a PITA.
TCSyn is recruiting |
Orchid Ix
Celestial Security Corps
Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 20:44:00 -
[17]
I also agree with this. Fueling weekly sucks.
|
Vincent Almasy
Gallente
The Underground
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 21:56:00 -
[18]
if it is really so bad why not... strink the volume of the fuel that is to be used by a POS out of reinforce
|
Arushia
Nova Labs
|
Posted - 2007.03.03 02:39:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Erfnam
CCP can just increase the size of the tower and make anything more than x days of stront a petitionable exploit.
Because an even longer petition queue is good for gameplay?
|
Dragerest
Omega Enterprises
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.03.03 03:30:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Dragerest on 03/03/2007 03:27:53
why not have the option to put a tower in a ice belt 
but some moons should ihave ice on them. just like in the real world. so why not in eve?
i'm not saying all. just some.
edit: or just have a frieghter be able to dock would help alot too.
|
TopeZone Waters
|
Posted - 2007.03.03 04:04:00 -
[21]
I agree... refueling them every 6 days sucks, its not even a full week actualy... if you any stront in at all.
which makes it even more annoying cause you can't just do it the same day every week... (large towers that is)
"honey but I have to play my game... or my towers will run out of fuel"
"NO! you play the game too much already, you log on that game you're not getting any tonight!"
*hears the sound of towers shutting down all across the constellation*
------------------------------------------------
Just because it has wings does not mean it can fly or was even meant to in the first place. Whatch that first step, its a doozy |
Ramblin Man
Empyreum
|
Posted - 2007.03.03 07:27:00 -
[22]
Make military towers and industrial towers. I've no problem with military towers having their fuel bay increased, but I'll be damned if I want to let every person with cash in their wallet flood the raw/complex/advanced material markets.
There's a reason there are still profits there, and it's not because it's easy operating a POS. 
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.03.03 10:36:00 -
[23]
/signed
-AS |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |