Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Grim Reign
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 18:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've found at least 3 WH in the past week that have abandoned POS's littering the moons with no sign of any inhabitants. I find it very frustrating that i cant either one take ownership of the moon or just take down the pos all together. So i would like to propose some sort of system that would allow for the claiming of the stations or some way of making it possible for new ppl to enjoy WH space. Im not good at coming up with balanced systems to allow this fairly im just proposing the idea so if there are more ppl in eve that are also annoyed at this situation plz post your ideas so that maybe we can put this up as a priority or even an idea in ccp's head.
Thank you |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
562
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yea there were a lot threads about it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2782
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Grim Reign wrote:I've found at least 3 WH in the past week that have abandoned POS's littering the moons with no sign of any inhabitants. I find it very frustrating that i cant either one take ownership of the moon or just take down the pos all together. So i would like to propose some sort of system that would allow for the claiming of the stations or some way of making it possible for new ppl to enjoy WH space. Im not good at coming up with balanced systems to allow this fairly im just proposing the idea so if there are more ppl in eve that are also annoyed at this situation plz post your ideas so that maybe we can put this up as a priority or even an idea in ccp's head.
Thank you
Maybe the Hacking skill could give one a chance to unanchor an offline POS. (A higher chance for smaller POS, lower chance for Faction) That would be pretty neat, I think. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
325
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
One of the many things that need to be handled in the POS overhaul that EVE has needed for like 6 years |
MNagy
Yo-Mama Quixotic Hegemony
75
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
+1 and then + 10000 more
Its very annoying to see 100's of dead pos's everywhere.
A pos should not have to be destroyed or left to rot in space forever as a placeholder.
There should be 'profit' in taking a dead unfueled / abandoned pos. |
GeoffWICE
Grey Nomads Combat Mining and Logistics
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 21:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Grim Reign wrote: Im not good at coming up with balanced systems to allow this fairly im just proposing the idea so if there are more ppl in eve that are also annoyed at this situation plz post your ideas so that maybe we can put this up as a priority or even an idea in ccp's head.
Thank you
you mean like this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=62167&find=unread ? |
Jalmari Huitsikko
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 21:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
nerf pos they're too difficult to destroy
in all honestly i see no point why you can anchor deathstar just on top of stargate
|
Smiling Menace
Star Nebulae Holdings Inc.
122
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 04:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
I remember CCP saying ages ago that things floating in space that hadn't been used in 30 days or more would be removed. Not sure if that was ever implemented or not but seems like it should apply to abandoned POS's. Maybe move them to the Corp's HQ that anchored it? Or have it impounded so that if someone wants it, they can claim it later?
Trouble with WH's is that the POS would probably still be used if the Corp that anchored it could find it again. And that's most likely the problem here, people leave the WH and forgot to BM the exit or got podded out of the WH with no way of finding it again. |
MNagy
Yo-Mama Quixotic Hegemony
75
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Smiling Menace wrote:I remember CCP saying ages ago that things floating in space that hadn't been used in 30 days or more would be removed. Not sure if that was ever implemented or not but seems like it should apply to abandoned POS's. Maybe move them to the Corp's HQ that anchored it? Or have it impounded so that if someone wants it, they can claim it later?
Trouble with WH's is that the POS would probably still be used if the Corp that anchored it could find it again. And that's most likely the problem here, people leave the WH and forgot to BM the exit or got podded out of the WH with no way of finding it again.
Still - a pos that is unfueled - should be ripe for the picking and should be able to be unanchored. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 11:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Maybe the Hacking skill could give one a chance to unanchor an offline POS. (A higher chance for smaller POS, lower chance for Faction) That would be pretty neat, I think. Hacking an offline POS replaces its authentication table and makes it "yours", at which point you can do whatever you want with it. It doesn't matter when it ran out, if it's offline, it's hackable. |
|
MNagy
Yo-Mama Quixotic Hegemony
75
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 15:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:Maybe the Hacking skill could give one a chance to unanchor an offline POS. (A higher chance for smaller POS, lower chance for Faction) That would be pretty neat, I think. Hacking an offline POS replaces its authentication table and makes it "yours", at which point you can do whatever you want with it. It doesn't matter when it ran out, if it's offline, it's hackable.
Make it so CCP |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
127
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 18:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:Maybe the Hacking skill could give one a chance to unanchor an offline POS. (A higher chance for smaller POS, lower chance for Faction) That would be pretty neat, I think. Hacking an offline POS replaces its authentication table and makes it "yours", at which point you can do whatever you want with it. It doesn't matter when it ran out, if it's offline, it's hackable.
^ This. |
Xen Solarus
Inner 5phere
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 18:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
/me agrees! |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1374
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm broadly in favor of this, and have been for quite some time. CCP is quite aware of this issue, in particular with respect to the POS graveyards in some WH's.
However, I personally think there should be a short grace period after the POS goes offline before it's hackable/unanchorable/whatever. CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism! CSM 6 Activities Summary | My CSM blog |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
30
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:I'm broadly in favor of this, and have been for quite some time. CCP is quite aware of this issue, in particular with respect to the POS graveyards in some WH's.
However, I personally think there should be a short grace period after the POS goes offline before it's hackable/unanchorable/whatever.
YES I agree,
Dead POSes should either be able to be salvaged or hacked and unanchored after a given amount of time. I believe 90 days is fair. Many others in other threads about this same topic believe it should be much shorter.
90 Days is long enough that anyone having an unexpected absence from the game should be able to get back by then. If you are going to be gone for more than 90 days you should have known about it and planed ahead by either taking it down or arranging for a friend to put an alt in your corp to top up the fuel once in a while.
Any shorter than 90 days I belive would result in a lot of semi active players complaining. I believe there are many offline POSes in EVE that have been there for far more than 90 days. and not just in W-space but even in high sec. Start with 90 days and see how many disappear. I expect the number of off line POSes in EVE that have been ofline for less than 90 days will be small.
If having a grace period would not work than just make off line POSes easier to kill than online POSes. the argument has been made many times that a POS with no fuel should have no shield. How is the shield powered if there is no fuel? Currently the bubble disapears but if you want to pop the tower you have to burn through the full amount of shield giving it the same hit points as an online POS minus any defensive modules such as shield hardeners that would be off line.
I believe off line POSes are even protected by reinforce mode if they have stront in them. not sure on this but that is what I have heard. |
GeoffWICE
Grey Nomads Combat Mining and Logistics
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:However, I personally think there should be a short grace period after the POS goes offline before it's hackable/unanchorable/whatever.
Yep I agree thats why i came up with the idea of a Anchor-able hacking module the idea is it has a given amount of time to "hack" the POS giving the owner time to respond.
Any chance this is going to be added to the CSM's list of things to be done? |
vikari
Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 23:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
I don't see the need to unanchor offline POS"s. It's hard to say something is abandoned or not. I think the answer lies in the shields. If a POS is offline then the shields should not be part of it's HP. However this comes down to the programming in the game, and CCP has expressed it isn't easily fixed. |
GeoffWICE
Grey Nomads Combat Mining and Logistics
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 03:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
vikari wrote:I don't see the need to unanchor offline POS"s. It's hard to say something is abandoned or not. I think the answer lies in the shields. If a POS is offline then the shields should not be part of it's HP. However this comes down to the programming in the game, and CCP has expressed it isn't easily fixed.
While the no shields while offline make sense and should happen anyway, I want the POS not a killmail or the moon. It just criminal all those faction towers in WH space that are abandoned that no one can use.
|
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 09:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:I'm broadly in favor of this, and have been for quite some time. CCP is quite aware of this issue, in particular with respect to the POS graveyards in some WH's.
However, I personally think there should be a short grace period after the POS goes offline before it's hackable/unanchorable/whatever.
Fully agree. A grace period is needed.
I also suggest that in order to do this in HiSec, you have to wardec the owning corp. If the corp is closed then no need.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 10:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:I'm broadly in favor of this, and have been for quite some time. CCP is quite aware of this issue, in particular with respect to the POS graveyards in some WH's.
However, I personally think there should be a short grace period after the POS goes offline before it's hackable/unanchorable/whatever. Why? If it's offline, it's already been at least a few weeks since it was last tended to properly. |
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
571
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 10:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jint Hikaru wrote:I also suggest that in order to do this in HiSec, you have to wardec the owning corp. If the corp is closed then no need. Making it possible to make an offline POS invulnerable by abusing the wardec mechanics, as is done today. vOv |
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
40
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 11:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
+1 to every solution found. as long as all the towers in wh space that are dead can be removed, im all in favor
ps: also something to unanchor towers when there are (incapped) mods attached please. a selfdestruct on mods? |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1378
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 13:11:00 -
[23] - Quote
GeoffWICE wrote:Yep I agree thats why i came up with the idea of a Anchor-able hacking modulethe idea is it has a given amount of time to "hack" the POS giving the owner time to respond. Any chance this is going to be added to the CSM's list of things to be done? Giving POS's a major upgrade is a high priority for everyone on CSM, and I would not be at all surprised if CCP decided to take this on for the Winter 2012 expansion. I'm certainly pushing for it (remember that when you cast your votes!).
This kind of change would be the sort of thing that gets discussed when they decide to bite the bullet and give us a new system.
Best R
PS: for avoidance of confusion, my idea of "a short grace period" is perhaps a couple of days. And apart from giving people the chance to recover from their own screwups, it also gives CCP a chance to recover from theirs as well -- such as what happened with the fuel block changeover. CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism! CSM 6 Activities Summary | My CSM blog |
TheBlueMonkey
Natural Progression
22
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 13:23:00 -
[24] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:I'm broadly in favor of this, and have been for quite some time. CCP is quite aware of this issue, in particular with respect to the POS graveyards in some WH's.
However, I personally think there should be a short grace period after the POS goes offline before it's hackable/unanchorable/whatever.
The "grace period" is the amount of spam a pos gives you that it's about to run out of fuel. If you don't have the ability to maintain it, then you should be able to have one tbh |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
572
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 13:23:00 -
[25] - Quote
People get POS refuel notifications in their calendar now, if they still can't refuel the POS on time based on that and they don't take the hint of "HALP HALP I'M LOW ON FUEL" every hour for 24 hours, then I'm going to just go out on a limb and say ****'em.
Just so this is said, I'd assume the hacking of a POS would be something which would actually take a while to accomplish, say an hour or so or whatever, just to try to give the owner yet another hour to get there, put fuel in and start it up, thus protecting his investment. I wasn't thinking it should be something which can be done within 30 seconds of a POS going offline. |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 14:29:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Jint Hikaru wrote:I also suggest that in order to do this in HiSec, you have to wardec the owning corp. If the corp is closed then no need. Making it possible to make an offline POS invulnerable by abusing the wardec mechanics, as is done today. vOv
Very good point Zim.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1035
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 14:38:00 -
[27] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:People get POS refuel notifications in their calendar now, if they still can't refuel the POS on time based on that and they don't take the hint of "HALP HALP I'M LOW ON FUEL" every hour for 24 hours, then I'm going to just go out on a limb and say ****'em.
Just so this is said, I'd assume the hacking of a POS would be something which would actually take a while to accomplish, say an hour or so or whatever, just to try to give the owner yet another hour to get there, put fuel in and start it up, thus protecting his investment. I wasn't thinking it should be something which can be done within 30 seconds of a POS going offline. Exactly. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 15:24:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:People get POS refuel notifications in their calendar now, if they still can't refuel the POS on time based on that and they don't take the hint of "HALP HALP I'M LOW ON FUEL" every hour for 24 hours, then I'm going to just go out on a limb and say ****'em.
Just so this is said, I'd assume the hacking of a POS would be something which would actually take a while to accomplish, say an hour or so or whatever, just to try to give the owner yet another hour to get there, put fuel in and start it up, thus protecting his investment. I wasn't thinking it should be something which can be done within 30 seconds of a POS going offline.
Lord Zim wrote:People get POS refuel notifications in their calendar now, if they still can't refuel the POS on time based on that and they don't take the hint of "HALP HALP I'M LOW ON FUEL" every hour for 24 hours, then I'm going to just go out on a limb and say ****'em.
Just so this is said, I'd assume the hacking of a POS would be something which would actually take a while to accomplish, say an hour or so or whatever, just to try to give the owner yet another hour to get there, put fuel in and start it up, thus protecting his investment. I wasn't thinking it should be something which can be done within 30 seconds of a POS going offline.
And if the person does not log in for a couple days they will not see the POS fuel spam. Not everyone in EVE can get on every single day. I often go almost a week without getting online. Real life always comes first. especially with two small children in my life. I use EVE gate to keep tabs on corp messages and such but many others do not bother. There are also a lot of military personnel that play EVE. they can get a last minute deployment and not have time to arrange their assets in EVE for an extended leave. they can be often 3 months with no access to internet let alone a PC they can actually log into EVE on. This is why I believe it should be 90 days after a tower goes offline before it can be hacked and claimed by someone else.
I do believe though that when a POS goes off line it should have no shields or reinforcement immediately when it goes offline. And I think high sec POSes should go into an unanchor timer if they run out of starbase charters. They take up very little room and are very cheap to buy. there is not reason you can not have 6 months worth of Starbase charters in fuel bay at all times. If you lose your anchoring permit(starbase charter) in high sec an automated unanchor timer of say 2-4 days would activate and could be cancelled by adding more charters. This should be regardless of whether the POS is online or offline. No permit no anchor rights. If the unanchor timer reaches zero the POS unanchores and will disappear at next down time. If someone comes by before than the POS and all its modules can be scooped.
Put a little risk into investing in a high sec POS. if you do not maintain it you will lose it.
Many corps my self included have offline POSes anchored in high sec just5 incase they are needed. it takes some logistics and coordination to get Corp standings high enough to anchore a POS. so if you think you might need more in the near future by them an anchor them before you let your standings drop. For example I have a one man corp with my 4 accounts but only one of my characters has enough standings to be able to anchor a POS inhigh sec. So I have to either start a new corp with that character or move all my characters without 0.0 standings out of the corp, wait for standings to adjust. then anchor the POSes and reinvite the other characters. It is much easier to just anchor a couple extra POS while my standings are up. as long as they are offline they cost me nothing but the capital investment. If I had to online them for at least one day per month and keep them stocked with starbase charters it would add some cost and risk to those POSes rather than being able to claim the moon for free indefinitely. If players ant to keep offline POSes anchored just incase they need them then there should be some cost attached to it even if it is minimal. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
832
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
Jalmari Huitsikko wrote:in all honestly i see no point why you can anchor deathstar just on top of stargate
Wait...what?
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
832
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:And if the person does not log in for a couple days they will not see the POS fuel spam.
Then they should keep their POS fuel topped off so that it doesn't run out.
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Put a little risk into investing in a high sec POS. if you do not maintain it you will lose it.
Another good way to do this is to prevent people from being able to dec scrape to save their POS. If you can't defend it, you shouldn't own it.
The best solution I've seen is the anchor-able hacking device linked earlier in this thread. Have it only affect offlined POS and put a three day timer on it and it becomes quite easy to quickly take ownership of abandoned POS anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |