EVE Search - Many POS Anchored but Offline

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

Many POS Anchored but Offline

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lone Gunman	Posted - 2008.01.24 06:13:00 - [1] I have been working out of a system in Caldari space since EVE started that has forty or so moons and now I want to build a POS since I have the standing. All of them have POS's anchored but only about 2/3 of them are online. The rest are small towers that are offline with no modules attached most by the same Corp. I know this is an exploit but is there anything that can be done? What is CCP's view of this?
Helen Hunts Gallente Red Dragon Mining inc Red Dragon Industries	Posted - 2008.01.24 06:48:00 - [2] Not an exploit. To remove these towers, you can negotiate with the corp owning these towers, or you can wardec and remove them yourself. If the corp is completely abandoned (closed), you might be able to get GM intervention. _______________________________ Mine da rocks, make more ships. Pop da rats, make more rigs. Sell da gear, make more money. Any Questions?
Lord Fitz	Posted - 2008.01.24 06:59:00 - [3] It is most definietly NOT AN EXPLOIT. If the corp still has members in it your option is to declare the corp and take them down yourself. Each of those towers would have cost 100mil isk and was infact DESIGNED to be anchored at a moon. The 'exploit' was in the old days when you could anchor a Giant Secure container at a moon, and prevent a tower from being anchored. If someone 'did' shoot it you only lost 275k, so there was wholesale reserving of moons by some (and that would be removed within 5mins by a GM).. Towers you have to do yourself, the hard way. War dec them and remove the towers yourself, if of course they can stop you well... tough.
Salisuka Caldari Intex Mechanics	Posted - 2008.01.24 08:23:00 - [4] If i'm not mistaken it is an exploit to anchor a tower to "claim" a moon. You should petition it and see what the GM's say.
Kwint Sommer Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2008.01.24 08:30:00 - [5] Edited by: Kwint Sommer on 24/01/2008 08:30:22 Originally by: Salisuka If i'm not mistaken it is an exploit to anchor a tower to "claim" a moon. You should petition it and see what the GM's say. You are in fact mistaken and the fact that every poster before you completely disagrees with you should be a good indicator of it. 5% Mining & Manufacturing Implants
Lord Fitz	Posted - 2008.01.24 11:03:00 - [6] Originally by: Salisuka If i'm not mistaken it is an exploit to anchor a tower to "claim" a moon. You should petition it and see what the GM's say. Anchoring a tower IS EXACTLY HOW YOU SHOULD claim a moon. This is what they were designed to do, wars in 0.0 are fought daily over exactly that. It's not an exploit it's game design. That's like saying it's an exploit to shoot another player.... Anything that ISN'T a control tower is not allowed to 'claim' a moon, but claiming moons is exactly what control towers are FOR !!! I can't see how you could think this.
Lone Gunman	Posted - 2008.01.24 19:32:00 - [7] We are not talking about 0.0 space, we are talking about faction state territory that has limited the mega Corps in the form of NPC stations from supplying the public with an adequate amount of research slots. Then designated another limited supply of areas in the form of moons as the equivalent of commercial property to make up for that shortfall. Those Player Owned Stations then pays taxes in the form of charters and sales tax on products developed at those stations. You donÆt have to supply charters in 0.0. so there is the difference, an anchored offline station does neither. NO state entity would ever allow that. If just a few rich corporations can monopolize all of the commercial property the economy will collapse. But since this isnÆt a æRealÆ economy they can get away with it. The only real consequences are when a player feels they are getting nowhere by not having access to basic services they will just find something else to play. My point is that CCP Marketing must feel like they are beating their head against the wall. They are responsible for getting new players into EVE, like the new Steam thing and the buddy program yet people donÆt stay because of crap like this, the suicide ganking, the interface and the whole death system, just to name a few.
Ieu Duin Amarr Star Sabre Industries Dark Taboo	Posted - 2008.01.24 20:13:00 - [8] Originally by: Lone Gunman The only real consequences are when a player feels they are getting nowhere by not having access to basic services they will just find something else to play. I agree that there are stupid people doing stupid things, but anyone who has played an MMO knows that this is a fact of life. To the issue of the OP, if a Mega Corp or Alliance taking up all the available real estate in High Sec should be considered an exploit then a one-person Corp attempting to build a Control Tower should as well. It is Capitalism. Be a capitalist and do what a capitalist would do in this situation. It is not about fairness, it is not about the big guy vs. the little guy it is about Capitalism. It is about EvE. Quote: DAVID VON DREHLE How can anyone survive the abrupt transformation from guerrilla to gorilla? One day you're the Lone Ranger; the next, you're in the middle of the Battle of the Bulge.
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.24 20:26:00 - [9] Edited by: Pizi on 24/01/2008 20:28:18 its really easy , nothing to fight for tower ... GM¦s will not remove cans GM¦s will remove edit : lone your argument is invalid, because IF you want to drop an tower you will, either by removing one , hirering someone to do it for you or move to the next system _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch] Sign this to bring EvE TV back
Chen Chura	Posted - 2008.01.24 20:46:00 - [10] Edited by: Chen Chura on 24/01/2008 20:46:42 an argument can be made in favor of the OP. We are talking about high sec moons... no one can claim a moon in high sec, BUT they can RENT it from the local sovreginty provided they have the proper Starbase Charters... (and standing) these offline towers side step paying that RENT, they should be evicted. fuel is one thing to keep the thing running but from a high sec point of view it makes more sense that the local sovreignty would want rent paying tennants over the clutter of offline unused towers.

Ieu Duin Amarr Star Sabre Industries Dark Taboo	Posted - 2008.01.24 20:54:00 - [11] Originally by: Chen Chura Edited by: Chen Chura on 24/01/2008 20:46:42 an argument can be made in favor of the OP. We are talking about high sec moons... no one can claim a moon in high sec, BUT they can RENT it from the local sovreginty provided they have the proper Starbase Charters... (and standing) these offline towers side step paying that RENT, they should be evicted. fuel is one thing to keep the thing running but from a high sec point of view it makes more sense that the local sovereignty would want rent paying tenants over the clutter of offline unused towers. They should allow abandoned towers to be accessed by squatters after a period of time. These squatters could use the station services if none of the owners were present and the squatters supplied the required materials. If the owners returned they could boot the squatters and whatever they had underway at the station. Quote: DAVID VON DREHLE How can anyone survive the abrupt transformation from guerrilla to gorilla? One day you're the Lone Ranger; the next, you're in the middle of the Battle of the Bulge.
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.24 20:58:00 - [12] you could also say thet these charters are here to provide protection (beside bribing concord for an wardec) in the end its a game design descition the op is **ed because he cant anchor in that paticular system easy others will be **ed if they are oog for an month and their tower was removed by GM OT : god i hate these new board layout _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch] Sign this to bring EvE TV back
Lone Gunman	Posted - 2008.01.24 22:48:00 - [13] Pizi is correct, I was just disappointed I could not expand my manufacturing and research in a system that I have been working out of for 4 + years. Most of problems with EVE, lost ships and equipment, unable to make a profit in manufacturing has not been because I did something stupid but because of game mechanics, that are designed to encourage conflict. In the end I just moved 3 full freighter loads full of ships and equipment to the next system over, which still had plenty of moons available and set up shop there. But the solution is simple. There is NO reason why you canÆt anchor more than one tower at a moon in Empire, there is plenty of space. As a matter of fact I anchored the tower 198 km from the jump in point. But you should only be able to bring one online at a time per moon. If an entity has to keep pumping parts, ice products and charters in a tower that is not producing anything you are not going to have this problem.
hellsknights RennTech SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.25 05:12:00 - [14] Deck'em and attack the POS with frinds or hire some mercs.
Akorin Minmatar	Posted - 2008.01.25 19:38:00 - [15] I still say unpowered POS should just slowly degrade over time (say a period of a month or two.) Would stop all these d*mn inactive corps leaving their small towers littered around like so many secure cans. Most small time corps (the ones interested in Empire poses) don't have the firepower or the money to hire the firepower needed to clear out a tower.
Wardo21 The Arcanum	Posted - 2008.01.25 20:12:00 - [16] I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand it means I couldn't anchor a POS in the system where I wanted it (0.5 space, right next to our main office). There were 4-5 moons with inactive towers. I waited 2 more days for corp standing to go above 0.6 and moved to the system next door. On the other hand, not wanting to go through the pain and suffering of evicting everyone of low faction standing and waiting for corp faction standing to come up again, I dropped a second tower for "room to expand". Most of the other moons in the system are empty as well. It looks like most corps get to the minimum Empire standing and drop the towers wherever they can afford. I didn't want to waste the time to wardec or negotiate a price with the "squatters" and then I turned around and reserved a moon in the next system in the same manner... There was one other issue, a single laser turret anchored at a moon, that prevented me from anchoring a tower. I did petition it, but got impatient and just moved next door. To the OP: look around, you may find another suitable system to do your research in. All you need is an office, or be willing to work out of the POS itself. Wardo21
Whip Slagcheek	Posted - 2008.01.25 22:04:00 - [17] Now that they've fixed the mechanics so you can wardec a corporation and take out their offline anchored tower, this shouldn't be an issue whatsoever. A single person in a laser equipped ship with sentry drones should do enough dps to overcome the shield regen (yes they regen when offline for some reason) to take down a tower. Hell, that's a business opportunity right there. Call it Trash Maintenance Man corporation and stick your one alt with his afk laser battleship in it. Then you can hire yourself out to industrial corporations wishing to remove towers from inactive corporations. CCP can't change the mechanics to remove towers that aren't being used because they have to respect the wishes of players that need to go inactive. However they've given you tools to fix the problem yourself if you feel those towers are a problem. Use the in-game features to solve your problems rather than requesting CCP change the game for you. You can't have two towers at the same moon because towers need to be on the same grid as the warp in for balance purposes and two towers can't be on the same grid or you could shoot one tower with another in a time of war which could be rather silly.
NiiKleagh	Posted - 2008.01.26 14:56:00 - [18] Petition it. If the tower is offline then it isn't giving the faction the charters required, thus CCP will most likely take it down.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.