| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Matrixcvd
Caldari
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
   |
Posted - 2008.08.18 03:21:00 -
[1]
Simple: All offlined POS's will unanchor themselves if not onlined after 3 days. 1 Full day of onlining resets the timer.
Reason: Towers need to be tended to, they shouldnt be allowed to sit there and force someone to blow them up just because someone was too lazy to remove them. Or used as place holders for moons.
I like 3 days, but 5 days is fine with me too
whatcha think?
|
Treelox
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 04:34:00 -
[2]
just tie it in with all the other space trash, and make it a 30 day timer.
Otherwise im all for such an idea
--
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 04:38:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Treelox
just tie it in with all the other space trash, and make it a 30 day timer.
Otherwise im all for such an idea
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 04:43:00 -
[4]
Disagree.
A POS is a player or corporation's stuff. Even if that person anchors a POS, quits eve then lets it sit there, you still have to fight that person to claim what they have laid stake to.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr
Ore Mongers
Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 05:01:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 18/08/2008 05:02:01
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
Disagree.
A POS is a player or corporation's stuff. Even if that person anchors a POS, quits eve then lets it sit there, you still have to fight that person to claim what they have laid stake to.
I have a problem with needing to fight someone who quit.
BUT, I agree somewhat with Siigari.
So I propose simply that if the POS if offline, you receive no messages that it's being attacked, or destroyed, as the communications array would logically be offline as well. In that manner, it still acts as a buffer to a zone of space, but if the space is neglected, it can be taken without notice.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 11:21:00 -
[6]
While I do not support automatic unanchoring, I would rather see like a new speciality skill - eg unanchoring, like hacking, that an offlined tower after a certain amount of time, eg 30 days, will be accessible for pilots with the "unanchroing" skill.
You can try and unanchor it like you would try and open hacking sites, either either a successfull unachor or fail - thus try again. If success you can simply scoop the tower. We'd then see professional tower hunters as a playstyle as well.
Lets play find Chribba's image! Hint: It's somewhere in this text! Hugs and Kisses! ~Saint |
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 11:34:00 -
[7]
While I am not supportin unanchoring, especially within the short time frame in the OP, I am supporting the automated clean-up of POSes.
They should however not just disappear or get unanchored but instead get taken over by the local pirate faction or drones and need to be destroyed and cleaned out first before a new POS can be placed in.
--------
Ideas for: Mining
|
Jim Raynor
Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:35:00 -
[8]
30 days, poof
------
I'll make a sig later. |
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:05:00 -
[9]
i think 30 days is too long, needs to be relevent to the whole concept of corps/alliances managing controllable ammounts of space. And in wartime. WHy should someones unguarded asset sit there with no repercussions? The only mechanic is the anchoring? This change would make people think about their assets, remove the ability to put place holders down on moons, and govern their space in a more effective fashion.
there should be no reason why, if someone else wanted the moon, that the current tenenat can provide excess boredom to other players by simply leaving it there
I do support a hacking skill as well, very nice mechanic idea
I think 5 days is fine after the tower goes offline. These types changes support better SOV mechanics all around in 0.0 and are small steps to limit boredom while promiting SOV holders to tend to their space better and not cause undew aggravation for others.
|
ian666
Rave Technologies Inc.
C0VEN
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 16:24:00 -
[10]
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 01:56:00 -
[11]
bump, pretty important and i think it needs a serious look, will greatly reduce the ammounts of useless shooting and make people tend to their stuff moar, MOAR COMMENTS! |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 02:54:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
30 days, poof
|
TenthReality
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 03:11:00 -
[13]
Edited by: TenthReality on 19/08/2008 03:11:31
How would this change modules in space that have no tower online or the tower has been popped? Pretty much no different is it? The tactic of leaving "trash" at a moon to block a new tower has been used with great success for some groups. |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 04:36:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
i think 30 days is too long,
I suggested 30days to make it "easier" to implement mechanically. Since there is already a 30 day removal script in game, I would assume it would be far easier for the Devs to include offline POS in this. Instead of creating a whole new protocol to deal with towers.
Of course I am no programer so I could be wrong. That said though, I think your 5 day is a bit to short. Shit happens in RL and 5days can be too short a time to deal with RL drama sometimes. |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 04:37:00 -
[15]
Originally by: TenthReality
Edited by: TenthReality on 19/08/2008 03:11:31
How would this change modules in space that have no tower online or the tower has been popped? Pretty much no different is it? The tactic of leaving "trash" at a moon to block a new tower has been used with great success for some groups.
Id say that anchored/offlined tower modules would get the same timer if they arent inside a towers shields. Shields go off, modules go bye bye 30 days later. |
Hesod Adee
Militants of Xen
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 04:42:00 -
[16]
Clean them up somehow. |
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente
Revelation Space
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:00:00 -
[17]
I'm not in favour of a simple clean up mechanic... make it more involving. Although a POS takedown is an arduous process, it's ironic how people are complaining about "lazy" POS owners not keeping them fueled so they want the game changing as they're too "lazy" to destroy it through a wardec.
Make the POS drop loot (ie composite minerals) or seed a new skill which allows you to deploy Marines who will capture the POS over x amount of time.
As Chribba said, there is a potential to create a new mini profession which solves what appears to be aproblem for some people.
Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator |
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Chribba
While I do not support automatic unanchoring, I would rather see like a new speciality skill - eg unanchoring, like hacking, that an offlined tower after a certain amount of time, eg 30 days, will be accessible for pilots with the "unanchroing" skill.
You can try and unanchor it like you would try and open hacking sites, either either a successfull unachor or fail - thus try again. If success you can simply scoop the tower. We'd then see professional tower hunters as a playstyle as well.
Interesting idea. But, in the spirit of 'risk v. reward' there's something lacking 
What do you think about something like this?
When a tower goes oflline you can instandly start your unanchoring. But, such an action takes 50-(unanchoring skill * 5) minutes to complete. And also sends the 'victim' a corporate mail than someone is trying to break into their POS.
If your succesfull, you get away with a shiny new POS. If they're not sleeping you'll get an angry POS owner dropping by  |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:55:00 -
[19]
Yes of course the unanchoring attempt should take time, after all it takes a long time to unanchor normally so it wouldn't be more than right to have one attempt take at least the same amount of time as the normal unanchoring.
As for risk vs rewards, you could easily be flagged towards the POS owners, and with the "unanchoring module" needing to be active for the duration of the attempt - there's your risk. Or something along that line.
Secure 3rd party service ■ Veldspar |
|
Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:59:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 26/08/2008 13:05:20
I like the Chribbas idea better than the OP.
Have a module, possible requiring a skill based on Hacking V, that can unanchor offlined foreign towers and structures. Having a "safe" period for the offlined tower (say 30 days) is a possibility, but I do not think is needed.
The "hostile" unachoring should take the same amount of time as a normal unachoring procedure, and the module has to be active throughout the whole period. If the unachoring attempt is disrupted it will fail and a new attempt can be made. The corp that owns the tower will be informed automatically by mail that their tower is under threat and the perpetrator will be criminally flagged towards the corp.
EDIT: Same module or maybe the normal hacking module should be able to hack structures to give access to storage. Time required could be 15 minutes or so and again the owning corp will get informed by mail of hostility towards their assets.
----------------
Mr. Science & Trade Institute
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 13:31:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Rashmika Clavain
I'm not in favour of a simple clean up mechanic... make it more involving. Although a POS takedown is an arduous process, it's ironic how people are complaining about "lazy" POS owners not keeping them fueled so they want the game changing as they're too "lazy" to destroy it through a wardec.
Make the POS drop loot (ie composite minerals) or seed a new skill which allows you to deploy Marines who will capture the POS over x amount of time.
As Chribba said, there is a potential to create a new mini profession which solves what appears to be aproblem for some people.
The goal of all of my suggestions has 1 theme. Reduce the concept of shooting stationary structures for endless amounts of time. Furthermore, any change which requires people to police and maintain their space more effectively either through better stewardship or by superior PVP skill are the best changes.
An offlined tower is nothing but a boat anchor, after anything important has been popped. A mechanic for the scooping of the tower or any hostile anchor module should be put in place. Personally, 30 days is way too long. What i would like to see as a compromise would be,
1. For any offlined tower, any attempt to unanchor a tower from someone who does not have the roles to do so causes a notification mail to be sent to the owner only during a 3 day period from the time the tower went offline. After 3 days, no notification of unanchoring will be sent.
2. Tower Unanchoring SKill, tie it to HACKING if you like, or whatever and have a second module unanchoring (less sp requirements) to unanchor modules, POS mods/bubbles. I am not to sure on exact details, but a chance/skill based method would be a nice compromise.
-----
the 3 day stipulation is there because, quite frankly, the stewards of the POS have already received enough mails about resources being low that they should know whats going on. It was a decision by CCP to not allow people the ability to unanchor others stuff. If you tie the concept of POS installations to SOV, any change which promotes more active participation in holding sov, instead of just putting up HUGE hp buffers which require extreme boredom, are good changes and certainly not whining. SOV should be about Combat capability, Logistics and Maintence, and politics. Right now HP rules all and boredom is its *****, nobody likes repping for hours, and nobody likes shooting for hours as well... these small changes help all corps and alliances.
|
Confirmed
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 16:55:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Simple: All offlined POS's will unanchor themselves if not onlined after 3 days. 1 Full day of onlining resets the timer.
Reason: Towers need to be tended to, they shouldnt be allowed to sit there and force someone to blow them up just because someone was too lazy to remove them. Or used as place holders for moons.
I like 3 days, but 5 days is fine with me too
whatcha think?
Personally I'd be more amicable to a 'lose shield at the recharge rate the start of the offline mode' so that if you found said failed POS it'd be easier to kill as the longer it's been offlined as the shield has been failing over time.
if it's also offlined the armor/structure starts taking damage as the shield can't stop blah blah blah (insert rp stuff here) from damaging it so eventually they just explode on their own (say, 30d of offline)
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 17:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Confirmed
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Simple: All offlined POS's will unanchor themselves if not onlined after 3 days. 1 Full day of onlining resets the timer.
Reason: Towers need to be tended to, they shouldnt be allowed to sit there and force someone to blow them up just because someone was too lazy to remove them. Or used as place holders for moons.
I like 3 days, but 5 days is fine with me too
whatcha think?
Personally I'd be more amicable to a 'lose shield at the recharge rate the start of the offline mode' so that if you found said failed POS it'd be easier to kill as the longer it's been offlined as the shield has been failing over time.
if it's also offlined the armor/structure starts taking damage as the shield can't stop blah blah blah (insert rp stuff here) from damaging it so eventually they just explode on their own (say, 30d of offline)
Basically, the concept is that the asset is remains an asset and not a Black hole of HP after a tower is left to go offline. This would put more emphasis on careful maintanence of POS installations/SOV, and not just, "oh well if someone wants to waste the ammo they can then ahve the moon" there is really nothing stopping teh simple change, i never understood restricitions on unanchoring other peoples stuff. There needs to be limits of course but the status quo shouldn't be acceptable
|
Drake Draconis
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 19:24:00 -
[24]
Im all for the POS being removed after such and such time has passed.
We've just unanchored ours and it is quite involving... but honestly... if people don't clean up after themselves... they should either be salvageable... loot-able... and easily destroyed like any other "destroyable" object in EVE.
Something... somehow... must be done.
/signed emphatically
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |