Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
place1
Orion Ore International
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 05:33:00 -
[31]
I believe adding the ability for a well skilled hacking/salvaging spec pilot to be able to hack and unanchored such towers to be a great idea.
I also believe it really should be possible to do to active towers but make it very easy to disrupt the hacker. IE make a modal that could only be put on say T1 industrial ships or other Large sig radius hacking ships that would be capable of offline gun's for active towers and then a structure that would need to be anchored for 24 hours or more if needed to unanchored and scoop up the tower.
The Hacking structure should be expensive, large, and week say a fleet of 4-5 frigs could destroy hacking structure in just a few minutes if was not protected. Also both the modal and structure should be considered aggressive acts and send a eve-mail to owner corp. and alliance.
This would allow alternative ways to fighting POS's other than just fielding Dreads and would make things much more interesting and fun.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 17:39:00 -
[32]
Quote: The point is that the mechanic doesn't make sense, the towers been abandoned for years(?), it should unanchor.
I disagree here - if the shield is up, no change to current mechanics is required. If for example though you can get someone inside a tower when a POS comes out of reinforced, you could "hack" it and online it yourself rather than simply blow it up. As I see this mechanic, hacking an offlined tower would "break" the structure, meaning you'd have to go through the entire setup procedure as if you'd simply ejected the items into space. This would make for a huge change to POS warfare, as you'd only require the firepower/time to knock a tower's shields out, not knock out both it's shields and the tower's HP. This would make smaller and more timezone specific alliances more capable of assaulting towers, and should thus make for more fluid gameplay.
Another tactic often used is to placehold moons with offlined towers in cynojammed systems to prevent others from taking the moons. This mechanic has the potential to render that mechanic entirely obsolete, forcing any deployed POS to be kept active or not kept at all - something that I feel could only do good things for alliance warfare. There's also the possibility of being able to "hack" a tower into reinforced mode even when it still has fuel, forcing the owners to come to the POS and remedy the problem - yet another method for picking a fight.
I would be happy with being able to only hack unanchored towers (and maybe cans? hmm?) of course - that'd be a huge improvement over current mechanisms - but being able to hack any defenseless tower would be filled with so much win that words simply cannot describe it. One client: Three Screens! |
Efrim Black
Gallente Apellon
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 19:48:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO I think it'd be pretty cool if a skilled hacker could break into them and claim it as their own, allowing them to unanchor or just activate it. or If any other ship could rig them with explosives and set off a controlled demolition, then salvage the remains.
I don't like the 30 day poof thing, its boring and unimaginative and a waste of good content potential.
I smell a new sub-profession. |
Trebor Notlimah
Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 04:14:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Quote: The point is that the mechanic doesn't make sense, the towers been abandoned for years(?), it should unanchor.
I disagree here - if the shield is up, no change to current mechanics is required. If for example though you can get someone inside a tower when a POS comes out of reinforced, you could "hack" it and online it yourself rather than simply blow it up. As I see this mechanic, hacking an offlined tower would "break" the structure, meaning you'd have to go through the entire setup procedure as if you'd simply ejected the items into space. This would make for a huge change to POS warfare, as you'd only require the firepower/time to knock a tower's shields out, not knock out both it's shields and the tower's HP. This would make smaller and more timezone specific alliances more capable of assaulting towers, and should thus make for more fluid gameplay.
Another tactic often used is to placehold moons with offlined towers in cynojammed systems to prevent others from taking the moons. This mechanic has the potential to render that mechanic entirely obsolete, forcing any deployed POS to be kept active or not kept at all - something that I feel could only do good things for alliance warfare. There's also the possibility of being able to "hack" a tower into reinforced mode even when it still has fuel, forcing the owners to come to the POS and remedy the problem - yet another method for picking a fight.
I would be happy with being able to only hack unanchored towers (and maybe cans? hmm?) of course - that'd be a huge improvement over current mechanisms - but being able to hack any defenseless tower would be filled with so much win that words simply cannot describe it.
#1. Abandoned for year(s)? obviously referrs to towers that have ran out of fuel and have their shield down. #2. "I would be happy with being able to only hack unanchored towers" -- Why in the heck would u need to hack an unanchored tower? #3. POS Spam in Sov -- its a broken mechanic that needs a whole new thread.
Can I please get a CCP/Delagate response. This was supposed to be escalated. I know the game developers are balls deep in the new expansion, but these broken mechanics cannot be allowed to fall through the cracks and take another 2-3 years to solve.
|
Trebor Notlimah
Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 00:49:00 -
[35]
back to the top -- still awaiting a CCP/CSM update
|
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 08:36:00 -
[36]
CEO | Diary of a pod pilot |
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 10:37:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Trebor Notlimah back to the top -- still awaiting a CCP/CSM update
1st - don't bump topics (at least not obviously). 2nd - If you read the minutes you would see that CCP is looking into it ----------------------
My Blog |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 11:40:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Trebor Notlimah #2. "I would be happy with being able to only hack unanchored towers" -- Why in the heck would u need to hack an unanchored tower?
Sorry, I meant offlined. The context of my post should've shown this was a slip of the fingers (I was talking seconds before about hacking towers with their shields up), but hands up, I said the wrong thing.
Much like when I see the Ishtar and Ishkur on scan; 50/50 chance I'll mix the two up. One client: Three Screens! |
Scouting POS
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 18:31:00 -
[39]
Hi guys Well I can see that the CSM has voted on the issue so I hope somthing will be done about this asap.
Im no programmer but i think that it should be fairly simple to impliment a 'script' or a modification that would fix this issue. As it is there is a lot of effort required to remove POS's that have been abandoned. For most players this is more a choir than fun. But raiding a pos and maybe even stealing it would be fun or at least funny and allso there would be no need of a huge gang of guys sitting at the offline/inactive POS that is basically a waste of space. To the nay-sayers I like to point out that if you fuel a pos 1 per month then you wouldnt be in danger of loosing the POS to some 'Hacker?', POS owners just make shure the POS is online, if not, its just an exploit really (invaulnerable junk floating in space).
There are a lot of nice ideas around here and ofc i have one as well --- 7 Days after POS goes offline: The POS shields turn off (at downtime?), only Armor and Structure HP left. -If Players want to kill it its much easyer now (no shield HP). -Starbase Structures can be approached and hacked (hacking skill or whatever), if successful their contents can be stolen.
I would recomend having seperate hacking attepts for each 'hangar/division'(requires multiple hacking successes for each Corp hangar etc.).
--- 14 Days after POS goes offline:
-The all Starbase Structures can be hacked and if successful, unanchored and eventually scooped or redeployed.
The Starbase Structures would haveto be re-anchored if the player wants the moon.
Additional stuff?
If somone attepts to hack a Starbase Structure then a eve-mail is sent to the corp (maybe limit it to one per day?).
Maybe having a special unanchoring skilltree or maybe tying some science skills to the equasion so that it would be Science (carebear) type of players that would be POS-raiding Specialists.. make those R&D alts work for once
|
Aethrwolf
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 19:04:00 -
[40]
I would LOVE to be able to hack offline POS's, that said the chance of success should be really low.. likely you would end up spending HOURS sitting there trying to hack the tower. gives owners a chance at defending it if they havent really abandoned it but just let it offline cause they're short of cash or just trying to keep the location.. or whatever.. I could see this as a way to bait the prospective hackers in this situation if hacking someone elses property flags you. (does it? I havent seen it mentioned anywhere)
|
|
Yaay
Reikoku KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 20:43:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Nnamuachs Or.. wardec the offending corp... anchored assets have never been free except those attached to towers. Anchored cans were never unanchorable.. towers shouldn't be unanchorable by anyone other than their owners.
Yes, but cans also had hp reduced and were blown up by devs if they were used as place holders on moons. Anchored POS are just exploiting the same system but with the added effect of more HP, and the potential to online them if an attack comes. Only difference is the fuel saved during their offline state.
When a tower runs out of fuel, it should start using it's stront while anchored as if in reinforced. If it also runs out of stront, then the tower loses it's anchored stated. People won't want to pay for stront, so they'll stop exploiting offline towers holding moons.
Add to that a 50% reduction in total HP and 0 resist while in anchored mode, and I think we got a winner.
It's the Economy Stupid |
Scouting POS
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 23:28:00 -
[42]
Well i agrea that it should take some time to hack. Like i wrote in the last post, if you haveto hack each 'hangar-divisions' seperatly then you spend 1-2 minutes to hack each of them and if f.ex. a Corp Hangar Arrey has 6 divisions its likely to take 6-12m for each Array.
Second thing is flagging. Well I personally think this should be treated the same way as when somone tryes to steal your can.. Only in high-sec does it really make a diff.
Yaay.. Well considering the investment then I think it would be ok to let the owner keep the placeholder POS for a short time. My suggestion is based on the POS loosing all shield HP (no fuel = no energy) and only Armor+Structure being left. Amarr POS Shield 40m HP (0/0/0/0) Armor 10m HP (0/0/0/0) Structure ? (99/99/99/99) No shields => -80% online HP.. It would take 10 bs >30minutes? to kill it! Takes 2 hours to unanchor a Large pos anyway. The risk is always there if the Corp lets it go offline that somone would attack it and pop it.. I guess its a bit easyer to pop a pos with no shield HP.
Devs... PLZ listen to CSM and impliment some new form of SOV mechanism, 0.0 Needs Help. Using planets to hold SOV would be brilliant.. Colonys would be even more so!!
|
Darth Shenron
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 13:35:00 -
[43]
hI SEC POS'ES
Some corps/alliances have turned theres off because the BL**DY things dont work right. And haven't since the day pos'es where introduced into the game. And only left anchored in the hope CCP will fix them.
|
Agent Unknown
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 13:58:00 -
[44]
I would love to see the explosion that ensues. You would hear the delightful sound from all over New Eden ----------------------------------- "What can go wrong, will go wrong." |
Scouting POS
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 17:42:00 -
[45]
Darth.. If you are not happy with your purchase you should get your money back! Takef your POS to the nearest station (shouldnt be that hard in hi-sec) and place it back on market to get your isk back
Having moons populated with anchored OFFLINE poses, when some other players want to place pos's and use it, is a waste. If you want to use a POS then you should be required to keep it fueled. I think my suggestion is pretty balanced. If you would have a POS at a moon that nobody wants then you could probably go ahead and leave it offline, but it could get robbed/stolen, or it could get destroyed.
Maybe its like renting Corp offices at stations and there were just one time fee fo9r them! There is a limited ammount of Moons and there is a limited ammount of Offices. If you dont pay for your office you loose it, thats not unfair is it? If it were so then a few players could rush to get all the offices and then sell them for a huge price.
P.s. I hope.. PRAY.. that CCCP will change sov. so that POS's/moons would no longer be a part of Sov. mechanism.
|
Kusum Fawn
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 04:24:00 -
[46]
absolutely signed,
|
Tribalist
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 22:29:00 -
[47]
/signed
I have a suggestion or two.
1st: New skill: Hack Equipment - requires Anchoring V and Hacking V. Allows use of Advanced Equipment Codebreaker. reduces Hack time by 10% per level
2nd: New Equipment - Advanced Equipment Codebreaker. I /II. Requires Hack Equipment Skill I/IV: T1 version acts as codebreaker, also allows access to anchored Secure Containers (criminal flagging as per can flipping on any attempt) base time to access container 30 seconds times size of container (small secure = 1, medium secure = 1.5, large secure = 2, giant secure =3) Cannot hack Structures. T2 version: as per T1 reduces base time for containers to 15 seconds. Allows hacking of anchored structures that are off-line (such as an out of fuel/ out of reinforced mode POS) and associated equipment. Base time is 1000 seconds times size of equipment (small rail = 1, medium = 2, etc.. Hangers and labs would be a 3 control towers would start at 4 for a small tower and ramp up) Would be ciminally flagged and would give Kill rights to entire target corp for 1 week per attempted hack to run similtaniously (i.e. - you hack a tower and 2 labs they have 3 kill rights on you for the next week)
This will get rid of the clutter in space, solve the problem with Macro miners, provide some high sec Piracy etc.
Also perhapse modify the electronic attack ships to allow them to attempt to hack a POS in Reinforced mode, using the above gear & skills this will spice up alliance play I imagine.
Just some thoughts..
Tribe |
Lewyrus
Jugis Modo Utopia Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 11:17:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO I think it'd be pretty cool if a skilled hacker could break into them and claim it as their own, allowing them to unanchor or just activate it. or If any other ship could rig them with explosives and set off a controlled demolition, then salvage the remains.
I don't like the 30 day poof thing, its boring and unimaginative and a waste of good content potential.
This.
But I would implement some time-buffer (or some other measure) just to make sure, that a just-blown-up POS cannot be activated as new POS of the attackers in a reasonable time-frame.
|
Pattern Clarc
|
Posted - 2009.03.07 13:21:00 -
[49]
____
My Blog Is Awesome
|
Jalif
Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.03.07 19:03:00 -
[50]
|
|
NereSky
Domination. Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.08 19:35:00 -
[51]
|
Righteous Deeds
Diverse Endeavors
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 01:10:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Righteous Deeds on 09/03/2009 01:10:17 Sounds fine, but frankly I'd just make it so charters (i.e. rent) are required just to keep the tower anchored. You don't pay rent, the landlord tosses your stuff and gets someone who will. All I'd do is unanchor the things 30 days after the charters ran out (a grace period to account for RL issues, and back payment required to online them.)
Newbish players who want to muck with the POS side of Eve shouldn't have to wardec a 300 person corp just to clear out their abandonned place-keeper tower. We ought to at least have to keep them fed with charters to retain rights to the real estate.
|
Xerpex
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 13:25:00 -
[53]
|
Lars Erlkonig
Caldari Flipmode Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 19:31:00 -
[54]
If it's a bare tower- yes, but I'd rather offline ones with mods not be subject to this. Some people make isk by attacking offline towers and scooping the mods for resale. Tower purchases are also an isk sink, which EVE needs more of.
Originally by: TWD We suck and Goonswarm are PvP gods.
|
Lady Aja
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 10:39:00 -
[55]
i support it on the following conditions...
Abadnoned = disbanded corp or 30+ days of inactivity
only hackable structures should be ones with something in it...
that is all.
|
Kaila Alterego
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 16:19:00 -
[56]
I fully 100% support the idea of assuming control of a POS that has been abandoned for a period, I have just recently found 3 and blowing up a unfueled POS is just such a waste.
|
Ahro Thariori
|
Posted - 2009.03.14 04:42:00 -
[57]
supported. But I like Chribba's suggestion from the Original thread better than the OP's.
|
Gravecall
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 17:38:00 -
[58]
Definitely agree something needs to be done, the amount of offline POS-es you can find in even a single high-sec system is rather ridiculous, if anchoring a GSC and paying no further upkeep to prevent others from being able to use a moon is not permitted I don't see why anchoring a POS and paying nothing further should be either. On the plus side this would provide another isk sink via the npc supplied fuels if the owners wanted to keep their POS-es in place.
Give folks a bit of leeway in terms of inability to get to the POS to fuel it, but at the same time need to ensure the leeway itself isn't open to exploitation, e.g. having it require a month of continuous offline status means you only need to pay for an hour's fuel each month, and so the placeholding would still pretty much be free, whereas if it instead something like if it was offline for more than half the month - at least then they'd have to fork out for 15 days of fuel per month. 15 days of fuel for a pos with no active modules would still be pretty cheap but at least it's cost something to keep a moon out of the hands of others. Probably should also avoid issuing corporations with a eve-mail warning beyond the POS being out of fuel, as in no warning that the POS is about to be unanchored/self destructed/hackable or whatever other mechanic gets employed to solve the issue.
|
Vorlakrin
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 16:38:00 -
[59]
I strongly support this, especially with the expansion having come out. in WH space, if you anchor a pos, and fuel it, but then have to leave or are accedently locked out due to WH collapse, the pos will go offline, but the chances of someone bringing in enough firepower to do anything about the pos is slim, granted for the moment there's plenty of moons in WH, but they'll eventually be more populated, and as it is, if the original corp happens to come back, and start refuling their pos, they'll have a base that's extreamly difficult to remove, making the weaker entity have no choice but to either abandon their pos, or try to get it out while the other corp is busy elsewhere, and not having an imediate WH exit could cause some huge issues.
|
Zostera
Honour Bound Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 18:19:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Zostera on 19/05/2009 18:22:35
Supported.
Allow the hacking and removal of towers and all mods that have been offline for 30 or more days.
If there are concerns over this removing an isk sink, then perhaps have the hacked tower recovered as a new item "Derelict tower" that can be sold to NPC's for a value lower than a new POS. This could actually introduce a new "salvaging" profession to Hi-sec.
Zos
Vote Mazzilliu 09 CSM |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |