EVE Search - [Issue] Abandoned, offline POSses

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Abandoned, offline POSses

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Astria Tiphareth 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.05.22 11:27:00 - [61] Supported in principle, but EVE is a long term game and a POS can be a major investment for some groups. Defining a POS as abandoned should be something like 3-6 months of continued offline status. EVE's been running for five years and shows no signs of stopping, after all. The only problem with introducing this sort of hacking is that the moment everyone knows it's on the drawing board, every offline POS will be explored out and there will be a feeding frenzy. How would you limit this to a more sensible offline-scavenging period that doesn't plunge the POS market into freefall or at least knock it about - skill requirements perhaps, and thus delay the offlining to a period of months instead of the first week the patch goes live? ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Zostera Minmatar Honour Bound Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.05.23 16:14:00 - [62] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth How would you limit this to a more sensible offline-scavenging period that doesn't plunge the POS market into freefall or at least knock it about Originally by: Zostera 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. Salvaging the offline tower as a new item would mean that new towers still need to be purchased while providing a source of income from the old tower as an incentive to go find and remove them. Zos Vote Mazzilliu 09 CSM
Garan Tormas	Posted - 2009.05.25 22:19:00 - [63] Totally supported. It is ridiculous that someone can effectively moon-squat for zero cost, yet because they are in highsec, for anyone else to clean up requires a full-on wardec. This is not balanced, either in relation to what happens in lowsec (you can go straight in and blow up the tower), not in relation to any other corp game mechanics (you don't pay your office rent for a month? you're kicked out).
Solo Player	Posted - 2009.05.25 22:29:00 - [64] Idea as "detailed" (or rather NOT detailed) by OP not supported. Make some effort to flesh out an idea, dammit - who exactly should be able to unanchor it at which cost to what benefit under which circumstances?
Gotrek65 Pyrrhus Sicarii Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.25 23:24:00 - [65] 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. I like that idea
Hun Jakuza Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.05.26 08:19:00 - [66] /not supported Because not need to Eve economy more free income. 1 large POS 400-500m (no faction) plus modules on POS avalaible +500m more. 1 billiard for few minutes work is unaccepteable. Better if the 3 months old abandoned POSes should be destroyded.
Corey Feldman	Posted - 2009.05.26 14:11:00 - [67]
Pikake Minmatar Darklore Tech	Posted - 2009.08.01 05:07:00 - [68] I think this is a wonderful idea and would support it 100%... Has there been any DV update on this possible implementation of this feature? Darklore United
Lord Kreios	Posted - 2009.08.01 22:50:00 - [69]
Laechyd Eldgorn Endemic Aggression Exalted.	Posted - 2009.08.01 23:19:00 - [70] you're supposed to have other friends protecting and helping you to fuel them. if you fail protecting the pos while unanchoring or fail fueling it. then it should be free game for anyone to take.. as it is now its mostly up to how much isk you got to buy towers, modules and fuel. not (really really) logistics, not military power (or well you either have 500 man blobs or not). this is an issue too imho. at least let ppl loot abandoned pos's.
TeRata	Posted - 2009.08.02 23:51:00 - [71] Just an idea to this hacking towers thing. What if there was simply a claim tower option if you find one that is offline (has run out of fuel) Then just put a 24 hour timer on the claiming option. Allows the previous owner 24 hours to get to the pos to reclaim it. If they don't it's yours and you can do what you want with it.
Dr BattleSmith PAX Interstellar Services	Posted - 2009.08.03 02:52:00 - [72] I have an anchored offline POS for which the owning character hasn't logged in for 2 months. The POS is VERY MUCH ACTIVE although offline and not being used regularly at the moment. I don't want to have to buy a new one just because someone wanted to garbage collect non-lagging items. Placeholder POS on a valuable moon? Destroy it. NOT SUPPORTED
Dr BattleSmith PAX Interstellar Services	Posted - 2009.08.03 02:55:00 - [73] Originally by: Darth Shenron 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. Very true. Nothing should be done to garbage collect POS until the mechanic itself is fixed. Once the feature actually works as indended, then maybe look into garbage collection, if it's really an issue at all.
hired goon	Posted - 2009.08.03 12:26:00 - [74] signed for hacking abandoned pos -omg-
Tsubutai	Posted - 2009.08.03 13:03:00 - [75] .
Gramtar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.03 14:21:00 - [76] Opposed to this idea: 1. Using offline POS to block moons in some systems is a great tactic for space holding alliances. For those unfamiliar with 0.0 POS warfare, it's done so that if hostiles attack, logistics personnel run around and quickly online them. They are most often anchored with a number of days of fuel and appropriate level of strontium. In very high moon count systems, anchoring even small POS at every moon becomes prohibitively expensive. In these cases, anchored large POS give the defending alliance an edge on attackers. If they can online towers before they are destroyed, it helps the defender's sov-claiming count. Note that all alliances are limited to anchoring 5 towers per day per system. There is no limit to how many POS you can online in a day. It should remain this way. Not every alliance has the income resources to maintain a good buffer of online POS due to fuel costs. Anchoring offline towers gives the little guys a chance against POS-spam, particularly in station systems with poor truesec which 0.0 is littered with. 2. In the case of high sec moons, simply wardec the owning corp and blow it up. If there's an issue being unable to wardec closed corps with abandoned POS, then CCP should address that either by fixing the wardec system, or simply remove these towers via the petition system.
Larkonis Trassler	Posted - 2009.08.03 14:28:00 - [77] Moon squatters in your space? Initiate wardec. Fit and insure Tech 1 fit Armageddon. Shoot Tower Go to bed. ??? Profit! It's not rocket science gents. I'm also against making a tower become unanchored after a set period of time. It'd reduce (slightly) the Isk sink POS structures are responsible for and if you're too lazy/inept to take a moon for yourself then you shouldn't have it.
Don Pellegrino	Posted - 2009.08.04 06:18:00 - [78]
TeRata	Posted - 2009.08.05 07:28:00 - [79] how bout confining this activity to W-Space then?
Diesel09	Posted - 2009.08.16 16:18:00 - [80]
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.08.16 19:17:00 - [81] Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Moon squatters in your space? Initiate wardec. Fit and insure Tech 1 fit Armageddon. Shoot Tower Go to bed. ??? Profit! It's not rocket science gents. I'm also against making a tower become unanchored after a set period of time. It'd reduce (slightly) the Isk sink POS structures are responsible for and if you're too lazy/inept to take a moon for yourself then you shouldn't have it. This. i already did that with an alt for the fun. works out nicely. dont be so lazy folks. you want the tower gone, shoot it. a thread like this started by a member of a pvp corp? sobs
Zorai Miraden East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2009.08.17 07:11:00 - [82] My knowledge of POS's isn't the best, but as I recal they are corporation owned. So I would suggest something like this if the corporation that owns the tower disapears then the tower should switch to a neutral state and be free to shoot at. And if it remains unowned for a long enough period then have it automatically deleted like Achorable cans, shuttles, etc... that were abandoned. Recruitment Thread EKT Website
velocity7	Posted - 2009.08.25 05:10:00 - [83] Here's my two cents... 1. Make it so that whatever method is used to remove abandoned POSes, it can only happen with POSes whose sovereignty does not match whoever it is that owns sovereignty. This way, people who hold sovereignty can keep offline POSes as they want them, such as alliances that have a few POSes still holding sovereignty in a system, but some extras that are offline. Those who don't have sovereignty in the given space (e.g., low-sec, hi-sec, WH-space, or don't hold it at all) are fair game. 2. If this will involve some sort of hacking skill, make it require Anchoring 5. Something of this level does involve a fair bit of assets at play. 3. POSes that are flagged as "fair game" need a time period after the POS goes offline. This could be as long as 30 days, but who knows.
steejans nix Amarr 0beron Construct	Posted - 2009.08.25 10:13:00 - [84] Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Moon squatters in your space? Initiate wardec. Fit and insure Tech 1 fit Armageddon. Shoot Tower Go to bed. ??? Profit! It's not rocket science gents. I'm also against making a tower become unanchored after a set period of time. It'd reduce (slightly) the Isk sink POS structures are responsible for and if you're too lazy/inept to take a moon for yourself then you shouldn't have it. This^^
Dana Jin	Posted - 2009.09.29 15:43:00 - [85] Edited by: Dana Jin on 29/09/2009 15:48:35 I recently was trying to leave WH space and came across a CL-3 sytem that had over 14 towers in it. Only one of which was active. If CCP does nothing about this soon CL-3 and below WH space will run out of moons to anchor a POS at. Not sure what could be done there are many idieas out there and I support the hacking idea. SOMETHING needs to be done soon though. As to shooting a POS in WH space....yeah try that one solo or with just a few BS's. To those of you who say just shoot it down and profit.....this isn't all about abandoned POs's at moons in 0.0 it's about highsec and WH POS's also. The abandodned tower spam in highsec is rediculous but much easier to take care of as you simply group your corp together, dec the owning corp, and remove the tower. For WH this presents a problem because you begin using the MASS limits of the WH to bring in ships to remove the POS and then you can't get all you need through the WH to set yourself up. Again something should be done.
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.09.29 18:08:00 - [86] Originally by: Dana Jin Edited by: Dana Jin on 29/09/2009 15:48:35 I recently was trying to leave WH space and came across a CL-3 sytem that had over 14 towers in it. Only one of which was active. If CCP does nothing about this soon CL-3 and below WH space will run out of moons to anchor a POS at. Not sure what could be done there are many idieas out there and I support the hacking idea. SOMETHING needs to be done soon though. As to shooting a POS in WH space....yeah try that one solo or with just a few BS's. To those of you who say just shoot it down and profit.....this isn't all about abandoned POs's at moons in 0.0 it's about highsec and WH POS's also. The abandodned tower spam in highsec is rediculous but much easier to take care of as you simply group your corp together, dec the owning corp, and remove the tower. For WH this presents a problem because you begin using the MASS limits of the WH to bring in ships to remove the POS and then you can't get all you need through the WH to set yourself up. Again something should be done. OMG you ran over offline towers. in nullsec. hints: 1. offline towers dont cause attack mails. 2. nullsec. no GCC, nothing. 3. shoot the damn things. and you dont need much to kill an offline pos. 2-3 geddons, a prober alt (they want to get out again) and time. invest it or move on. i seriously get the feeling some people want to have the work done without getting dirty.
Namran	Posted - 2009.09.30 08:38:00 - [87] Have read all replies here. Well, 1 says - CSM already decided to approve this issue further in January as it is, i.e. votes for hacking. ok. 2 the only tough pos problem is one with wh space. Second comes extinct hisec corp that (judging by replies) cannot be wardecced. I'm against hacking which would result in gaining actual pos modules, at max the refinable derelict tower thing. Because it is better for pos market. I'd vote for introduction of any idea that would be deadly for an offline WH pos. Like attack by rats once POS goes offline, or just autoscrapping it in wh space. Whole idea is that it should be easier to get rid of abandoned stuff in places where this stuff is hard to get rid of atm, but it should NOT be easy to get billions from a new salvaging profession, while collapsing the POS market.
Dwight Thomas	Posted - 2009.10.21 09:59:00 - [88]
Qujulome	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:32:00 - [89] Edited by: Qujulome on 21/10/2009 12:32:26 Originally by: Gramtar Opposed to this idea: 1. Using offline POS to block moons in some systems is a great tactic for space holding alliances. For those unfamiliar with 0.0 POS warfare, it's done so that if hostiles attack, logistics personnel run around and quickly online them. They are most often anchored with a number of days of fuel and appropriate level of strontium. In very high moon count systems, anchoring even small POS at every moon becomes prohibitively expensive. In these cases, anchored large POS give the defending alliance an edge on attackers. If they can online towers before they are destroyed, it helps the defender's sov-claiming count. Note that all alliances are limited to anchoring 5 towers per day per system. There is no limit to how many POS you can online in a day. It should remain this way. Not every alliance has the income resources to maintain a good buffer of online POS due to fuel costs. Anchoring offline towers gives the little guys a chance against POS-spam, particularly in station systems with poor truesec which 0.0 is littered with. New sov mechanics make this no longer a valid argument.
Roland Octavious	Posted - 2009.10.21 16:23:00 - [90] Definitely against, there is already a mechanism in place to remove towers. shoot them. After reading through all of these posts, mostly I see people wanting an easy way to make a lot of isk for doing little. The only thing I would support would be the ability to blow up (via charges) abandoned towers provided they put in a mechanism to determine a tower is actually been abandoned, i.e. off line anchored in space for 3 months or more. Personally I think there are bigger issues CCP has to deal with then messing with something that already is functioning

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: 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.