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)
Tusko Hopkins	Posted - 2008.12.04 15:38:00 - [1] I am planning to raise this, please discuss. Idea is to allow strangers to unanchor them if they are really-really abandoned. Like havent been fed for a long time. Original thread (auto-closed by tech2 forum software) CSM representative CSM candidate for 2nd cycle Campaign website http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
Drake Draconis Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.12.04 17:21:00 - [2] Either that or make them easily destroyed after a certain time period... or have them self destruct.... : O P
Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.12.04 23:31:00 - [3] 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. ___________________ Yes I'm bitter. (the taste you can see!)
evilphoenix Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.12.04 23:51:00 - [4] Edited by: evilphoenix on 04/12/2008 23:55:55 Allow the mods to be unanchored! So they can start a new life with a more responsible owner! Something, that would allow the lucky person(s) to profit for finding unattended POSs, and not force them to spend a long time shooting at it. --------
Asuri Kinnes Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2008.12.05 00:30:00 - [5] Edited by: Asuri Kinnes on 05/12/2008 00:32:22 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. Hacking abandoned towers is probably the BEST idea I've seen recently. That is just so cool! Something needs to be done with abandoned towers, taking up valuable real estate! Let me put a little more behind this idea - Many of my friends (corpie and non-corpie) have been discussing abandonded towers as money making opportunities. This idea needs some seriouis support! :) AK Honor is that which you do when no one else is looking. Ethics, Honor and Respect. Without the first two, you can't buy the last one...
FunzzeR Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.12.05 04:55:00 - [6] Supported
Kordel Trask	Posted - 2008.12.05 21:39:00 - [7] Supported also
InfamousOne Chaos Coalition Chaotic Evolution	Posted - 2008.12.05 21:42:00 - [8] I like the hacking of the towers idea, could add a really nice aspect to EVE salvaging operations :-)
GulletSplitter Maasai Tribal Products Independent Faction	Posted - 2008.12.05 22:43:00 - [9] supported
Lyvanna Kitaen Noonday Sun Corp	Posted - 2008.12.05 23:12:00 - [10] I too would love to be able to hack abandoned POS's
Nnamuachs Caldari Kiith Paktu Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.12.06 07:09:00 - [11] 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.
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.12.06 12:00:00 - [12] 1. wardec owner 2. destroy control tower 3. loot modules 4. ???? 5. profit Quote: It's not a good idea to place a Exotic Dancers in a Giant Secure Container. The Exotic Dancers will not survive intact, if transported in such a container.
DEATHsyphon 8lack Wing Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.12.07 05:20:00 - [13] Edited by: DEATHsyphon on 07/12/2008 05:21:18 Here's my Idea for Abandoned POS's The ability to "Assume control" of an abandoned POS. The only stipulation you would need would be something like control tower has to be unfueled for over a week before you are able to assume control and do with it as you please. So basically the hacking thing people are talking about. -------------------- I'm not not going to pod you!
Epegi Givo Ministry of War	Posted - 2008.12.07 05:41:00 - [14] Full Support ------------------------------------- Originally by: Karrade Krise Originally by: Epegi Givo This is my sig, or is it? Now the only thing I can think of are Yard Gnome Ninjas...
Asuri Kinnes Caldari Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2008.12.07 16:53:00 - [15] /bump - This is a fantastic idea, and makes sense "in-game" as well... That is a lot of Isk just "laying around" out there :) AK Honor is that which you do when no one else is looking. Ethics, Honor and Respect. Without the first two, you can't buy the last one...
Ackuula	Posted - 2008.12.08 18:05:00 - [16] hack and salvage is a great idea
Hun Jakuza Naughty By Nature	Posted - 2009.01.06 16:34:00 - [17] Not supported, that the work of players like that ruin, who do not stay in the game because of RL
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.01.06 16:42:00 - [18] there are already mechanics in place to remove said pos's from the game why not use them you dumb ass
Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic	Posted - 2009.01.06 16:46:00 - [19] Supported - hack or destroy and salvage! ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic
Hun Jakuza Naughty By Nature	Posted - 2009.01.06 16:51:00 - [20] Originally by: Sally Bestonge there are already mechanics in place to remove said pos's from the game why not use them you dumb ass And when he come back to play from holyday, he lost the personal property, when you stealth, because you dont like working.
Neesa Corrinne Ore Mongers	Posted - 2009.01.06 17:27:00 - [21] 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. A big thumbs up for THIS idea. Hacking an offline tower or demolishing it with rigged charges... brilliant! ---------------------------------
Apple Boy Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.01.06 17:51:00 - [22] Originally by: Hun Jakuza Not supported, that the work of players like that ruin, who do not stay in the game because of RL then take down your tower or have someone else keep it fueled. If a tower isn't fed it should become vulnerable to be taken over or the mods stolen or something.
Fitz VonHeise The New Order.	Posted - 2009.01.06 20:21:00 - [23] I do not support this idea unless the "long time" is over three months. I currently have a POS that someone wanted to randsom it. I took everything off and now the POS sits waiting for me to unanchor when they get tired of watching. That can take a long time.
Bobroglaz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.01.09 17:21:00 - [24]
Tusko Hopkins	Posted - 2009.01.09 18:57:00 - [25] "Unanchoring abandoned, offline POSses" issue was raised by me and discussed on CSM2 Meeting 5 last Saturday. It passed, was escalated, it is on our agenda for the CCP/CSM meeting middle January. Related meeting minutes
Trebor Notlimah Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici	Posted - 2009.02.12 01:47:00 - [26] Is there an update on this?
Marlona Sky Caldari Astroglide X	Posted - 2009.02.12 08:38:00 - [27] War dec the corp!!!! Are you that lazy??
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.02.12 11:34:00 - [28] Clicking my support into this. Should be a tie in to the salvaging/hacking profession really! One client: Three Screens!
Trebor Notlimah Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici	Posted - 2009.02.12 17:25:00 - [29] Originally by: Marlona Sky War dec the corp!!!! Are you that lazy?? Thank you for being so short sighted. #1. Opens up a new mini-profession #2. Removes another time-sink from the game. #3. Frees up availiable moon minerals. #4. Makes people really care for their POS's a little more. While yes, you could war dec the corp & spend hours on an abandoned tower -- or you can use your capital fleet in 0.0 The point is that the mechanic doesn't make sense, the towers been abandoned for years(?), it should unanchor.
Xenalee	Posted - 2009.02.12 22:05:00 - [30] Need for speed and all, look after your junk or let someone else do it for you. If it helps cut down on database strain, all the better.
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
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
Lusty Wench	Posted - 2009.12.19 08:32:00 - [91] Bump...WTB salavageable POS towers
Omega Flames Last Resort Inn SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE	Posted - 2009.12.19 11:55:00 - [92]
BlondieBC Galactic Exploration and Missions	Posted - 2009.12.19 23:42:00 - [93] Good idea,
Mike Azariah	Posted - 2009.12.28 07:46:00 - [94] No. There is a corp which specializes in the removal of offline POS's. Hire them. Or join them Concord preservation and recovery CPR There is an ingame solution, we do not need to add another. mike
Cyprus Black Cowboy Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.12.28 21:41:00 - [95] Edited by: Cyprus Black on 28/12/2009 21:40:50 I like the concept, but I'd prefer at least seven days to be fair to the owners. I come across abandoned POS's all the time while exploring wormholes. I can't do anything to or with them. I can't destroy them because even in offline status without any fuel left, they're still hella difficult to kill. The vast majority of the time whenever I contact the owner, they're too lazy to go pick it up. They'd prefer to write it off as a 100% loss instead of paying a small locators fee. POS's that run out of fuel should auto unanchor in seven days. ___________________________________ "In the land of predators, the lion does not fear the jackal." -Dexter

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.