These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

tower's in high sec
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
the jury
SPANK THE MONKEY
Pain And Compliance
#1 - 2014-06-01 11:02:53 UTC
Offline tower in high sec has been a problem for a while now ,weather it be in backwater systems or near popular hubs. most offline towers are owned by corporations who have went on long term leave from the game . The rest of the offline towers are owned by corporations who don't have the standings to put it back up if they take it down and by corporations who are trying to sell locations for isk near trade hubs.
With changes coming to corp standings/anchoring pos's in high sec their is no reason for a active corp to have a offline tower in space. with four great empires of eve now going to let corp's put towers up in their space without standings do we not think player corporations must still have to pay in some way for offline towers.
My ideal is that even if the tower is offline it still need's starbase charters and will continue to use 1 per hour ,call in it empire space rent Lol. If it run's out of starbase charters it will become suspect until which time the corp that own's the tower puts more starbase charters in it then a timer will start on the tower 15 minutes after the 15 minutes is up the tower's suspect timer will drop.

1< this ideal will make corporation's watch their high sec space asset's more carefully
2< will get rid of the offline towers owned by corp's who are on long term leave and free up the moon's for corp's who want to put a tower up without having to war dec the corp who owns the offline tower.
3< the players selling tower location's near trade hub's will have to pay a little isk while selling moon location.

now starbase charters don't cost a lot of isk and eve player's do purchase them with LP.s.
it's just an ideal how to add another aspect to life in high sec .
Velicitia
XS Tech
#2 - 2014-06-01 11:39:58 UTC
CCP's already got something in the works, hinted for either for late summer or sometime thereafter (though before this release cycle ends).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-06-01 11:56:55 UTC
Just make towers attack-able like mobile structures are right now. This would be a 2 fold benefit, 1 It wold get rid of offline towers. 2 it would make players start defending there high sec towers and not just use them as uber-safe research/manufacturing stations.
Of course all towers would need a Power-grid buff to compensate.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-06-01 12:13:45 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Just make towers attack-able like mobile structures are right now. This would be a 2 fold benefit, 1 It wold get rid of offline towers. 2 it would make players start defending there high sec towers and not just use them as uber-safe research/manufacturing stations.
Of course all towers would need a Power-grid buff to compensate.


Mobile structures are player assets, attack them and you go suspect. Towers are corp assets and should always need a wardec to attack if the tower is online and chartered. Even offline and chartered you should have to wardec as it is a legally allowed structure. However without being online the tower should have no shields and should take continuous damage from space debris.
Chick Sauce
Doomheim
#5 - 2014-06-01 12:39:35 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Just make towers attack-able like mobile structures are right now. This would be a 2 fold benefit, 1 It wold get rid of offline towers. 2 it would make players start defending there high sec towers and not just use them as uber-safe research/manufacturing stations.
Of course all towers would need a Power-grid buff to compensate.


Mobile structures are player assets, attack them and you go suspect. Towers are corp assets and should always need a wardec to attack if the tower is online and chartered. Even offline and chartered you should have to wardec as it is a legally allowed structure. However without being online the tower should have no shields and should take continuous damage from space debris.

Not sure how those charters work, but if someone disappears from the game for 2 years and their POS still cannot be removed without a wardec, then however they work is broken.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-06-01 13:10:19 UTC
Chick Sauce wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Just make towers attack-able like mobile structures are right now. This would be a 2 fold benefit, 1 It wold get rid of offline towers. 2 it would make players start defending there high sec towers and not just use them as uber-safe research/manufacturing stations.
Of course all towers would need a Power-grid buff to compensate.


Mobile structures are player assets, attack them and you go suspect. Towers are corp assets and should always need a wardec to attack if the tower is online and chartered. Even offline and chartered you should have to wardec as it is a legally allowed structure. However without being online the tower should have no shields and should take continuous damage from space debris.

Not sure how those charters work, but if someone disappears from the game for 2 years and their POS still cannot be removed without a wardec, then however they work is broken.


If they disappeared for two years then under my proposal the tower would be without shields immediately that fuel ran out then the armour and hull would be eaten away by space debris until the tower disintegrated in orbit within whatever timeframe was deemed appropriate by CCP (2 weeks to a month would be my choice). Charters would make no difference to in orbit damage, they just make the anchoring of the station legal and therefore requiring a wardec to attack without being set to criminal.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2014-06-01 14:14:42 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Chick Sauce wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Just make towers attack-able like mobile structures are right now. This would be a 2 fold benefit, 1 It wold get rid of offline towers. 2 it would make players start defending there high sec towers and not just use them as uber-safe research/manufacturing stations.
Of course all towers would need a Power-grid buff to compensate.


Mobile structures are player assets, attack them and you go suspect. Towers are corp assets and should always need a wardec to attack if the tower is online and chartered. Even offline and chartered you should have to wardec as it is a legally allowed structure. However without being online the tower should have no shields and should take continuous damage from space debris.

Not sure how those charters work, but if someone disappears from the game for 2 years and their POS still cannot be removed without a wardec, then however they work is broken.


If they disappeared for two years then under my proposal the tower would be without shields immediately that fuel ran out then the armour and hull would be eaten away by space debris until the tower disintegrated in orbit within whatever timeframe was deemed appropriate by CCP (2 weeks to a month would be my choice).

That sparks 0 player interaction.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-06-01 14:35:07 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


If they disappeared for two years then under my proposal the tower would be without shields immediately that fuel ran out then the armour and hull would be eaten away by space debris until the tower disintegrated in orbit within whatever timeframe was deemed appropriate by CCP (2 weeks to a month would be my choice).

That sparks 0 player interaction.


Then leave it as requiring a wardec. Such an expensive target as a tower should not be attacked without a wardec whilst it is a legally chartered entity. Once charters are gone however it's a different matter, and the shields gone/armour and hull damage should be a given for unfuelled towers just sat in space anyway I think.

Besides...there would probably be a queue of players wanting the kill mail for the tower as the armour and hull tick down...
Sigras
Conglomo
#9 - 2014-06-02 10:51:50 UTC
I dont understand... whats the problem with war deccing the corp and taking the tower down yourself?

Is everyone really that afraid of PvP? If so you could even pay mercenaries to take the tower down for you...

I really dont understand everyone's issue with the mechanics that are currently in place to take out towers... you're potentially costing the opposing corp 300+ million ISK, and you want that to happen to them automatically for free?
Velicitia
XS Tech
#10 - 2014-06-02 11:13:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Sigras wrote:
I dont understand... whats the problem with war deccing the corp and taking the tower down yourself?

Is everyone really that afraid of PvP? If so you could even pay mercenaries to take the tower down for you...

I really dont understand everyone's issue with the mechanics that are currently in place to take out towers... you're potentially costing the opposing corp 300+ million ISK, and you want that to happen to them automatically for free?


really, it's apparently the ~effort~ thing coupled with "but we're industrialists, and pvp is bad"

i would like to see it made easier for abandoned towers, just because there's not even a chance for a fight (note -- shooting shouldn't be removed ... but it does suck having to grind down millions of shield HP from a tower that's been abandoned for months or years).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#11 - 2014-06-02 11:30:46 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I dont understand... whats the problem with war deccing the corp and taking the tower down yourself?

Is everyone really that afraid of PvP? If so you could even pay mercenaries to take the tower down for you...

I really dont understand everyone's issue with the mechanics that are currently in place to take out towers... you're potentially costing the opposing corp 300+ million ISK, and you want that to happen to them automatically for free?

If opposing corp does not care about their towers, they should lose that immediately. If you leave ship in space, someone else can hop in and fly it for free without any problems.
Sigras
Conglomo
#12 - 2014-06-02 11:52:40 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
Sigras wrote:
I dont understand... whats the problem with war deccing the corp and taking the tower down yourself?

Is everyone really that afraid of PvP? If so you could even pay mercenaries to take the tower down for you...

I really dont understand everyone's issue with the mechanics that are currently in place to take out towers... you're potentially costing the opposing corp 300+ million ISK, and you want that to happen to them automatically for free?

If opposing corp does not care about their towers, they should lose that immediately. If you leave ship in space, someone else can hop in and fly it for free without any problems.

I could turn that around on you, if you dont care enough about the moon to fight me over it, you dont get it for free. Clearly the corp cares enough to put a 300 million ISK asset in space, thats their "risk" in order for you to take it away you need to "risk" a war dec, you dont just get it for no effort.
Absinyth
Next-Gen Development
Kronan Citizens
#13 - 2014-06-06 19:37:34 UTC
If you want to attack a Tower all you need to do is War Dec that corporation who owns it. Then you can freely shoot that tower all day long. Problem solved.