These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Undockable ships and/or WH Space
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cpt Greagor
Liquid Relief
#1 - 2012-04-05 16:29:08 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
...if a ship can't be docked, much less some poor sap living in WH space, the least that could be allowed is have the ability to anchor a ship at a POS and lock it with a password for boarding.


Thoughts?

 - Today's Goals -  Log Into Forums - [X] Make More Useless Posts - [X] Log Into EVE - [  ]
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-04-05 16:32:18 UTC
Or log off in it while inside POS shields...

Dodixie > Hek
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#3 - 2012-04-05 16:33:25 UTC
Cpt Greagor wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
...if a ship can't be docked, much less some poor sap living in WH space, the least that could be allowed is have the ability to anchor a ship at a POS and lock it with a password for boarding.


Thoughts?


Anything that can exist within a wormhole can fit in a SMA.
And POS should be seeing a revamp in another year or so. Might see something for those super owners then.
Sharanelle
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2012-04-05 16:33:51 UTC
That still opens it up for corp theft. While that is a valid part of the sandbox, it seems realistic that you shouldn't have to leave your ship running with the keys in it.

...
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#5 - 2012-04-05 16:36:41 UTC
I like it.
Can't think of how many harbours I've been in, where the roadstead was full of anchored vessels, most without ony a bare minimum anchor watch on board. Some had been there literally for years (arcane insurance rules - makes it sometimes more profitable to let the ship ride at anchor than docking it up).

A POS with half a hundred vessels anchored aroudn it would *look* like a proper harbor to me.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#6 - 2012-04-05 16:39:11 UTC
I thought about this a while ago and this is what I came up with. What do ya think?

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Selinate
#7 - 2012-04-05 16:39:24 UTC
I would rather see them change POS mechanics as a whole than see them do something like this...
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#8 - 2012-04-05 16:39:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Roll Sizzle Beef
Sharanelle wrote:
While that is a valid part of the sandbox, it seems realistic that you shouldn't have to leave your ship running with the keys in it.


Semi-related note. It seems odd that large ships that still require a few hundred extra people to man it would just let some capsular stranger plug in and take them for a joyride.
I could see BS and larger requiring a security code to jump into like within SMAs.
Random abandoned ships cruiser and higher in space should be shot down to hull to kill most existing crew unless blued by previous owner.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#9 - 2012-04-05 16:43:11 UTC  |  Edited by: silens vesica
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:

Semi-related note. It seems odd that large ships that still require a few hundred extra people to man it would just let some capsular stranger plug in and take them for a joyride.
Do they have a choice? I can't see a capsuleer allowing the organic maintenance drones any way to mutiny by preventing pod docking or undokcing. and once a pod is in place, the dude inside has full control over the very systems that keep them alive.

Must be a pretty miserable life - disposable, ignorable, and forced to work for what amounts to a sociopath that doesn't care if you live or die - only hope is to work like mad so the ship has some minor chance of not blowing up due to maintenance failure.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#10 - 2012-04-05 16:45:54 UTC
Selinate wrote:
I would rather see them change POS mechanics as a whole than see them do something like this...

Why? Seriously - what is your reasoning?

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#11 - 2012-04-05 16:48:48 UTC
Gogela wrote:
I thought about this a while ago and this is what I came up with. What do ya think?

+1 from this former sailor.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Adunh Slavy
#12 - 2012-04-05 16:58:55 UTC
Cpt Greagor wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
...if a ship can't be docked, much less some poor sap living in WH space, the least that could be allowed is have the ability to anchor a ship at a POS and lock it with a password for boarding.


Thoughts?



Sounds like a good idea to me /signed

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#13 - 2012-04-05 17:17:22 UTC  |  Edited by: silens vesica
Gogela wrote:
I thought about this a while ago and this is what I came up with. What do ya think?

This is how the Navy did / does it:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/03/09031710.jpg
The large vessel is a tender (think 'mobile base & logistics support vessel'). The technique of stacking the destroyers alongside the tender and at the finger piers is called 'Nesting.'


http://www.navsource.org/archives/14/140982602.jpg
This image shows the USS Dixon (AS-37) with her nesting booms fully extended - those booms support the lines, hoses, and cables that supply hotel services to submarines nested alongside, such as electrical power, fresh water, CHT, and communications links. You can also see a boat about to be nested alongside one already at the pier.

Appropriately enough, the Dixon was designed to support an entire squadron of submarines, and could nest as many as six alongside simultaneously, though four at a time was more common.


http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/36/09363705.jpg
Here is the Dixon again, with four boats alongside, and you can see the booms in use.



Gogela's idea is not only historical and practically valid, but also should be relatively simple to code into the game.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#14 - 2012-04-05 17:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Xercodo
silens vesica wrote:
Selinate wrote:
I would rather see them change POS mechanics as a whole than see them do something like this...

Why? Seriously - what is your reasoning?


Be cause this isn't the only problem POSes have. Ya know the whole SMA thing mentioned above? You can only fit one cap per SMA cause they're so damn big. And the most annoying part is that they're just big enough to take up over 50% of the SMA so you cant fit two of them. So unless you have a bunch of subcaps to fill the gap you have a lot of wasted space and it means you essentially need a whole SMA for every cap ship your fleet has.

There's also the corp hanger issue.

Point being, there are several things about POSes that need to be fixed, instead of band-aiding them with a solution for "anchored ship" why not revamp the whole system altogether with this problem in mind to be solved in the process?

The Drake is a Lie
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#15 - 2012-04-05 17:46:40 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Cpt Greagor wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
...if a ship can't be docked, much less some poor sap living in WH space, the least that could be allowed is have the ability to anchor a ship at a POS and lock it with a password for boarding.


Thoughts?


Anything that can exist within a wormhole can fit in a SMA.
And POS should be seeing a revamp in another year or so. Might see something for those super owners then.



A place to park those Super Coffins? What an idea! Shocked


Signature removed - CCP Eterne
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#16 - 2012-04-05 17:52:25 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Selinate wrote:
I would rather see them change POS mechanics as a whole than see them do something like this...

Why? Seriously - what is your reasoning?


Be cause this isn't the only problem POSes have. Ya know the whole SAM thing mentioned above? You can only fit one cap per SMA cause they're so damn big. And the most annoying part is that they're just big enough to take up over 50% of the SMA so you cant fit two of them. So unless you have a bunch of subcaps to fill the gap you have a lot of wasted space and it means you essentially need a whole SMA for every cap ship your fleet has.

There's also the corp hanger issue.

Point being, there are several things about POSes that need to be fixed, instead of band-aiding them with a solution for "anchored ship" why not revamp the whole system altogether with this problem in mind to be solved in the process?
OK, fair enough.

OTOH, the things you want fixed, taken together, are a fair amount of work. Why not a bandaid whilst they're working on making the other fixes in a proper development cycle? For that matter, even with the fixes you want made, mooring still has a valid place, IMO.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#17 - 2012-04-05 20:34:47 UTC
silens vesica wrote:

OTOH, the things you want fixed, taken together, are a fair amount of work. Why not a bandaid whilst they're working on making the other fixes in a proper development cycle? For that matter, even with the fixes you want made, mooring still has a valid place, IMO.


The mechanics of making ships anchorable seems greater than a bandaid. Same reason t3 outfitting wasn't bandaided, messed with too much core stuff.

Infact, swapping out t3 subs in a hole seems a lot more necessary than anchoring a cap in a hole. Then in nul, supers and titans are of course very important to them. Yet people have gotten by this long without such fixes, they can survive while the whole system is fixed for everyone.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#18 - 2012-04-05 20:44:22 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
silens vesica wrote:

OTOH, the things you want fixed, taken together, are a fair amount of work. Why not a bandaid whilst they're working on making the other fixes in a proper development cycle? For that matter, even with the fixes you want made, mooring still has a valid place, IMO.


The mechanics of making ships anchorable seems greater than a bandaid. Same reason t3 outfitting wasn't bandaided, messed with too much core stuff.

Infact, swapping out t3 subs in a hole seems a lot more necessary than anchoring a cap in a hole. Then in nul, supers and titans are of course very important to them. Yet people have gotten by this long without such fixes, they can survive while the whole system is fixed for everyone.

Fair point.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group
#19 - 2012-04-05 20:52:31 UTC
Go play WoW... if you are so worried about losing it don't fly it...
Farang Lo
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-04-05 22:08:31 UTC
supersexysucker wrote:
Go play WoW... if you are so worried about losing it don't fly it...

there's difference between losing ships in pvp and losing ships to corp thief. stupid hisec bears