These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Abandoned Towers just about every WH I've visited.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#21 - 2012-08-02 09:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
The only good solution is to separate forcefield and tower shields. Force field should have its own hit points,and will disappear when the tower is offline. Thus, offlline tower would only have its own shields, wich should be rather feeble, if any.

Sola Mercury is right, towers shouldn't be re-claimable.

Edit:
Or, if you like the hacking idea - annihilate shields by using hacking device to offline tower.
Ashimat
Clandestine Services
#22 - 2012-08-02 09:39:26 UTC
Messoroz wrote:
Ashimat wrote:
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Offline towers should be easier to destroy. No shields when it's offline.

Better yet, make offline POSes hackable. Successful hacking converts them to your corp and you can use them or unanchor and sell.

This.

All the derelict towers also take away from the Illusion of emptiness and unexplored vast space that I think w-space brought.


Roleplay forum is that way ->

Lol, you think suspension of disbelief is the same thing as role play?

Got blog: http://thecloakedones.blogspot.com
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-08-02 10:45:58 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Offline towers should be easier to destroy. No shields when it's offline.

Better yet, make offline POSes hackable. Successful hacking converts them to your corp and you can use them or unanchor and sell.


I support that, would be awesome.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Malception
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-08-02 14:45:38 UTC
Roime wrote:
CCP Soundwave mentioned in an interview few months back that they are aware of this, and are thinking of ways to do something about them.

I'd personally like to see abandoned towers to be hackable after some time of inactivity, month or three? With l337 hacking skills you could then unanchor them. The owner could "touch" the inactive tower to reset the inactivity timer, to prevent purposefully inactive tower to be stolen.



I think touching an offlined tower to prevent its being hacked is a bad idea. Offline towers are, or ought to be if they aren't already, lifeless structures orbiting a moon in a slowly decaying orbit. Preventing their hacking/stealing/looting should be done by keeping the old girl online via the standard method. Physical access to an offlined POS should grant the accessor hacking capability provided hacking modules are being used.

Protip: Physical access = popped.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-08-02 14:57:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
Roime wrote:
CCP Soundwave mentioned in an interview few months back that they are aware of this, and are thinking of ways to do something about them.

I'd personally like to see abandoned towers to be hackable after some time of inactivity, month or three? With l337 hacking skills you could then unanchor them. The owner could "touch" the inactive tower to reset the inactivity timer, to prevent purposefully inactive tower to be stolen.



why only after am month or so? to my mind, if you run out of fuel blocks, you're fair game.

edit: i'm already looking forward to my new profession: Prowler POS scavenger

I should buy an Ishtar.
Doc Hollidai
V0LTA
New Eden Alliance 99013733
#26 - 2012-08-02 15:57:22 UTC
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#27 - 2012-08-02 15:58:43 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Offline towers should be easier to destroy. No shields when it's offline.

Better yet, make offline POSes hackable. Successful hacking converts them to your corp and you can use them or unanchor and sell.



This.

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#28 - 2012-08-02 16:21:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
energypills wrote:
Not sure I get what you mean. By real? And..what would disappear? The tower? I'm not suggesting it disappear. I AM suggesting it be removable by anyone. Perhaps after a certain time. The fact that it can't be unanchored by anyone else isn't real to me at all - how does that make sense?

Darth Bri wrote:
I love anything that makes things seem "real" (as real as space life could be)

And disappearing items for no reason does not seem "real" to me.

Like in other MMOs where items placed on the ground disappear after minutes


As far as realistic goes. I would think that being able salvage/recover an abandoned tower makes way more sense than it being a permanent abandoned structure with full shield and armor HP forever, with no fuel and no power available.

An abandoned tower should degrade with time, i.e. shields and then armor and finally structure gradually decay until it just falls apart after a few years. After it has been abandoned for a set amount of time (1-3 months seem a common suggestion) any player coming upon it should be able to unanchore and scoop it (possibly thru use of hacking modules). After an additional time period it should be degraded enough that it can no longer be scooped, but can only be salvaged for scrap metal or some components, with the potential salvage value reducing the longer it sits there. After a year or more it has degraded to the point its structural integrity fails and it falls apart and disappears from grid. This would seem much more realistic and fitting to the lore. How many abandoned derelict stations do we see in DED sites and missions? These do not just sitting there waiting for fuel and to be put online. They are falling apart, merely decaying shells of what they once were.

On a side note. As many other have said repeatedly.Why do towers with no fuel/power still have full shields? shields should drain slowly over several days once the tower goes offline. i think this would be a good compromise from them being instantly vulnerable if you are a few hours late delivering fuel.
energypills
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-08-02 17:15:49 UTC  |  Edited by: energypills
Jack Miton wrote:
There is no issue with offline POSs as they are now.
They don't cause any problem and there are legit reasons for having an offline tower in a system.


Legit reasons to who? You can board an empty ship in space, why can't you take a tower or at least unanchor it.
It makes sense to me that you should be able to at the very least unanchor it. I guess the problem I am seeing that they do cause is holding the moon without anyone there to defend it. Wormholes are labeled "unclaimable" - they shouldn't be able to claim that moon with a hunk of junk not being used or defended regardless if they have 4-5 active poses in that system.

Just because they have active/shielded POSes in a Wormhole doesn't have any logical reason
to merit a defenseless POS unachorable. I don't understand why they can just leave it there and make it more difficult for another corp to erect a POS. They aren't there to defend it. I don't care if it isn't re-claimable unless they can unanchor it and reanchor it if they have the skill for it. - Hell they might as well make it hackable to take ownership if the shield is down and left for too long.

Perhaps even an email can be sent to the POS corp that someone is attempting to hack/unanchor the moon 6-12 pos (for example). Or being attacked but that should be the end of it.

Be nice to know if CCP has read this thread and or is bringing any suggestions up.
Zicon Shak'ra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-08-02 18:25:29 UTC
Messoroz wrote:
Ashimat wrote:
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Offline towers should be easier to destroy. No shields when it's offline.

Better yet, make offline POSes hackable. Successful hacking converts them to your corp and you can use them or unanchor and sell.

This.

All the derelict towers also take away from the Illusion of emptiness and unexplored vast space that I think w-space brought.


Roleplay forum is that way ->


Assholes forum is that way ->

Note: I'm not an RPer, but it's not like this person is running around yelling "AMARR VICTOR". It's true that wormholes are designed to feel dangerous, empty, and unexplored. Would wormholes be fun if there were stations and stargates? No. That's why they exist. Go troll somewhere else please, we don't want your kind here (which is sad, because I was super excited when VoC won ATX).

Wormholes are cool, m'kay?
Mr IX
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-08-02 21:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr IX
Howabout hacking a offline POS that has been unfueled and offline for 2 weeks or longer with High hacking skill and ANCHORING skill.

You need to hack said tower by anchoring a character owned (and therefore corp) device that reprograms the ownership directives of the Tower. The time to hack said tower is 1 week and the can is invulnerable to damage unless the tower is blown up, then the hacking can which is anchored can then be blown up.

The original owner of the tower can come along at any time in that week and refule the tower online it and then the hacking device is then taken over by the tower owner as the POS computer once online is stronger than ther hacking can. The owner of the tower unanchors the hackng can and makes off with the goods and sells for isk.

After the week is done the tower now belongs to the corp of the character that placed the hacking can. The can can be used once and then becomes a storage hanger as the electronics are burnt out.

The can is ias big as a storage array, and requires the same cargo space to move it about.

To make this more risk instead of free isk for anyone coming along, make the cans come in several sizes 75 mil for small, 150 for med and 200 mil for large tower hacking devices. Faction towers will require a more advanced type of tower hacking available only through the pirate faction bases.

*edit*
this could work in empire low sec w-space and null sec.

Problem solved!! Problem Staying solved!!


CCP you can hire me any time to do work for you on this.
Malception
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-08-02 21:10:43 UTC
^^^ remove POSes from wspace before this.
Mr IX
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-08-02 21:16:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr IX
the owner would get an email every hour during the time so they KNOW it is happening. The cost of the module is close to that of the original tower to start with so it is recycling in space. Without having to ask a dev via petitions to poof a afk tower, and adds to the total sandbox concept in eve.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#34 - 2012-08-02 21:40:10 UTC
Malception wrote:
Roime wrote:
CCP Soundwave mentioned in an interview few months back that they are aware of this, and are thinking of ways to do something about them.

I'd personally like to see abandoned towers to be hackable after some time of inactivity, month or three? With l337 hacking skills you could then unanchor them. The owner could "touch" the inactive tower to reset the inactivity timer, to prevent purposefully inactive tower to be stolen.



I think touching an offlined tower to prevent its being hacked is a bad idea. Offline towers are, or ought to be if they aren't already, lifeless structures orbiting a moon in a slowly decaying orbit. Preventing their hacking/stealing/looting should be done by keeping the old girl online via the standard method. Physical access to an offlined POS should grant the accessor hacking capability provided hacking modules are being used.

Protip: Physical access = popped.


^ This. Offline = no power. No power = no defenses. No defenses = hacked or plant charges on it and walk away, letting it blow.

If you want to keep your POS, keep it powered. If you don't, it gives explorers another fun thing to do with all their hacking toys. Towers should also be easier to destroy by far if they have no powered active defenses going as well.

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#35 - 2012-08-02 21:50:16 UTC
having seen six billion isk worth of unfueled POS and mods floating in w-space more than once, I fully support the idea of *something* that would allow players to take over abandoned structures. My favorite proposal is one that suggested an anchorable device that spent 48-72 hours transferring ownership of the POS. They could defend their POS by fueling it, causing the "hack" to fail, dismantling it, or destroying the attacking device.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
energypills
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2012-08-02 21:58:52 UTC  |  Edited by: energypills
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Malception wrote:
Roime wrote:
CCP Soundwave mentioned in an interview few months back that they are aware of this, and are thinking of ways to do something about them.

I'd personally like to see abandoned towers to be hackable after some time of inactivity, month or three? With l337 hacking skills you could then unanchor them. The owner could "touch" the inactive tower to reset the inactivity timer, to prevent purposefully inactive tower to be stolen.



I think touching an offlined tower to prevent its being hacked is a bad idea. Offline towers are, or ought to be if they aren't already, lifeless structures orbiting a moon in a slowly decaying orbit. Preventing their hacking/stealing/looting should be done by keeping the old girl online via the standard method. Physical access to an offlined POS should grant the accessor hacking capability provided hacking modules are being used.

Protip: Physical access = popped.


^ This. Offline = no power. No power = no defenses. No defenses = hacked or plant charges on it and walk away, letting it blow.

If you want to keep your POS, keep it powered. If you don't, it gives explorers another fun thing to do with all their hacking toys. Towers should also be easier to destroy by far if they have no powered active defenses going as well.


Perhaps. This hacking job leave it go and see it they never come to unanchor the hack box idea isn't bad but could be a bit too complicated. Than say just being able to unanchor a unpowered pos and re-anchor it in your own name.

If the hacking idea came into play and the owner gets an email every hour - so what. usually they aren't even in the WH and have just left it there. Ods of them finding that worm hole again - nada (if it is empty). But the wait for the hack can/box to finish would be too long for one to wait around for in a worm hole. This needs to be an immediate option so WH lurkers that just want to see whats going on don't have to see an undefended POS and say 'crap too bad i can't do anything to that unpowered, undefended contraption that could make me some quick ISK!).

I would hope that the main concern from CCP would be is that it is taking up a moon that someone else may want to use and it should be fair game. Period.

And on the flip side. Think of it this way. If that tower belongs to you/corp/alliance - it could also be used as a baiting tactic. I wouldn't doubt some corps already use POS for that reason anyway - but when all you can do is shoot it - who has time? it is hardware that can/should be taken and sold/used.

Hell a simple time limit to where it just woud disappear would be at least something.
Svodola Darkfury
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-08-03 00:29:30 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
There is no issue with offline POSs as they are now.
They don't cause any problem and there are legit reasons for having an offline tower in a system.



Read as: "This works in my favor, so I have no complaints about it."

The legit reasons for having an offline tower in system:

1. Moon blocking; keep people from dropping surprises towers on you.
2. Having a backup base in system.
3. Left behind because you didn't feel like hauling it out.

#3 is the problem; you're talking about abandoned large towers that take hours for small-medium corps to burn. POS bashing isn't supposed to be quick, but when it's a derelict tower that's been offline for 6 months I'm surprised the integrity of the shield and structure is so good...

I use moon blocking now because I'm in a small enough system to do it, but it really is sort of a stupid solution.

Svo.

Director of Frozen Corpse Industries.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#38 - 2012-08-03 01:51:29 UTC
Svodola Darkfury wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
There is no issue with offline POSs as they are now.
They don't cause any problem and there are legit reasons for having an offline tower in a system.



Read as: "This works in my favor, so I have no complaints about it."

The legit reasons for having an offline tower in system:

1. Moon blocking; keep people from dropping surprises towers on you.
2. Having a backup base in system.
3. Left behind because you didn't feel like hauling it out.

#3 is the problem; you're talking about abandoned large towers that take hours for small-medium corps to burn. POS bashing isn't supposed to be quick, but when it's a derelict tower that's been offline for 6 months I'm surprised the integrity of the shield and structure is so good...

I use moon blocking now because I'm in a small enough system to do it, but it really is sort of a stupid solution.

Svo.



Very strong points. I also think most of the self proclaimed 'pirates' in game would love the option to be able to disable / remove POS's that were not powered up. In WH, low sec, 0.0, etc.
I think you could or should get a notice when your tower is removed or hacked, but it really should be an available option. Some great ideas.

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-08-03 05:31:58 UTC
Upgrade the sleeper ai so they randomly attack towers. If they encounter resistance they back off for a time, if they don't then the attacks escalate in intensity until they destroy the tower. Another option is they take over the tower and it becomes a site that can be run like any other in a given class of wormhole.

Then maybe the same thing could be applied to rats in nullsec to make keeping sov a bit more interesting. Have to keep the local npc pirates beat down otherwise they get drunk and start looting and pillaging pos's, ihubs and tcu's.
Gage Tsero
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-08-03 10:02:20 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:

Better yet, make offline POSes hackable. Successful hacking converts them to your corp and you can use them or unanchor and sell.


+1