These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

POS self destruction

Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#1 - 2012-09-17 07:31:15 UTC
subject says it, the ability to self destruct a POS as the owner of said POS from anywhere, this way POS that is litter can be removed if unwanted by owner I know I wish I could have destructed mine left in a WH instead of getting my starbase is under attack notices.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-09-17 07:43:41 UTC
How do you see this idea actually working, being used and governed? Saying something should be implemented because you're lazy and don't like to get mails, doesn't exactly build confidence towards your suggestion.
Empress BJ
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd.
#3 - 2012-09-17 07:49:38 UTC
So now somebody infiltrates your corp and then sets self destruct

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on these forums....

~E~
Sin Pew
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-09-17 08:00:07 UTC
But... shooting a derelict POS to send emails to the owner every day is fun.

[i]"haiku are easy, But sometimes they don't make sense, Refrigerator."[/i]
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#5 - 2012-09-17 08:18:15 UTC
It'd be funny if someone self destructed a large faction tower.

Why would you bother taking down a small tower when you can self destruct it, they only cost 80m. I always like throwing away 80mil for no good reason.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#6 - 2012-09-17 09:10:20 UTC
boy skimming through is not the same as reading through...OWNER, not POS fueler, or corp flunky, POS owner, then maybe there wouldnt be so many littered moons IN WH that someone may not be able to access anymore or haven't ownership of.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#7 - 2012-09-17 09:12:01 UTC
ever here of a ninja POS, sheesh.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#8 - 2012-09-17 10:08:52 UTC
Damn the lazy youth of today.

When I was a kid, my mother taught us that whatever you can carry out there in the wilderness, you can as well carry back home, or to the nearest trash bin.

Next time you decide to leave that stupidly named shitstick out there to litter the stars, consider the others who come after you.

Be ashamed!

.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#9 - 2012-09-17 10:13:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Empress BJ wrote:
So now somebody infiltrates your corp and then sets self destruct

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on these forums....

~E~


It's one of the best things I've read. I fully support the implementation of any idea that leads to the destruction of property, whether it's your own property or someone else's.

You get extra bonus points if it's corp/alliance property.

Oh god.
gobbybobby
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-09-17 11:20:48 UTC
Empress BJ wrote:
So now somebody infiltrates your corp and then sets self destruct

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on these forums....

~E~


if this is added CCP could made a corp roll "pos self destruct" or make it so only a corp leader/ person that put POS up can self destruct a it, also make the count down like 30 mins as well, and that you can't self destruct a POS if its been reinforced.
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-09-17 12:18:01 UTC
In a game based from conflict and player interaction...

Empress BJ wrote:
So now somebody infiltrates your corp and then sets self destruct


is the opposite of

Empress BJ wrote:
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on these forums....

~E~


"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave
Spurty
#12 - 2012-09-17 14:03:49 UTC
Offline = unanchored (anyone with fuel can online me or scoop me)
Off lining = unanchoring
On lining = anchoring
Online = anchored (consuming fuel and operating so can send mails)

Never once thought pos were designed as they appear right now. Always saw it as a language barrier snafu

Above simplification fixes many awkward role playing pseudo solutions to answer why unpowered and offlined devices are still able to resist external forces.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#13 - 2012-09-17 15:43:32 UTC
My corp has several POSes we would have pushed the button on long ago if it were possible. They were set up by corp members who have not logged in for years, and they are in places where no one feels its worth the time and trouble to retrieve them from.

To prevent infiltrators from doing too much damage, it could be set up to require a vote by corp share holders before the self destruct can be activated.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#14 - 2012-09-17 15:44:13 UTC
Roime wrote:
Damn the lazy youth of today.

When I was a kid, my mother taught us that whatever you can carry out there in the wilderness, you can as well carry back home, or to the nearest trash bin.

Next time you decide to leave that stupidly named shitstick out there to litter the stars, consider the others who come after you.

Be ashamed!


TROLL BABIES ABOUND, you know there is a thing as losing your WH to a superior force then they can if so inclined destroy your pos or leave it while they ninja the WH for a week or 2, the absolute ignorance.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#15 - 2012-09-17 16:01:59 UTC
if you could self destruct a POS and no one is around does it still make a sound?Big smile
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#16 - 2012-09-17 16:10:20 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
My corp has several POSes we would have pushed the button on long ago if it were possible. They were set up by corp members who have not logged in for years, and they are in places where no one feels its worth the time and trouble to retrieve them from.

To prevent infiltrators from doing too much damage, it could be set up to require a vote by corp share holders before the self destruct can be activated.

That's a part of the POS removal I didn't consider but could happen, I thought about this because so many post about derelict POS forum post requesting non operational POS's littering WH space (mine among them), in that case once the vote is cast the corp member has X amount of time to respond to the message that will be sent.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-09-17 16:22:12 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
How do you see this idea actually working, being used and governed? Saying something should be implemented because you're lazy and don't like to get mails, doesn't exactly build confidence towards your suggestion.

i guess you were against grouping weapons too? Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Sun Win
#18 - 2012-09-17 16:31:38 UTC
Empress BJ wrote:
So now somebody infiltrates your corp and then sets self destruct

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on these forums....


This is the greatest thing I have read on these forums. Pirate
Pipa Porto
#19 - 2012-09-17 16:58:29 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:
boy skimming through is not the same as reading through...OWNER, not POS fueler, or corp flunky, POS owner, then maybe there wouldnt be so many littered moons IN WH that someone may not be able to access anymore or haven't ownership of.


How do you define ownership?

The Corp owns the POS, not any individual member of a corp. Directors have all the powers of a CEO and effectively own all Corp assets. Config Starbase Equipment guys can control all (or nearly all) aspects of a Corp's POSes.

So, all of those would reasonably be expected to be able to SD a POS. All because you're too lazy to hit the "Mark all as Read" button every few days.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-09-17 17:36:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
March rabbit wrote:
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
How do you see this idea actually working, being used and governed? Saying something should be implemented because you're lazy and don't like to get mails, doesn't exactly build confidence towards your suggestion.

i guess you were against grouping weapons too? Cool


What I'm saying is simply, that such considerations aren't very weighty arguments for implementing something and more likely highlight, that the original poster propably didn't actually bother thinking his idea or all its implications through. The idea likely just came up in his head and he though to post it as is. Taken like that the idea is weak with many side effects not considered at all by the OP. In practise the feature would propably see most use from cases the OP didn't intend or even think about.

Additionally weapons grouping isn't a comparable situation. It wasn't implemented just because it was a bit more convenient. It was more convenient, improved weapon/icon/ammo management, reduced the screen real estate the module icons take, reduced server load and finally, thorough examination of the idea didn't come up with any significant downsides to it. It was a well thought idea, that was looked at from every angle and it seemed like a solid idea from every perspective. POS SD is nothing like that. It's presented as a minor convenience tool, with significant issues in actual implementation, if you want to exclude even the obvious griefing cases. It also allows potentially influencing important events and deny assets without even being present in the system. It's not even clear, if this type/level of remote asset control is in principle something CCP should ever allow.
12Next page