EVE General Discussion

You conveniently left out the part where you or someone had to grind FACTION standings for CORP (and not personal) until you are allowed to anchor it in a .5 or higher. If there is more than one person in your corp, and you are not all on the same page working toward this goal, achieving it can be more aggravating than probing-down an afk cloaker.

Some corps spend months working to be able to launch their first high-sec POS.

No, they're really not. They're part of the effort require to erect a POS. If you want a like-for-like relationship between putting one up and tearing one down, the same standings will have to be required to attack the POS. Or, more accurately, completely different, non-overlapping standings that take just as much effort to grind should be required, otherwise we would have a shortcut that would no longer make it like-for-like.


Did you notice the distinct lack of “replacing a POS” in the passages you quoted? The contrivance that it should somehow require less effort to replace a POS than it does to put one up is entirely yours, partly because you're very sloppy and partly because you wilfully ignore key sections in the requirements for both putting one up and tearing one down.

That said, your sloppiness provides yet another good example why like for like is so bad:

Say we want effort to pull down to be the same as effort to put up, like you initially stated. This would mean that it takes twice as much effort to replace a POS as it does to put one up on an empty moon (1× for the removal, 1× for the erection of a new one). This is pretty excessive, considering what's required for the erection alone, what with the standings grind and the ISK investment and all that. It would put a serious damper on all POS dynamics.

So let's say you instead want the replacement to be the same effort as putting one up, which is what you seem to be hinting at now. This would mean that removing a POS requires exactly zero effort. Not just “not a whole lot” (like with a wardec against an abandoned corp) — but literally zero. You warp up to it and rclick→purge from DB. After all, you still have to put up the POS and that (surprise) takes as much effort as it does to put up a POS because… well… that's what you're doing. So to make the entire replacement take as much effort, the removal of the old bits will have to be completely free. That's just as excessive in the opposite direction and would be abused to hell and back.

Again, there's a reason why like-for-like is a horrible design philosophy: because it either breaks things or makes them awfully unbalanced or, most likely, both, because you always run into the question of “like for like with what?”. Replacement must take more effort than it does to put one up; removing a POS must take less. In additions, wardecs should not be trivially bypassed (since bypassing existing mechanics is pretty much always a bad idea). Like for like is not an option either way.

…and that doesn't remove it as a part of the effort required to put up a POS. As such, you are not allowed to disregard it if you want a like-for-like relationship with tearing one down.

Because the standings can be acquired as part of a career path that has nothing to do with POSs. The players who grind missions to put up POSs will be in a minority. Most do it for isk/LP/explosions; standings are a by-product than can be utilised later.

Are you assuming that we're talking about large corps with lots of different players pulling in different directions? If you want to get faction standings quickly that would not be the way to do it.

Okay, if your aim is to set up a tower and you're starting fresh then yes, I accept that it is not trivial to get the required standings qucikly. However, for those who PvE for fun or for money, the objective is explosions or isk/LP; the standings are a by-product that accumulate in the background over the years. They do not require additional effort.



Yes, paying a war dec and removing a tower is relatively cheap and quick (assuming no intereference), but replacing the tower with one of your own requires that you go through the same process as the corp that set up that tower. That effort therefore cancels out. The corp that wants to maintain the status quo can do so indefinitely at no additional cost whatsoever. I've got no objection to your suggestion that the standings thing be removed; the problem is that offline towers require no effort to maintain in that state, allowing the owner to exert a disproportionate effect on the game, either deliberately (e.g. Lucas Kell) or through ignorance/negligence.

I assume you were being ironic about sloppiness; if you want to make up scenarios you need to be much more thorough. (Not an invitation to try btw.) In any case I think you've missed the point of this discussion.

I think if a POS is not powered for 30 days it and surrounding structures should automatically unanchor. If cans disappear after 30 days without access than towers should have a similar mechanic. This has been talked about for as long as I've played the game. I wish CCP would do something here... it's a real problem. It's annoying. I don't think anyone is happy with how things presently work.

How much does an offline tower cost to maintain?



a) Maintaining a tower requires an investment in standings/structures. Without any direct interference by either the owner or other players it will remain there indefinitely locking down a resource.
b) Removing a tower requires 50m isk and the cost of ships/ammo. (Assuming the usual scenario where the offline tower is not defended)
c) Replacing a tower requires the same effort/investment as both of the above.



No, that's not my picture, that's your strawman. The point is that players should have to pay to maintain an advantage through investment and/or effort. The assertion that it requires lots of effort to get to the point of deploying a tower that is then left offline is irrelevant because competitors will have to have invested the same time/effort (deliberately or otherwise) to be in the field. Starting at the same relative position one player has an advantage that he does not pay for; the other has to pay and waste hours shooting an offline POS to equalise. This is disproportionate.

The mechanism for changing this is not particularly important so long as players don't gain a relative advantage at no extra cost. I suggested the mobile depot to avoid the situation where a 300m isk tower unanchors to be scooped up by the first lucky pilot to come along.

how is not having to blow up an abandoned POS "easy mode"

its not like someone is gonna come defend it
its not shooting back

OP is asking why cant we profit by it?

I would suggest setting a minimum anchoring distance of about 50km from another mobile hacking platform. This ensures that only one party can hack at a time, and claiming the tower for yourself would require you to destroy the current active platform.

Turning on the tower forcefield should also instantly destroy any hacking platform(s) within range. Yes, this makes it easy for stick owners to defeat hacking attempts without going suspect, but the point of this was to punish deadbeat owners, not active ones.