These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 POS Reclamation Idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rhavas
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#1 - 2014-04-01 02:18:07 UTC
Take a look at this proposal I made over in F&I. I think it's particularly relevant to wormhole space and would like your feedback and/or support. CCP may never do anything with it but at worst maybe it will help guide their thinking as they attempt to replace POS with ... whatever it is.

F&I POS Repo Thread

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary
Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#2 - 2014-04-01 02:58:03 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
Take a look at this proposal I made over in F&I. I think it's particularly relevant to wormhole space and would like your feedback and/or support. CCP may never do anything with it but at worst maybe it will help guide their thinking as they attempt to replace POS with ... whatever it is.

F&I POS Repo Thread


Good idea overall. Could use a little debate on the timer, but it is a good idea. +1

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe
Ghenghis Kralj
Big Johnson's
#3 - 2014-04-02 14:52:07 UTC
dead sticks suck and jacking them sounds like a great opportunity for a new play style!
Oska Rus
Free Ice Cream People
#4 - 2014-04-02 15:07:38 UTC
This idea is imho overcomplicated. Just allowing everyone to unanchor and scoop to cargohold unfueled pos and its modules would be best.
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2014-04-02 17:35:02 UTC
Oska Rus wrote:
This idea is imho overcomplicated. Just allowing everyone to unanchor and scoop to cargohold unfueled pos and its modules would be best.

It's not overcomplicated at all. Nothing in eve should be available to just take without putting some effort in to it. Just scooping towers with nothing else necessary but enough cargo space is just another eve easy mode fix. If you want something, you should have to be prepared to work for it.

Lost in space
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-04-03 12:25:21 UTC
-1

Many corps (in WH space especially) use offline pos as place holder namely to stop people from anchoring hostile towers in there system. This change would prevent this tactic.

I would rather see a deployable structure that would unanchor a POS over a period of 24 hours.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#7 - 2014-04-03 12:32:41 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
-1

Many corps (in WH space especially) use offline pos as place holder namely to stop people from anchoring hostile towers in there system. This change would prevent this tactic.

I would rather see a deployable structure that would unanchor a POS over a period of 24 hours.



So you can take their offline towers if they choose to pos up. problem is where ?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-04-03 13:30:34 UTC
Problem? I don't have one. It's the OP that has a problem with the mechanic and i was merely pointing out how it would remove a home defense tactic.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
mechform
#9 - 2014-04-03 13:36:07 UTC  |  Edited by: mechform
Those who are vigilant about home defense should be rewarded. Those who leave it to something they never have to attend to, should not.

Black Power - Brotha's in space unite!
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2014-04-03 21:52:20 UTC
I've never liked the idea of just getting free POSs when theyre offline.
It's too easy and lame. There are many reasons to put a POS offline.

I agree that it should be easier to kill an offline POS than an online one, to which end ive always thought offline POSs simply should have zero shield HP *shrug*.
much simpler change that solves the same issue without you being able to get free crap in a game where things shouldnt be free.

no need to introduce a largely complicated mechanic on this one.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Krops Vont
#11 - 2014-04-03 21:55:45 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
I've never liked the idea of just getting free POSs when theyre offline.
It's too easy and lame. There are many reasons to put a POS offline.

I agree that it should be easier to kill an offline POS than an online one, to which end ive always thought offline POSs simply should have zero shield HP *shrug*.
much simpler change that solves the same issue without you being able to get free crap in a game where things shouldnt be free.

no need to introduce a largely complicated mechanic on this one.


Quoted to preach it to bob. Makes sense too. Its offline, what shield?

--==Services==--

Propaganda/Art/Media

Wormhole Finding & Selling

o/ Play for fun
Angsty Teenager
Broski North
#12 - 2014-04-04 21:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Angsty Teenager
Why is this even an issue?

Who cares?

Literally there is no issue here, just OCD nerds getting mad about stuff being on d-scan.

I'd rather CCP spend what limited time they are prepared to spend on w-space on introducing more fun mechanics. Frankly I don't think anything w-space is broke except for their cop-out on magnetar effects. Not even POS's, I think them being annoying as hell is a great deterrent to people using them (even though they use them anyway, lol)
Sith1s Spectre
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2014-04-05 01:21:59 UTC
Angsty Teenager wrote:
Why is this even an issue?

Who cares?

Literally there is no issue here, just OCD nerds getting mad about stuff being on d-scan.

I'd rather CCP spend what limited time they are prepared to spend on w-space on introducing more fun mechanics. Frankly I don't think anything w-space is broke except for their cop-out on magnetar effects. Not even POS's, I think them being annoying as hell is a great deterrent to people using them (even though they use them anyway, lol)


Play with red giants and overheat mechanics - then come talk to me about stuff broken in WH space :P

Resident forum troll and fashion consultant
Angsty Teenager
Broski North
#14 - 2014-04-05 03:34:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Angsty Teenager
I am aware of red giants and overheating ewar mods, it was hilariously obvious the moment they added overheating to ewar mods.

Who cares though, you have to be overheating, and you are stuck with double heat damage in a red giant, and it's only doable in C6's (maybe C5's too, I cba to look), and who cares, you have dreads these days, this isn't the stone age.

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's fantastic, now there is a reason to live in a red giant outside of smartbombing in sites (which already got nerfed slightly by the changes to sleeper escalation waves).
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#15 - 2014-04-07 05:47:00 UTC
I believe an issue would emerge wherein some towers are left intentionally unfueled for industry or defense related reasons. Towers that are unfueled still present a certain amount of strategic advantage. There's no way presently to 'secure' offline towers. I feel if there was, but that 'security' could degrade over time if not upkept (via some investment of time, not resources).

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Vorra
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2014-05-05 02:03:32 UTC
i would like to add to thyis idea as i do agree you should have to put some effort into it think you should still have to take the tower down by attacking it take out its shields and armor then pos unanchors and scoop it to hold we get what we want yet we worked for it
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#17 - 2014-05-06 03:45:45 UTC
I think it's a bit dumb that my tower, while offline, has 100% shields. I flick the switch, and it's got 50% shields. Que pasa?

In the very least, I support the idea of making offline towers easier to shoot. Some of the commentators on the other thread were all "couple or Oracles, couple of hours". Surely we have better things to do than waste game time removing dead inffrastructure from desirable locations in areas where we cannot use caps?

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#18 - 2014-05-06 04:38:51 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
I think it's a bit dumb that my tower, while offline, has 100% shields. I flick the switch, and it's got 50% shields. Que pasa?

that's not how it works... like at all

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2014-05-06 09:10:42 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
-1

Many corps (in WH space especially) use offline pos as place holder namely to stop people from anchoring hostile towers in there system. This change would prevent this tactic.



They could always online the towers A small is only about 100m a month in fuel.

This isn't only about W space, Finding a moon in hisec is a nightmare (I know they opening up more of hisec for pos's) But its a huge issue there.

I quite like the idea I think times and stuff might need altering and stuff.

I also like jacks idea that it has no shield if its offline.

My worry is just if ccp go "its pos code can't do that"

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better