These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

[Discussion] Needing to anchor things around celestial bodies.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Beofryn Sedorak
#1 - 2014-05-11 07:30:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Beofryn Sedorak
I'm not looking to prove anything right, wrong, or stupid etc.. I'm genuinely interested in having an informed discussion in regards to the requirements of anchoring things like POS's around moons.

I'd like ot start by presenting the question: Is this simply a "Population control" method? Or is it for more "scientific/canonical" reasons?

Some things to consider:


  • There are lots of things anchored in deadspace pockets (Mission sites)
  • Stargates aren't anchored around moons.


Discuss!
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#2 - 2014-05-11 07:53:11 UTC
Obviously it's a population control/conflict driver thing. You need a limited resource to give it value and have people fight over it. It also keeps things to a manageable size. Can you imagine trying to find a specific POS in systems with thousands of POSs with the current scanning tools available to us.
Beofryn Sedorak
#3 - 2014-05-11 07:59:21 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Obviously it's a population control/conflict driver thing. You need a limited resource to give it value and have people fight over it. It also keeps things to a manageable size. Can you imagine trying to find a specific POS in systems with thousands of POSs with the current scanning tools available to us.


Excellent points!

In your opinion, do you feel the quantity of available anchoring positions could be increased wihtout breaking the system? Hypotheticaly, Anchoring around dwarf planets that weren't big enough to be on the radar before. (Keep in mind, this is all just discussion for the sake of discussion, I'm not suggesting this.)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2014-05-11 08:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
In your opinion, do you feel the quantity of available anchoring positions could be increased wihtout breaking the system?

Absolutely not. There are more than enough moons as it is. Basically what DSQ already said.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#5 - 2014-05-11 08:50:56 UTC
In fact, the current number of moons should be decreased.
Nalelmir Ahashion
Industrial Management and Engineering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#6 - 2014-05-11 08:51:48 UTC
posting in stealth "I want to paint space **** with pos's" thread.
Joshua Foiritain
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#7 - 2014-05-11 08:56:52 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
In fact, the current number of moons should be decreased.

this tbh.

The Coreli Corporation is recruiting.
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#8 - 2014-05-11 13:57:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
I wouldn't mind seeing player made structures in deadspace. Allowing players to make similar structure setups as missions for different purposes. This ofc would be non force field structures, and would promote more people away from just station > gate >belt > pos.

However I think the reasoning was to control space, but also using the gravity from the celestial to keep it in orbit.

E: Gates probably don't need it due to the mass it creates on its own. The mission structures I don't know. I doubt there is a actual logical reason other limiting it.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#9 - 2014-05-11 14:50:48 UTC
Joshua Foiritain wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
In fact, the current number of moons should be decreased.

this tbh.

Pretty much. Even then, some 18,000 more moons are still being made available as anchoring spots in Kronos, and there have been hints that the mysterious CSM statement from a few days ago meant even more will be available over time.

POS spots is definitely not something the game is short of.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2014-05-11 16:57:55 UTC
Wait, what the ****? WHY are we getting MORE moons?
That makes no sense at all. It seems like they're trying to make it so that there are always free moons to anchor on, which is the worst idea I've heard in a while.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#11 - 2014-05-11 17:01:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Wait, what the ****? WHY are we getting MORE moons?
That makes no sense at all. It seems like they're trying to make it so that there are always free moons to anchor on, which is the worst idea I've heard in a while.


Agreed, kinda pees out the fire they were trying to start under High Sec POSes by making any noob with 60m a Tower Operator

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2014-05-11 17:06:46 UTC
This needs to not happen. Seriously. That's ****** up and it's not something CCP can fix. It's not like they can just take the moons away again once people start using them.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Alexa Coates
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-05-11 17:11:02 UTC
thanks for labelling the thread [discussion] otherwise i wouldn't know what to do on a forum about discussing.

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.
Beofryn Sedorak
#14 - 2014-05-11 17:13:27 UTC
Alexa Coates wrote:
thanks for labelling the thread [discussion] otherwise i wouldn't know what to do on a forum about discussing.


You're welcome, I assumed there were some that might think it was a suggestion, or a troll thread. Some people tend to confuse everything as a troll or tinfoil hat topic. Every single thread......

But that's big of you to confess to it :p
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#15 - 2014-05-11 17:13:47 UTC
Alexa Coates wrote:
thanks for labelling the thread [discussion] otherwise i wouldn't know what to do on a forum about discussing.


Im discussted that you think forums are for discussing rather than just cussing.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2014-05-11 17:14:59 UTC
Alexa Coates wrote:
thanks for labelling the thread [discussion] otherwise i wouldn't know what to do on a forum about discussing.

This is GD, an eve sub-forum used by trolls.

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#17 - 2014-05-11 17:16:00 UTC
Jake Warbird wrote:
Alexa Coates wrote:
thanks for labelling the thread [discussion] otherwise i wouldn't know what to do on a forum about discussing.

This is GD, an eve sub-forum used by trolls.


A.K.A. General Drama.



☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#18 - 2014-05-11 17:18:15 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Wait, what the ****? WHY are we getting MORE moons?
That makes no sense at all. It seems like they're trying to make it so that there are always free moons to anchor on, which is the worst idea I've heard in a while.

I get the feeling that it's because they feel that more future industry will be POS based and they want to get rid of the nonsensical restrictions for putting one up. They also seem to want to let players decide what's available in systems — even in highsec — rather than having NPC stations dictate it. Getting more moons is just a side-effect of that.

Basically, some systems are pretty much pointless from a game-dynamics standpoint right now. Making their moons available gives them something at least… but yeah, it's highly debatable if the sheer amount of moons we'll have is really necessary.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2014-05-11 17:32:25 UTC
What is the big deal about adding more moons? If someone wants to build a home somewhere, why not? It still can be attacked and all. I'm being serious. Why the outrage?
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#20 - 2014-05-11 17:34:53 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
What is the big deal about adding more moons? If someone wants to build a home somewhere, why not? It still can be attacked and all. I'm being serious. Why the outrage?


You must have missed the memo. Anything perceived as a buff to high sec is bad.




☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
123Next page