These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

New Structures Devblog Out - Freighter Shenanigans
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Wen Jaibao
Perkone
Caldari State
#41 - 2015-11-14 12:56:09 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
all it means is you cant dock your caps in a class 1.
if you bothered building caps in your c1? i mean, sure. feel free to get upset about it i guess.


Yeah, I agree. Building caps in C1 wormholes was a fool's errand, and looks like that ship is about to run aground.
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2015-11-15 15:23:18 UTC
Wen Jaibao wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
all it means is you cant dock your caps in a class 1.
if you bothered building caps in your c1? i mean, sure. feel free to get upset about it i guess.


Yeah, I agree. Building caps in C1 wormholes was a fool's errand, and looks like that ship is about to run aground.

So i geuss you guys don't like to shoot capitals?
Why the hate for caps in c1-c4 space? Let people build them so you can go and shoot them!

No local in null sec would fix everything!
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#43 - 2015-11-15 16:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored?

I am concerned that the communities desire to not have asset safety has created a huge personal hanger but worse in that anyone with the right permissions could literally destroy all assets in the system far in excess of what is now possible. Perhaps we should rethink our desire to not have asset safety.
Maria Kitiare
Overload This
Escalation Theory
#44 - 2015-11-16 08:04:48 UTC
Kynric wrote:
What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored?

I am concerned that the communities desire to not have asset safety has created a huge personal hanger but worse in that anyone with the right permissions could literally destroy all assets in the system far in excess of what is now possible. Perhaps we should rethink our desire to not have asset safety.

It isn't as much the communitys desire to not have asset protection, as it is the CCP desire to be lazy.
You should go talk to your favorite CCP employe and explain to them why being lazy and cutting corners will make Citadels ****. ;)
I've tried to say that they can't replace POSes without fixing the mechanics influenced by the POS mechanics, but lazy CCP is lazy and won't do it. So please, feel free to try. :)
Jonn Duune
OpSec.
Wrong Hole.
#45 - 2015-11-16 10:43:03 UTC
Kynric wrote:
What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored?

I am concerned that the communities desire to not have asset safety has created a huge personal hanger but worse in that anyone with the right permissions could literally destroy all assets in the system far in excess of what is now possible. Perhaps we should rethink our desire to not have asset safety.



I would assume that you'd get an army of cans in space... but that's a good point.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#46 - 2015-11-16 13:22:02 UTC
Jonn Duune wrote:
Kynric wrote:
What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored?

I am concerned that the communities desire to not have asset safety has created a huge personal hanger but worse in that anyone with the right permissions could literally destroy all assets in the system far in excess of what is now possible. Perhaps we should rethink our desire to not have asset safety.



I would assume that you'd get an army of cans in space... but that's a good point.


An army of cans would still destroy the members assets. Policing them up would be impossible even if t g ey so mm ehow happened to be logged on and nearby at the moment it happened.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#47 - 2015-11-16 15:19:10 UTC
Kynric wrote:
What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored?

I am concerned that the communities desire to not have asset safety has created a huge personal hanger but worse in that anyone with the right permissions could literally destroy all assets in the system far in excess of what is now possible. Perhaps we should rethink our desire to not have asset safety.

How is this, in the end, different from the POS and how a rogue director or another member with roles can remove everything from the POS and unanchor everything?

It is my understanding that CCP has a different role/permission scheme for Citadels and so hopefully this is addressed. But it still boils down to trusting that your directors won't steal your stuff.

I'm right behind you
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#48 - 2015-11-16 16:08:56 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Kynric wrote:
What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored?

I am concerned that the communities desire to not have asset safety has created a huge personal hanger but worse in that anyone with the right permissions could literally destroy all assets in the system far in excess of what is now possible. Perhaps we should rethink our desire to not have asset safety.

How is this, in the end, different from the POS and how a rogue director or another member with roles can remove everything from the POS and unanchor everything?

It is my understanding that CCP has a different role/permission scheme for Citadels and so hopefully this is addressed. But it still boils down to trusting that your directors won't steal your stuff.


It would take much more effort to remove the goods from a pos. I suppose you could drop the shield and shoot the hangers and then shoot the wrecks. Also shooting structures leaves killboard evidence of who did what while a midnight unanchor leaves only a mystery. We really need something more robust. The current consequences make it difficult to split up the tasks required to run a corp.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#49 - 2015-11-16 23:42:28 UTC
Kynric wrote:
Alundil wrote:
Kynric wrote:
What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored?

I am concerned that the communities desire to not have asset safety has created a huge personal hanger but worse in that anyone with the right permissions could literally destroy all assets in the system far in excess of what is now possible. Perhaps we should rethink our desire to not have asset safety.

How is this, in the end, different from the POS and how a rogue director or another member with roles can remove everything from the POS and unanchor everything?

It is my understanding that CCP has a different role/permission scheme for Citadels and so hopefully this is addressed. But it still boils down to trusting that your directors won't steal your stuff.


It would take much more effort to remove the goods from a pos. I suppose you could drop the shield and shoot the hangers and then shoot the wrecks. Also shooting structures leaves killboard evidence of who did what while a midnight unanchor leaves only a mystery. We really need something more robust. The current consequences make it difficult to split up the tasks required to run a corp.

I disagree. One large ship/freighter would be enough to clear out a lot of hangars. A carrier/bowhead a few times to move ships and its done. No unanchor necessary if theft is the only goal. All it takes is properly misconfigured roles and voila perfect recipe for theft from a pos. All assets worth removing are gone and no kill mails either. I don't see a significant difference in potential theft by someone with appropriate roles in either system. However the citadel DOES prevent random members from doing this unlike the current pos system which is an improvement in that regard.

I'm right behind you
Previous page123