These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Unanchoring Dead POS's

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#101 - 2014-04-01 14:45:31 UTC
Dasani Waters wrote:
Grayland Aubaris wrote:

- Needs to be deployed within 10km of a OFFLINED POS tower.
- Once in place it will spend 24 hours hacking into the mainframe of the tower.
- During this time the corp owning the tower will be notified - you could even broadcast something in local every so often.
- After 24 hours the tower becomes 'Vulnerable' and will RANDOMLY become unanchored at some point in time during the next 4 hours - when it is unanchoured ANYONE can scoop it.
- The mobile hacking platform self destructs.

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.

That is a good point. Actually, make it a “only one per grid” restriction — far more fool-proof than a distance-based proximity restriction. Also, that could solve both the flagging problem and the cool-down problem since we'd have a very clear measure of “not abandoned” at that point.

And going back to the discussion about not invalidating or short-circuiting wardecs, getting rid of the flagging would allow for more appropriate timers:

• A tower must have been offline for at least 14 days before it can be hacked.
• Hacking takes 48 hours.
• Onlining the POS and activating the shield at any time during this period destroys the deployable and obviously resets the offline day count.
• The deployable is not free to attack, other than if a wardec is active.

This gives us the result that, compared to a wardec, this actually takes a longer time but this is balanced against the reduced risk of the attacker having to expose their own assets. If it's a dud POS owned by a dud corp, they get a spot at roughly the same time — maybe a little bit longer — than if they had wardecced and then spent an evening POS-bashing. If it turns out to be an active corp who wants to keep the POS, the attackers are only out 25M and are not involved in a wardec that can be turned against them. The longer time and the risk of flushing 25M down the toilet pays for increased safety and for greater odds that they will be the ones who get the spot without putting the new tower at risk, and it also means that random chancers can't come along and mess up the hacking attempt. Hell, even 48h might be on the cheap side for all that. Conversely, by going for this option, the POS owners are never exposed either — a single fuel cube and charter is enough to flash the shields, cancel the hack, and gain two weeks of reprieve from new attempts.

That should provide a lot of ease of use against properly abandoned stations, and still be absolutely ineffectual against POSes owned by active corps.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#102 - 2014-04-01 14:51:58 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I would keep it simple.
POS is out of fuel, shields are down, POS is fair game.
No war dec, no suspect flags.
Anyone can blow it up and scoop anything that falls out.

If you run around high sec now, you see an awful lot of POS's that are simply a tower, no mods at all.
They are acting as placeholders for any number of corps.

That mechanic should be removed.
And why the goons will exploit that mechanic if it is not removed with the June release.


If CCP were to introduce this change, which I think some variation of would be good, don't you think your imaginary "nullsec cartels" would come along and sieze all the POSes they wanted, much like you claim they'll do anyway if there isn't a change?


Oh, there is little doubt that goons and their pets rvb will take any POS they want, and dead POS's would be an incredibly simple target for them.

But the flip side is, that they will be unable to deadzone a moon by putting up their own unfueled POS because anyone could come along and wipe it out.

Gevlon Goblin and his crew I am sure would continue the warcdec to take down as many as they can, but I doubt that whatever Goblin puts up in its place is any better.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#103 - 2014-04-01 14:52:53 UTC
Dring Dingle wrote:
Simple, make shooting an OFFLINE pos just a suspect act. just like the new pocos....

But this is wishfull thinking... because that would mean ccp has to actually look at pos code. And we all know that gives them nightmares.

o7



That would work too.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#104 - 2014-04-01 15:18:12 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But the flip side is, that they will be unable to deadzone a moon by putting up their own unfueled POS because anyone could come along and wipe it out.


If they wanted to grab a lot of moons, I'm pretty certain the fuel costs would be trivial to them.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Mandy Bonebright
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#105 - 2014-04-01 15:21:01 UTC
I didn't read all posts, possibly already said, but I think what the creator of the post is saying is not that he wants to moon itself, but the ability to hack the POS Tower with no shield to take the tower that is sitting there. I think this could be a very interesting mechanic if an appropriate timeframe was set that nothing could be done until that period has ended and then with a more specialized skill (Hacking doesn't quite hit the mark.) be able to interface with the dead tower, unanchor and collect your prize. Someone should put this in the Features and Ideas Discussion Forum.
Donavon Irish
Doomheim
#106 - 2014-04-01 15:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Donavon Irish
Deablo Paco wrote:
I have been through quite a few systems recently where there are "dead" (offline/ inactive) Control towers. I have great use for control towers and talked with a few other people who agree that there should be a game mechanic where if a Control tower has been offline/ inactive for a certain amount of time. Anyone should just be able to come and unanchor and take it. honestly if that tower is of no use to you to the point you completely forget it is there and just let it die, let someone who could have a lot more use for it use it.. If it is one of those things like " oh we still want to use it but don't have money for the fuel at the moment or blah blah blah." then just take it down your selves and keep stored away till you have the funds for it. again this is just thought and it would be amazing if it got supported. help clean up our moons. take down dead POS's!! I do look forward to, and welcome all comments.





Just because it is "dead" or abandoned, doesn't mean it isn't owned by somebody. People own abandoned property in real life, so why should Eve be any different? To acquire the property you should have to do the same if it is actively owned by somebody.
Grayland Aubaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2014-04-01 16:11:46 UTC
Donavon Irish wrote:
Deablo Paco wrote:
I have been through quite a few systems recently where there are "dead" (offline/ inactive) Control towers. I have great use for control towers and talked with a few other people who agree that there should be a game mechanic where if a Control tower has been offline/ inactive for a certain amount of time. Anyone should just be able to come and unanchor and take it. honestly if that tower is of no use to you to the point you completely forget it is there and just let it die, let someone who could have a lot more use for it use it.. If it is one of those things like " oh we still want to use it but don't have money for the fuel at the moment or blah blah blah." then just take it down your selves and keep stored away till you have the funds for it. again this is just thought and it would be amazing if it got supported. help clean up our moons. take down dead POS's!! I do look forward to, and welcome all comments.





Just because it is "dead" or abandoned, doesn't mean it isn't owned by somebody. People own abandoned property in real life, so why should Eve be any different? To acquire the property you should have to do the same if it is actively owned by somebody.


I'm not sure you can own something that you have abandoned P In either case, I should be able to steal it.
Donavon Irish
Doomheim
#108 - 2014-04-01 16:35:08 UTC
Grayland Aubaris wrote:
Donavon Irish wrote:
Deablo Paco wrote:
I have been through quite a few systems recently where there are "dead" (offline/ inactive) Control towers. I have great use for control towers and talked with a few other people who agree that there should be a game mechanic where if a Control tower has been offline/ inactive for a certain amount of time. Anyone should just be able to come and unanchor and take it. honestly if that tower is of no use to you to the point you completely forget it is there and just let it die, let someone who could have a lot more use for it use it.. If it is one of those things like " oh we still want to use it but don't have money for the fuel at the moment or blah blah blah." then just take it down your selves and keep stored away till you have the funds for it. again this is just thought and it would be amazing if it got supported. help clean up our moons. take down dead POS's!! I do look forward to, and welcome all comments.





Just because it is "dead" or abandoned, doesn't mean it isn't owned by somebody. People own abandoned property in real life, so why should Eve be any different? To acquire the property you should have to do the same if it is actively owned by somebody.


I'm not sure you can own something that you have abandoned P In either case, I should be able to steal it.



I learned the hard way in high school when I went through a ghost hunter phase, abandoned structures usually have owners. Also the cost of a trespassing ticket is pretty high. P

But none the less I think "stealing" is fine, but just cause it isn't used it shouldn't be up for grabs. If stealing is able make it able for all POS's.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#109 - 2014-04-01 16:43:40 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But the flip side is, that they will be unable to deadzone a moon by putting up their own unfueled POS because anyone could come along and wipe it out.


If they wanted to grab a lot of moons, I'm pretty certain the fuel costs would be trivial to them.


Maybe fuel costs would be trivial, but the time required to keep them all fueled would most certainly not be.