These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

[Discussion] Needing to anchor things around celestial bodies.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#21 - 2014-05-11 17:35:50 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
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.


Unless you are Dino Paranoid

Then its a nerf, especially if its a buff

"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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#22 - 2014-05-11 17:38:00 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?

It's no really an outrage. It's more that there is already such an abundance of moons that there's a distinct lack of conflict over them, so adding 50% more moons seems a bit counter-productive… or counter-destructive… well, counter-something. P
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#23 - 2014-05-11 17:41:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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?

It's no really an outrage. It's more that there is already such an abundance of moons that there's a distinct lack of conflict over them, so adding 50% more moons seems a bit counter-productive… or counter-destructive… well, counter-something. P


I think mebbee CCP is just hedging in case world +dog starts putting up towers so they can avoid the inevitable bitching and re-visitation of it.



☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-05-11 17:41:51 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?


It might mean more moon materials flooding the market?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#25 - 2014-05-11 17:43:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Doc Fury wrote:
I think mebbee CCP is just hedging in case world +dog starts putting up towers so they can avoid the inevitable bitching and re-visitation of it.

Very possibly. I mainly feel like that could be better handled by giving us a tower hacking mechanism, but I also suspect that this would require them to dive into the Bog of Souls and Eternal Despair POS code.

Caviar Liberta wrote:
It might mean more moon materials flooding the market?

No, these are all the highsec moons in 0.8+ systems that will now become available as anchoring spots.
Beofryn Sedorak
#26 - 2014-05-11 17:43:54 UTC
Caviar Liberta wrote:
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?


It might mean more moon materials flooding the market?


Moon goo ins't in High Sec. All the new moons are in 0.8 to 1.0 systems.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#27 - 2014-05-11 17:44:25 UTC
Caviar Liberta wrote:
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?


It might mean more moon materials flooding the market?


WTB high sec reaction chain.



☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-05-11 17:47:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Caviar Liberta wrote:
It might mean more moon materials flooding the market?

No, these are all the highsec moons in 0.8+ systems that will now become available as anchoring spots.

Oh. Well pfft, no big deal. If anything it means more players who move to a player made corp to anchor a POS and thus able to be war dec'd over the moon spot.

Content.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#29 - 2014-05-11 17:50:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Tippia wrote:

Very possibly. I mainly feel like that could be better handled by giving us a tower hacking mechanism, but I also suspect that this would require them to dive into the Bog of Souls and Eternal Despair POS code.


I don't wish legacy code projects on anyone anymore, Karma has a way of finally getting around to everyone.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#30 - 2014-05-11 17:50:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Bog of Souls and Eternal Despair.


Ive found my new POOs er I mean POS name for High Sec

"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
SpaceSaft
Almost Dangerous
Wolves Amongst Strangers
#31 - 2014-05-11 17:53:15 UTC
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
In your opinion, do you feel the quantity of available anchoring positions could be increased without breaking the system?


Without breaking the system we currently have, no. There has to be some kind of limitation for it or some other mechanism to keep things under control.

Apart from the moon materials that present a natural pull, it doesn't really make sense starting next month either: There are plenty of less valuable moons around that you could anchor on and all other cases will be taken care of by the industry changes.

I'd be interesting to see what CCP would come up with and I'm not entirely against having hundreds of mini - POSes that have nothing but guns that defend your space in 0.0 and whs, because that sounds like fun.

But with the current system, no.
Zol Interbottom
Blimp Requisition Services
#32 - 2014-05-12 00:19:43 UTC
I have a feeling that small things left in deadspace would slowly drift out of the system or crash into things, which is why so much time is spent blowing them all up

"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba
Beofryn Sedorak
#33 - 2014-05-12 00:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Beofryn Sedorak
Zol Interbottom wrote:
I have a feeling that small things left in deadspace would slowly drift out of the system or crash into things, which is why so much time is spent blowing them all up


Are you familiar with the reasons Pluto is no longer a "Planet"? It's because it's just one a a huge quantity of small planetoid objects in the same orbit as Pluto. They don't all just drift off into space. There's plenty of ways for there to be objects large enough to anchor things at without them drifting out of the star system and still be large enough to anchor on without them being "Planets"

So speaking canonically (AKA Game balance and mechanics aside), This wouldn't be a valid reason against it.

Great thinking though, Certainly the type of thing I was hoping for. Keep em coming.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2014-05-12 00:46:35 UTC
I still think scarcity of anchoring spots is important, but since this is just because they're expanding pos use to 0.8 I guess that's not a huge deal.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#35 - 2014-05-12 01:01:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.


source please? i'm curious

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#36 - 2014-05-12 01:07:17 UTC
With the kronos buff of losing the slots, and pos' doing a bit better job, you will actually, in theory, see a decrease in pos'. As people who used them because the system they were in had all the slots in use, will pull them down and use stations so as not to risk there bp's. But also, if someone had say more then pos up, doing research/manufacturing, they can now reduce that down to just a single pos.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Beofryn Sedorak
#37 - 2014-05-12 01:09:50 UTC
DaReaper wrote:
With the kronos buff of losing the slots, and pos' doing a bit better job, you will actually, in theory, see a decrease in pos'. As people who used them because the system they were in had all the slots in use, will pull them down and use stations so as not to risk there bp's. But also, if someone had say more then pos up, doing research/manufacturing, they can now reduce that down to just a single pos.


People will now be using them for improved refining and compression of ores.
Gabriel Dube
Outer Planets Alliance
#38 - 2014-05-14 06:43:59 UTC
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Zol Interbottom wrote:
I have a feeling that small things left in deadspace would slowly drift out of the system or crash into things, which is why so much time is spent blowing them all up


Are you familiar with the reasons Pluto is no longer a "Planet"? It's because it's just one a a huge quantity of small planetoid objects in the same orbit as Pluto. They don't all just drift off into space. There's plenty of ways for there to be objects large enough to anchor things at without them drifting out of the star system and still be large enough to anchor on without them being "Planets"

So speaking canonically (AKA Game balance and mechanics aside), This wouldn't be a valid reason against it.

Great thinking though, Certainly the type of thing I was hoping for. Keep em coming.


Anchoring near celestials would make more sense Lore-wise and physics-wise if it involved putting stuff on the Lagrangian points. [For some info on what Lagrange points are, google is your friend]

I still cannot figure out how most static location bookmarks are even possible if celestials in New Eden have orbits. What?

Then again, the EVE universe is soft Sci-Fi, and soft Sci-Fi is fuelled by sheer Rule of Cool and complete disregard for the most basic principles of physics. The main reason why our internet spaceships are in a made-up galaxy is that absolutely none of them make any actual sense and that absolutely none of them could even work in the real world. And I'm not even talking about the magical shields and tractor beams. I mean, the vast majority don't even have their thrusters in line with their center of mass...

This is why thrust vectoring would matter much more than symmetry in EVE
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2014-05-14 11:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Gabriel Dube wrote:
This is why thrust vectoring would matter much more than symmetry in EVE

Is that a Trident SLBM?
Yep, it is.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Oxide Ammar
#40 - 2014-05-14 12:17:20 UTC
More moons for POS's + Destructible stations + The new upcoming building gates feature = Hisec 2003 - 2014 R.I.P. What?ShockedShocked

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Previous page123Next page