New Eden is littered with abandoned and forgotten POS towers. High Sec to Null, moon after moon has some derelict tower floating unwanted and unused. These towers are one of the few objects in EVE which do not eventually get removed by the system. They will continue to orbit the moon forever. Anyone who wishes to use the moon to first remove the old tower before installing their own. I for one, would love to see this changed to make it less of a pain in the ass to replace a dead POS.

I realize some towers are installed simply there as place holders to prevent other parties from easily installing a tower of their own. The change I would suggest would still easily allow for this sort of game play. My aim is simply to make it easier to replace dead towers with productive towers. I am sure others may have offered similar ideas in the past, I am offering these up simply to promote conversation on the topic.

My primary suggestion is to have the shields of any POS tower which has been offline for 30 days to be reduced to 25% plus 1 hit point. That is it. This would reduce the grind on derelict towers while still allowing owners to defend if they chose to do so.

My more extreme suggestions is to make a tower left offline for 30 days to become ‘hackable’ in the manner of a data site. Different tower types could have different levels of difficulty. A failed hack could cause some or all of the anchored defensive guns to activate and shoot at any ships in the area. Alternately, a failed hack could simply place the tower into a reinforced state. In either case, no further attempts could be made on the POS tower for 24 hours and this information would be displayed to anyone who attempts a hack during this ‘reboot’ phase. The tower owner would get alerts regarding any hack attempt and another alert once the tower went into the reboot phase. In the case of a successful hack the tower would still go into a reboot phase but the hacking player would gain some degree of control over the tower once it came out of reboot. The successful hacker could unanchor any modules and set shield and armor to zero HP. The tower would then go dead. At this point the tower is useless and could be removed by destroying the hull or better yet by salvage lasers. There could be some interesting emergent game play around hacking and salvaging towers.

In both cases the owning player of unused towers could prevent the tower from become vulnerable by simply onlining the POS once every thirty days. This would keep placeholder towers viable while requiring at least some minimal effort on the owners part. Either option will also still allow the POS owner to be notified and have a chance to defend a tower.

Your drinking buddy,

Rupert Foulmouth


  1. lol

    no, you put in the effort, you get the reward.

    February 17, 2015 at 21:19 Reply
    1. spurty

      What reward?

      Hope you’re not suggesting ‘killmails’ are a reward? ISK is a reward, killmails are cancer

      February 18, 2015 at 17:32 Reply
  2. Candyman

    Nope… just have them get swept away by the server after 30 days, just like cans. Loot or not, structures or not — the whole mess just ceases to exist 30 days after it runs out of fuelblocks. Clearly the owners don’t give a shit, so neither should CCP.

    February 17, 2015 at 21:28 Reply
  3. Baal

    I would love to see this happen. How about introducing a new ship just for such a purpose. Pos is off line for over 30 days.. you can salvage it with the new ship. Salvage attempt takes a long time so that some risk is involved.

    February 17, 2015 at 21:33 Reply
    1. Candyman

      Because the best time to “loot” a POS is when someone is making dumb mistakes taking one down or putting one up. That, and that fact that CCP will take the “path of least resistance”, which is to say they won’t do anything at all or they will just make them disappear after 30 days.

      February 17, 2015 at 21:41 Reply
  4. Tia

    How about after 30 days they can attacked by Drifters 🙂

    February 17, 2015 at 21:38 Reply
  5. DMS

    Somewhat a better idea. Planet 1 , moon 1 has a offline tower. Due to radiation from the sun. It’s slowly being eaten away. Reasonable 1-2% every day for its offline till the tower is destroyed. Just a idea.

    February 17, 2015 at 21:50 Reply
  6. DMS

    Somewhat a better idea. Planet 1 , moon 1 has a offline tower. Due to radiation from the sun. It’s slowly being eaten away. Reasonable 1-2% every day for its offline till the tower is destroyed. Just a idea.

    February 17, 2015 at 21:50 Reply
  7. Ashesofempires

    I think it would be amusing if the shields just went down and everything was a free for all. Finders keepers, as they say.

    February 17, 2015 at 21:54 Reply
  8. Gonzales

    “My primary suggestion is to have the shields of any POS tower which has
    been offline for 30 days to be reduced to 25% plus 1 hit point.”

    No, if towers are OFFline there should be no shield whatsoever.
    Just armor and structure hitpoints to begin with.

    February 17, 2015 at 21:54 Reply
    1. Jack Morrison


      February 18, 2015 at 06:52 Reply
  9. DaveTV

    How about you just put in the effort to get that spot and shoot them? if someone wants to use a 100M+ boat anchor to get notifications that its going to die soon. More power to them.

    February 17, 2015 at 21:58 Reply
    1. Daniel Plain

      how do you distinguish between these ‘boat anchors’ and towers set up by people who left years ago? or should we also give ‘more power’ to people who aren’t playing the game?

      February 18, 2015 at 12:24 Reply
    2. Daniel Plain

      how do you distinguish between these ‘boat anchors’ and towers set up by people who left years ago? or should we also give ‘more power’ to people who aren’t playing the game?

      February 18, 2015 at 12:24 Reply
      1. DaveTV

        You don’t. If you want the tower then shoot it, if it is offline, it won’t shoot back. The article is a solution for something that is not a problem. If someone shows up to defend the tower, that will mean someone wanted it there.

        February 18, 2015 at 13:11 Reply
        1. Daniel Plain

          it is not a problem if you don’t value your time.

          February 18, 2015 at 16:30 Reply
          1. DaveTV

            Then don’t shoot it and do something else, what you had planned for that spot obviously isn’t worth your time. Spending man hours to clear a spot for your pos is a cost you have to pay.

            February 18, 2015 at 20:03
  10. Martin PG

    the idea of being able to hack a dead stick its a good one, but instead of HP points for unanchore it, if they succed then the owner gets a warning and the POS will be unanchored after 24hrs, if that happens the tower gets unanchored and anyone would be able to scoop it

    February 17, 2015 at 22:19 Reply
  11. Kinraka

    why not have it the same as a house, if you don’t maintain it and keep a protective coat of paint over the wood it will eventually rot and fall to bits. in eve the poss is the house, the force-field is the paint and instead of weather rotting the house away the lack of a force-field on the poss exposes it to asteroids and solar rays which will wear the poss down and after 30 days there is nothing left .
    would +1 CCP if this was implemented

    February 17, 2015 at 22:35 Reply
  12. Naveronasis

    They should stay up, but un-defended and offline you should be able to unachor and collect them after a certain ammount of time… It would give transport ships and explorers some new interesting content hunting long forgotten towers.

    February 17, 2015 at 23:16 Reply
  13. Adam Brown

    Why not just remove them after a period of time? Things take damage from solar winds, space dust, micrometeorites, roving [insert space creature here]. After X days of being offline, delete the tower and send the owner a notification “Falcon’s Grove tower has decayed and fallen out of orbit around [location].”

    No reason to invent an elaborate set of rules/systems (although it would be kind of cool). CCP has enough on their hands as it is.

    February 17, 2015 at 23:29 Reply
    1. DoR

      but CCP loves obscure rules and systems, I mean half of eve is just that….

      CCP hates simplicity and always excels at over complicating simple matters, like taking a piss out in space.

      February 17, 2015 at 23:41 Reply
      1. mhmmm thought so

        Have you tried pissing in space yourself?

        February 18, 2015 at 00:14 Reply
  14. Incestuous Criticism

    Like the idea of possible ways to reduce POS bashing for offline un-wanted POS’es that just sit in space and collect dust.

    Expands on the idea found here…

    February 17, 2015 at 23:49 Reply
  15. Jaime Gomes
    February 18, 2015 at 01:20 Reply
  16. Irya

    +1 for the hack

    February 18, 2015 at 02:04 Reply
    1. cloaky sniper raven


      February 18, 2015 at 04:40 Reply
      1. Shel Johnson


        February 18, 2015 at 12:07 Reply
        1. Ming Tso

          This mechanic could be used offensively.

          I drop my tower with no fuel, fail the hack, and boom, I’ve got a 24h reinforce timer that you can’t do anything about.

          February 18, 2015 at 13:25 Reply
          1. phl0gist0n

            cuz emergent gameplay is bad…

            At least you’d have to actively log in every 24hrs to fail a hack

            February 18, 2015 at 15:55
          2. guest

            why should you have to hack your own pos when anchoring it? it should be mechanic used only after period of inactivity ie when pos runs out of fuel and stays that way for longer period of time

            February 18, 2015 at 18:34
  17. bumblefuck

    Make an option to de-orbit them if they’re inactive. Owner gets notification “Your POS in X-68AI is being deorbited. It will crash into the lunar surface in 72 hours.” If they don’t act in the meantime, POS gets de-orbited.

    February 18, 2015 at 07:14 Reply
  18. Tora Bushido

    Nice ideas. This will bring more content and solve a known issue.

    February 18, 2015 at 09:11 Reply
  19. Saint Michael's Soul

    Just make Seeker battleships randomly kill offline towers after a while. Problem solved.

    February 18, 2015 at 09:37 Reply
  20. Noisrevbus

    While one can appreciate the tought-processes that have gone into the article (hacking and other alternatives to hitpoint-based issues) let’s not forget that it is a rather ineffectual discussion under dominion sov and CCP are silently working on larger overarching alternatives. If one perceives offline towers an issue in dominion sov they have no reasonable expectations of how to operate, defend sov or interact with onlined towers. Alternatives to hitpoint grind and S/N meta are welcome though, but they should perhaps be put into a larger discourse than offlined towers from a now-perspective.

    Appearantly, I am captain buzzkill when it comes to Rupert’s articles, but I’ll gladly be that since buzz and hype are largely to blame for the current state of EVE where hyped up localized changes have been implemented without attention to the whole or iteration over time.

    February 18, 2015 at 11:22 Reply
  21. Grand Formage

    Ultimately, the endeavor should provide NO EASY BUTTONS.

    While i am not a fan of the “WAAAA it takes to long to kill it” mentality, I do like the idea of making a unpowered tower hackable. I have always thought that there should be a more integrated connection between EVE and Dust, and this could be that way. Dust bunny teams (team size related to tower size) are contracted (player spent isk) to board the station. Once the station has been boarded, they will traverse the station from the siege entry point to a final destination. As they work to that destination, they have to deal with automated defenses and system hacks, more or less confrontations/hacks related to structure size. There could even be racial related “things’. Failed hacks should have some level of consequence. Failure could be as catastrophic as a pod kill, taking a team member out, returning him to “the lobby” making the team smaller (no auto respawn or team member replacement).

    Or, I can hear the rage-fest it now, walking in station. The player flies in with a siege vessel, attaches to the structure, boards, and then does something similar to the above mentioned actions and similar consequences. This could also be a “team” thing, making the operation emergent for more people (meaning more people can end up in a med clone).

    With success, the tower defeated, it and any “attached” structures become theirs to do as they will. Removal of said structures will ocurre inline with current removal procedures (it will take X minutes/seconds to unanchor each structure).

    February 18, 2015 at 14:12 Reply
  22. Do Little

    I believe players should be able to attack an off-line POS in high security space under the same rules as a POCO. Only an on-line POS should qualify for CONCORD protection. I like the idea of being able to hack an off-line POS but think a successful hack should give you ownership.

    February 18, 2015 at 14:17 Reply
  23. Sold

    Just make them unanchor after 30 days. Bu hacking offline towers could also be a viable solution.

    February 18, 2015 at 14:31 Reply
  24. Stuck in a hole

    I can see thousands of wh dwellers screaming in terror at this suggestion..

    February 18, 2015 at 15:52 Reply
  25. spurty

    One of the biggest trolls in this game of EVE is ‘timers’.

    The secret to making unlimited ISK however is … [INSERT RANDOM TIMER]

    February 18, 2015 at 17:30 Reply
  26. alx

    Revamp POS!!!! so its modules don’t unnanchor, Build it like a POCO, modular POS!!!!…

    February 18, 2015 at 17:56 Reply
  27. alx

    BTW: There are some corps that removes POSes in hi-sec if you hire them…. Look for some… If you can´t afford to take one down you can’t afford to keep it up.

    February 18, 2015 at 18:06 Reply
  28. Squinty McBlindy

    Offline towers should be able to be attacked freely without concord response.
    It’s really that simple.
    Whether they are left over from a disbanded corp (and cannot be killed coz you cant wardec a corp that disbanded) or whether they are placeholders anchored by absentee landlords, offline towers should be fair game.

    February 18, 2015 at 18:08 Reply
  29. hex

    Lazy people. Have you ever shot a tower before? A fleet of 10 battleships can take a large tower down in 2 hours and a small in 15 minutes. They system is working perfectly fine.

    February 18, 2015 at 18:38 Reply
  30. Alyxportur

    Control tower mechanics and management need to be re-coded as a whole.

    February 18, 2015 at 20:24 Reply
  31. meh

    nah rupert make offline towers hackable. if hacked sucessfully they can be unachored & stolen by the hacker

    February 18, 2015 at 21:42 Reply
  32. Facepalm

    If only there was a place where you could post game ideas and changes where Devs will actually see them and read them…

    Hint: that place isn’t on a third party “news” website.

    February 19, 2015 at 15:46 Reply
    1. Tiehaa

      Actually they do read them.
      I posted some ideas back in the days when I though CCP wanted to have a good game and surprisingly , they were put ingame months later with the deployable modules like the depots and siphons.
      Unfortunately CCP arw a company and they need $$$.

      What many players think is good for the game, might not be good for the masses, so they won’t implement those because it might lose them subscribers.
      CCP devs being active members of a certain coalition ingame -cfc- does not help too as they often nerf or let content out if it does not benefit that coalition in any way.

      February 20, 2015 at 13:39 Reply
  33. Bruce

    I like the idea of hacking an abandoned tower. Even better would be for a successful hack to allow it to be unanchored, while repeated unsuccessful hacks would cause it to explode

    February 20, 2015 at 02:26 Reply
  34. “Just want to say your article is as amazing. The clarity in your post is just nice and i can assume you are an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the rewarding work.”

    August 27, 2018 at 23:01 Reply

Leave a Reply