Originally by: ThorTheGreat

---

Originally by: DigitalCommunist

---

Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently.

They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not.

By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system.

Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense:

If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield.

I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares.

---

someone should do chemotherapy on your posts

---