No corp/alliance should be able to sit their and watch hundreds of billions fall in their wallet every month.

In which case, what then? CFC have all the tech and we're supposed to wait for you guys to start squabbling about it?

Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax.

That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere.

If CFC wants you to leave that space all they have to do is continuously harass you and there's absolutely nothing you can do to keep your sov because at some point you will miss isk.

Might also force people to only hold as much space as they actually need :)

I basically addressed this earlier: the reason why tech is no longer a successful conflict driver is it's expensive to take, and the moons are going to be nerfed in the near future. Tech isn't a good conflict driver as well because it's too strongly regional. Tech should be nerfed, making a different moon (an r64) the valuable moon, then look at replacing it as a conflict driver.

Better coalitions then the CFC have tried tbh.

I'm kind of curious though how a two week binge of structure grinding in December 2011 between a 1K player alliance and a 31K coalition after 9-10 months of decided inactivity is in Soundwave's mind evidence that Tech is a 'conflict driver'.

But if a certain region isn't more valuable then others.. doesn't it literally boil down to the meta game driving the conflict? Why invade.. we got everything we want right here in the ass end of nowhere!

Doesn't that mean.. without goons.. eve dies?

yeah just some badass OTEC member who spends his day probing one of the 100,000+ moons in 0.0/low that take 40 minutes per probe is going to stumble upon your sweet brand new tech moon

sounds like something to worry about

tl;dr - "rotating moon goo deposits" is an idea invariably suggested by people who have never probed a single moon ever

I think POCOs require a certain minimum traffic to be interesting. If we let them be taken over in High Sec (which I desperately want to do), they'd become a lot more interesting.

Edit: Yes, stations should be destroyable.

That period was largely caused by the CFC having severe supercap inferiority, and supercaps still being broken. The logjam broke once we'd built up a sizable supercap fleet and the opposing supercap fleets began to fracture. Titan blapping made conflict in 0.0 tremendously unfun for the CFC, but the CFC was strong enough to repel any supercap-heavy attack (see: "VFK by september").

Honestly it's not too bad. You dont like moving every year or so? Don't like scanning moons? Guess what, your alliance loses out, and some smaller guys get to cash in. The only way you can make it so huge alliances don't just control everything is by making it to inconvenient for them to do it. Those willing to put forth the effort will make money.

Ring mining might have to move back in favor or re-doing POSs.

In the meantime, I'd really just like to alchemy every single tier of moons (like it was done with 64s).

Honestly it's not too bad. You dont like moving every year or so? Don't like scanning moons? Guess what, your alliance loses out, and some smaller guys get to cash in. The only way you can make it so huge alliances don't just control everything is by making it to inconvenient for them to do it. Those willing to put forth the effort will make money.

That period was largely caused by the CFC having severe supercap inferiority, and supercaps still being broken. The logjam broke once we'd built up a sizable supercap fleet and the opposing supercap fleets began to fracture. Titan blapping made conflict in 0.0 tremendously unfun for the CFC, but the CFC was strong enough to repel any supercap-heavy attack (see: "VFK by september").

If you are thinking about opening up alchemy, you might want to actually look at the periodic table and use it to find reactions that are physically possible. For example Hafnium is element #72, Technetium is element#73. If you took Hafnium and fused it with Hydrogen (actually to get the Neutron count right, Deuterium, but that is a Hydrogen isotope) you would get Technetium.

Tungsten + 2 Helium = Platinum

Platinum + Helium = Mercury

Cadmium + 2 Carbon = Neodymium

And so on.

Also: Tenal

Here's some region that had Tech holders, however how much time did they hold that space once you've launch the Tenal OP?
Less than a month.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not telling kick some alliance from their space shouldn't be possible, however you will admit that you have no problem on fighting and reimburse ships even if they were 200% more expensive than now, while you find yourself against other alliances that for whatever reason but mainly because of tech can't stand up in front of you very long because they will miss that isk.

Do you think regional tech distribution would be the solution? -an in what form
I do agree equal regional distribution could make it more interesting however I can't see how this would simple change the fact you can go there set pos and not even hold the space, bridge 1000/2000 man fleet and completely burn everything to the ground if someone dares to take that pos out.

Tech shouldn't be as it is, everyone agrees. Now what else is left to fight for if there's no changes to null and new actors can come in and/or be the engine of war?

Honestly it's not too bad. You dont like moving every year or so? Don't like scanning moons? Guess what, your alliance loses out, and some smaller guys get to cash in. The only way you can make it so huge alliances don't just control everything is by making it to inconvenient for them to do it. Those willing to put forth the effort will make money.

I'd question if this is the case though; So we basically have a situation with an ultra valuable resource that's ostensibly a conflict driver, yet the claim seems to be that 0.0 is static. If those moons aren't providing interesting content, surely they can't be conflict drivers?

That's really the big thing I'm thinking about right now. Are they conflict drivers? Or even more importantly, are they a good conflict driver? Is the degree people fight over them (which doesn't seem to be much right now) worth the amount of money they provide? If we cut down on the income from moons, that also means we might deal with the issue of unlimited pockets, which I think would do much more in terms of interesting combat.

If you get yourself a white fluffy cat, a mild german accent (I could help you with that) and a phat golden ring, you could run for this years Super Villain Championship.

Agreeing with the weasel. Moons have historically been a very good feature in nullsec; and honestly they still are, all this "otec" gnashing of teeth is really overblown. Tech costs a lot because of a mechanics change CCP put in two years ago, not a defensive agreement between moonholders. Furthermore, moons, even in their broken state, have driven conflict perfectly well for over 3 years. Now, in a seasonal nullsec lull period which happen all the time, nullsec is suddenly "dying", according to the uninformed masses anyway.

The basic idea of moons works really, really well. Just get the balance right, and introduce dynamic means of maintaining and tweaking that balance. The stuff that has historically killed nullsec is risk/reward balance with hisec, lag, and the supercap debacle, all of which have seen huge improvements. There's no need to change the fundamentals of nullsec, just keep fixing the worst singular elements, one of which is now moon balancing.

As usual, most people chiming in the loudest here for a complete revamp of fundamental nullsec mechanics have no idea how nullsec works, and should really just keep their uninformed opinions to themselves.