So, anyway, the point is that nullsec needs to be balanced against nullsec, not against highsec.

The fundamental basis is that to have highsec levels of resources in nullsec, there has to be at least NPC nullsec levels of availability to those resources.

CONCORD is definitely not a necessity, but full-service stations such as people appear to be asking for should not ever be limited access.

Charge ridiculous amounts for refinery, repair, and manufacturing access. Go right ahead, it's your station.

But it should be possible for your worst enemy to dock there.

If that is too much risk for you, maybe it's a reward you don't deserve.

Thats a dumb point because EVE takes place on a single sharded server where the different sec statuses all effect each other. I'm not sure if you knew that before, but hey now you do.

The real risk is that you lose control of your station from an enemy and have billions worth of ships locked out. No rsk of that happening in NPC 0.0. This is why many sov null alliances often stockpile their assets in the relatively low-risk NPC 0.0 stations/lowsec.

hth

The same restriction would apply to the conqueror.

You can't lock them out, but they can't lock you out either.

delve 2012 lol

Something like that, but everywhere.

It's a totally different dynamic than current sov rules, but it would allow for much greater rewards.

No it wouldn't.

No it wouldn't.

Why not?

I say that having to allow people you don't like into "your space" means the rewards of that space can be set higher because the challenge of holding it is greater.

That's why WH space pays better than sov nullsec.

So, anyway, the point is that nullsec needs to be balanced against nullsec, not against highsec.

The fundamental basis is that to have highsec levels of resources in nullsec, there has to be at least NPC nullsec levels of availability to those resources.

CONCORD is definitely not a necessity, but full-service stations such as people appear to be asking for should not ever be limited access.

Charge ridiculous amounts for refinery, repair, and manufacturing access. Go right ahead, it's your station.

But it should be possible for your worst enemy to dock there.

If that is too much risk for you, maybe it's a reward you don't deserve.

Because the rewards there are higher, at the risk of being shot at regularly by the "legal authorities".

Which is why I say it allows for greater rewards.

I let the developers plan their game, I guess I am doing something wrong.

Should jump in the forums and create 100000000000000 photocopy cry threads to force them change the game ASAP, of course in my favor!

That makes you wrong then. You were the one that said CCP isn't capable of fixing their own game earlier. Just so you know that second "sentence" was what the highsec miners did over ganking. Imagine that CCP paying attention to the forums and making changes based on player feedback.

Which is why I say it allows for greater rewards.

In fact, removing the ability to deny people access to outposts *demands* greater rewards, because it is a risky dynamic for everyone involved.

What rewards would you like to see for such an exchange?

I'm willing to concede "Removal of CONCORD from the game" for this one, but you didn't answer my question:

What new rewards should be added to nullsec in exchange for the added risk of not being able to clear your outposts of reds?

So, anyway, the point is that nullsec needs to be balanced against nullsec, not against highsec.

The fundamental basis is that to have highsec levels of resources in nullsec, there has to be at least NPC nullsec levels of availability to those resources.

CONCORD is definitely not a necessity, but full-service stations such as people appear to be asking for should not ever be limited access.

Charge ridiculous amounts for refinery, repair, and manufacturing access. Go right ahead, it's your station.

But it should be possible for your worst enemy to dock there.

If that is too much risk for you, maybe it's a reward you don't deserve.

again, how is that an added risk?

as a red I no longer have to care about defending stations, assets or timers because there's no way i can be kicked out of my space (and i've been kicked from a lot of space) - the risk involved in deploying or taking space is removed.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you saying that the people who paid for and deployed a station shouldn't be able to say who gets to use it? Can I use your ships while you're not logged in?

Better rewards for sovereignty holders can be implemented.

Why shouldn't sov holders be rewarded directly for the improvements they put in a system?

There have been lots of suggestions in this area, most of them impossible or too overpowered if combined with docking denial.

But you CAN'T remove docking denial!

Better rewards for sovereignty holders can be implemented.

Why shouldn't sov holders be rewarded directly for the improvements they put in a system?

There have been lots of suggestions in this area, most of them impossible or too overpowered if combined with docking denial.

But you CAN'T remove docking denial!

That's the problem with such "brilliant ideas", they don't take reality or consequences into account. It always sounds good to the person making the suggestion for some reason, but the likely outcome of such thinking is creating more problems than the solution solves in the 1st place.