Thanks for the reply Malcanis! :)

Aside from outposts, what I personally would like to see is POSses getting a good upgrade.
Get rid of the forcefield, put every thign you anchor now inside the POS as modules, and let people dock up into one.

The biggest benefits of this would be, you'd no longer have the hassle of moving stuff from one bay to another, or corp hangar to manufacturing bay and such, it would allow for setting up a more personal space for a corp member in a POS by allocating part of the general corp bay to personal use. Personal POSses woudl also be possible, giving the power of an individual to setup a manufacturing empire anywhere at the price of using a POS.
Also, it would make leaving BPO's and such at a POS a less risky proposal, as right now, if your POS goes into reinforce when you have stuff in it, you can't take it out until it's repaired ( modules are offline etc. )

As for the docking bay itself, it would be a limited bay, with X m3 hangar bay for ships and Y M3 for other stuff, possibly with additional room implemented by Silo modules for moongoo and such. As a corp pos, part of this could be allocated to individual players so they have their 'own' little space inside the POS to do their thing.

Anyway.. I'm rambling on.. if you want to hear more about my silly ideas on POS revamps, Mail me ;)

I'd start by taking a leaf from your book, Trebor, and going back to first principles: what are NPC corps supposed to be for? The current mode of "unelected choice of undifferentiated dumping ground for people who aren't in a player corp" seems to me to be... suboptimal.

I'd like to see players able to choose their own NPC corp, and I'd like to see that choice actually mean something wrt to game mechanics - advantages, disadvantages, bonuses, penalties, drawbacks and opportunities. This NPC corp should be a natural choice for people who like mining, that NPC corp might attract haulers, and so on. As this would encourage people with similar interests to be in contact with each other, they'd be forming communities with a common outlook, and this in turn would also provide a good solute for more player corps to crystallise from

Never voted for CSM before. However, you Sir will be getting both of my votes this year.

You view on so many things (high sec, null and POSGÇÖs being the big 3) are so close to mine as to be slightly unnerving.

Best of luck with your candidacy Malcanis, its about time you did this!

I always knew that cortex tap I had installed in you when you had your tonsils out would pay for itself. Please continue to think up good ideas so I can download them.

Haven't chimed in much but I've been keeping an eye on your thread. I'm going to have to make an unreserved declaration of support of you to my corpies in our csm8 thread.

That would be very much appreciated, Ms Kinnes.

...If I get the opportunity, I will certainly advocate to CCP as strongly and passionately as I can that even if it takes a whole expansion to do POS "right", then that would be an expansion cycle well-spent. So many things that are broken or imbalanced about EVE come back to POS. Added to that, even the "little guys" would just like a little patch of vacuum to call their own - enabling players to build their own place in space would be an amazing feature for player engagement and retention.

As a new player (+5 months), I see a deep chasm around HighsecGǪ the drop of is both sharp and deep, but change that by modifying the risk and things will changeGǪ for most in both High and Low Sec.

A miner in 0.5 space is fairly safeGǪ easy money and usually death for the pirate. A miner in 0.4 is nuts. An easy kill for the pirate. Modify the risk/reward for both by blurring the line and the game has gotten a whole lot more dynamic.

...I strongly suggest you cut the ****, affix the Goons badge to your lapel and be honest with yourself and to others. You'll feel much better for doing so.

Alliances which are good at protecting their productive activities will benefit. Those that aren't will lose out. Where's the problem?

There is no need to change anything regarding CONCORD response times and protection in 0.5 to 1.0 systems inclusive. For those that are into suicide ganking all you do is have an alt,preferably with positive sec status, doing ratting and salvaging and scan the mining ships in the belts. A high proportion of hulks & macks are STILL being flown with little or no tank and can be taken down with a catalyst reasonably easily. Bring your main in and do the gank then get your alt to salvage the wrecks. Simples.

There is absolutely no need to make it easier to suicide gank as even post the mining barge changes which were seen to be making these vessels stronger in most cases they will still be easily ganked even in 0.5 systems. Alternatively go and bumping and demand 'mining license' fees.

I thought he was a TEST stoogeGǪ damn I need a player score card.

I donGÇÖt agree with Malcanis on some or many issues, and he sometimes falls back on nerf highsec, but I think there is more to him than simple label you wish to attach.

Even a blind man can see where this is heading. We will end up with one or two alliances in nulsec.

I donGÇÖt gank. It seem fairly boring to me. I use to mineGǪ now I run missions. Altering the way Concord/Faction Navies respondGǪ down into .3 space, would add to the game.

It shouldnGÇÖt be in 0.4 the pirate knows he can always kill a minerGǪ make it dynamic. He will most likely get that untanked retriever, but that Skiff?

In 0.3, four Skiffs and some escorts means any pirate will not only have to fight the escorts, but get it done or flee before the Faction Navy arrives. Dynamic for both pirate and miner.

Nullsec is broken... it sucks... it is dead. That is why they are in highsec.

It doesn't mean that high and low couldn't use some change.

I have just read your manifesto for high-sec and must say that it isn't worthy of consideration. Just more nul-centric diatribe of which we have far too much of coming from the CSM as it is. Personally I feel it would be better if the CSM was dropped done to two sets of six members with two members from each half GENUINELY representing the issues and residents from the nul, low, & high-sec communities. Then we might get some fairness and move away from the fallacy that nul-sec is the end game of EVE Online and the best place to be which it isn't and nor should it be so.

EVE Online is a sandbox within which people are free to do what they like and enjoy without having the shallow views of one community forced upon the entire playbase.

I strongly suggest you cut the ****, affix the Goons badge to your lapel and be honest with yourself and to others. You'll feel much better for doing so.

"punishing people for playing EVE the wrong way."

It is not possible to play EVE Online the wrong way Malcanis as it is a sandbox.

"There's only one way of life and that's your own, your own, your own." The Levellers.

...that we should abandon the outdated idea that players should "progress" to 0.0 is "null-centric"?

...

Nul sec is for large fleet battles and sovreignty. Working for 'the man' in enlarge allaince territory etc. I'm not sure it's broken.

I agree that going to 0.0 isn't "progress"... it is wanting to play a different game style. A game style that need to be changed/buffed. Too few seem to be interested in playing in that corner of the sand.

"punishing people for playing EVE the wrong way."

It is not possible to play EVE Online the wrong way Malcanis as it is a sandbox.

"There's only one way of life and that's your own, your own, your own." The Levellers.

Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE.

Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE.