They did *away* with that very system a few years back because it made logistics a freakin nightmare.

Few things...

1. Can't wait for a FW corp to hang a POS in an opposing faction system because there are no standing requirements!
- Bad decision IMHO to remove standing for anchoring in empire... This is the worst of the features I have seen yet.

I can see it now - Sit in your POS just inside the shield and spawn NPC navy ships for your POS to blap all day long. Have an alt sit outside the shield and salvage till the cows come home. Go AFK with an MTU and salvage drones just to make it that much more of an insult.

Bad idea, really.

Just get rid of faction navies. They are a blight in a supposedly player-driven sandbox anyway.

I am delighted that standings are being stood down, as it were. They are annoying, artificial mechanics.

The standing requirement serve the purpose to segregate smaller corps from larger ones. Large corps cannot hope to grind standings for a 0.6 or 0.7 system so they head to low or nulsex when no moons are available. Now we will have even less players heading to low or nul - or at least delaying their exodus.

Industry plays a central role in EVE Online and thus the developers have put their focus on improving the whole industry landscape in New Eden - the user interface, game mechanics, features, accessibility ... just everything gets examined, polished and reworked.

CCP Ytterbium comes with news of massive changes in EVE Online's Industry in Summer 2014 and beyond.

Read all about these suggestions and ideas in CCP Ytterbium's latest dev blog Building better Worlds.

Please all reply with your constructive feedback, thank you!

---

An overview of dev answers to common questions

• New blueprint browser will show all blueprints regardless if they are in stations, assembly arrays or elsewhere.


• The new industry UI is going to reduce the number of clicks to install a job. Installation of batch and single blueprint jobs should be as painless as possible. More about this in an upcoming blog.


• Jobs can be started remotely from containers as well.


• Existing R.A.M. and R.db (stock, stored in market orders etc.) will be updated with the coming changes, not only the blueprint requirements.


• Volumes of R.A.M. and R.db will get adjusted.


• Station (POS) owners will be charged parts of the running costs (taxes), other parts are outside the owners control. Total costs will never be zero. More information in an upcoming blog.


• Bonuses of upgrades on player owned outposts will be altered. More about that in an upcoming blog.


• Starbase towers can be anchored in any system in high security space with the exception of a few restricted systems like rookie systems and trade hubs like Jita - same restriction as with player owned customs offices.


• POS still need to be anchored at moons, just the standing restrictions will be lifted.


• Blueprints can still be locked down at stations, that is not going to change.


• At least the changes in blueprints (no extra materials etc.) will beavailable in the Static Data Export. Access via CREST will be worked on as well.


• Success and fun of industry game play should not be about mastering an imperfect user interface.

"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content.

I can see eve becoming a pure PvP universe so why not remove all the security zones now and get on with it?

People like you always seem to confuse the concepts of "viable" and "optimal". Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean it's not viable. Highsec will be sub-optimal in some respects, but that doesn't mean it won't be viable as an industrial location.

Make it risky to let a POS run out of fuel. Make it risky when a defensive shield is lowered. If you let your POS run out of fuel I want to be able to pinch it! You have essentially left it unlocked and undefended, regardless of your intent.

Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.

Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.

Hey, I just got an idea.

Since you are already introducing taxes as an ISK sink on top of POS fuel costs, why not introduce an ISK sink for the other part of the player population?

Tax suicide gankers for the value of their ship + modules fitted each time concord is involved in a killmail. It doesn't have to be full 100% value, but rather a dynamic percentage from 1% to 14% depending on ganking congestion in a certain area.

This actually is a genuine proposal, that will introduce balance. Otherwise, you are just plainly punishing the industrial players.

This...CCP needs to prove that balance is what they are after, all I've seen in these Dev blogs is alot of cheap "More risk equals more reward" except all I am seeing is that there is more risk, conveniently I'm supposed to accept that the more reward is a click friendly UI? Show me the risk for IQ challenged gankers will rise in the same manner that my expenses just did with this expansion.