Those two my statements do not contradict each other. I do not see it fair if I have to pay in charters to use the place at the moon and someone else just occupy the next moon without paying a single ISK. And i do not want CCP or anyone else to remove abandoned POS for me - I will shoot it myself, when I will be ready to replace it with my own POS. I just do not want to bother with some war declaration (I am not a CEO)

My suggestion would be to allow the POS to continue operating without charters but flag the structure (and it's 'children') suspect (or some other flag derivative),

I'd also like to see POS that run out of fuel entirely degrade over time, becoming hackable/salvageable.

would create a new career for players and groups while also making use of existing skills.

Making them salvageable would crash the PI market, they should have to be destroyed one way or another to keep driving demand.

Exactly. And if stupid war dec need is gone - demand will raise up, economy booming, every one happy. ;)

A wardec is soooooo hard to make...

(I am not a CEO)

Can war declaration be made by ordinary member? Just a question from newbee, so please be nice ;)

Can war declaration be made by ordinary member? Just a question from newbee, so please be nice ;)

....

Changing the salvage and loot from a destroyed tower is something I can support based on my experiences but that is for another discussion topic.

I'll clarify my point on this, salvaging from a destroyed tower is fine in my view but hacking/salvaging towers that are offline is not. You want the space, you wardec and take it.

Or pay someone to do it for you.

Since the theory of POS deteriorating over time has raisedit's ugly head again the answer is NO.
Because, players paid to place it there and you have to pay to remove it.
So no to any game mechanic that makes a POS more vulnerable over time.
NO to any mechanic that makes an offline POS more vulnerable than they are now.

If 50 mil and a few hours is to much for you to invest then you do not want the space badly enough to be given a cheap and easy way to claim it.

Changing the salvage and loot from a destroyed tower is something I can support based on my experiences but that is for another discussion topic.

-1

The ignorance of this conversation astounds me.

1.) Charters are required in a ship to anchor a POS
2.) Charters are required in Empire space as fuel to keep it active.
3.) Concord is not the Empires, it is an organization to police Capsuleers getting out of hand(ie ganking)

As Concord has nothing to do with the charters or how they are used you do not get to bash a POS or structure in highsec because it as no Empirical Legal Authority for operations.

I think if your POS runs out of charters in highsec, CONCORD should disassemble it and move it to a nearby station, and charge you a fee to pay the cops for moving your junk.

In lowsec if you run out of charters, the faction navy should come out and shoot at it...because what else is the point of paying charters out there? I imagine it's a "protection" racket.

I'll clarify my point on this, salvaging from a destroyed tower is fine in my view but hacking/salvaging towers that are offline is not.

Have it unanchor and scoopable :)

So, how about scoop, if salvage of what is no wrecks (yet) is wrong? Will this really kill PI market? Minigame to hack the abandoned tower before unancor. You failed - tower goes into reinforced mode when no one can hack it for let say 24 hours. No hack = no anchor... The new profession can be skill intensive in hacking skills.

And I do not ask for CONCORD to do any action against those abandoned POSes. Merely to stop protect them

Great, constructive input there Mr Deveron....

If it bothers you that much why don't you just imagine that its a flag gained through the local Empire holder, it doesnt matter exactly how, hell, you could even tie it in with a new wardec contract doobie with Empires postig contracts on corporations who arent using charters in their space, or just have the local Empires start shooting the pos and make it an open target for the Empires militia, maybe even a mission.
Open your mind you arrogant sod.

Like a ship that POS belongs to another player or group of players

since you can simply avoid the whole issue by moving on to another moon and plant your POS there.

No to any form of mini game, no to POS deteriorating over time

Unlike the ship the POS offer a kind of suverenity hold. It hold the place and therefore prevents other players to use that spot.


There are high systems with less then 20 moons, where all of them are occupied.

Unlike the ship the POS offer a kind of suverenity hold. It hold the place and therefore prevents other players to use that spot.

You can use it as long as you are willing to put in the required amount of effort/resources which you clearly don't want to.

I do want to put effort in shooting POS (I do not require CONCORD or empire Navy to shoot it for me) and I do want to put my resources into building just another POS on the same spot.

I just want this to be fair. If player has to pay charters for the place to live, why other player keep it spot without paying? Such ppl called squatter in RL if I am right.

I do want to put effort in shooting POS (I do not require CONCORD or empire Navy to shoot it for me) and I do want to put my resources into building just another POS on the same spot.

I just want this to be fair. If player has to pay charters for the place to live, why other player keep it spot without paying? Such ppl called squatter in RL if I am right.

Unlike the ship the POS offer a kind of suverenity hold. It hold the place and therefore prevents other players to use that spot.

There are high systems with less then 20 moons, where all of them are occupied.

Agree, and this was never any part of the OP.