EVE Information Portal

**** YOU

The whole concept is promising, still, there might be few flaws that need to be addressed :



Isn't this a bad use of the bounty system? If someone place a bounty on a entity, he would hope to attract unwanted attention unto his target. The suggested feature would however mean that those bounty would be harvested by some corp only interested in pocos, not headhunting. Destroying a POCOS already bring its own reward anyway in term of a economic opportunity. Perhaps you can simply leave it as it is right now?

Have you consider the twisted metagaming that mixing POCOs with bounty would create? Look at this example :
Corp A own a POCOS and his under a bounty.
Corp B is a fake corp of A, under a permanent fake war with A.
Corp C want Corp A POCOS and wardec A.
Corp B destroy the A POCOSs and harvest some of the bounty.
Corp A would loose some isk in the process, but it would have retain its pocos control and lowered its bounty.



It might not cost that much in term of isk, however its incredibly time consuming to deploy news colonies in a profitable manner in HS. I challenge CCP, ask one of your DEV to start from scratch and deploy on 15 HS planets using 3 alts with all skills at 4... And ask him how long he needed to earn 50 mill isk on top of its initial investment. After that, you might realize that the ''demand'' in term of POCOS isnt mobile and would be really slow to met any change in the ''offer''. Assume most PI producer to simply suck up any taxation change or simply quit PI at all. Perhaps you can address this by introducing some way to export/import colonies pattern to speed up redeployment, this would create a more realistic PI versus POCOS economy driven by the offer and the demand, thus giving more importance to the decision of the POCOS owner.



Ok thats just feel plain wrong : CCP, you already proven that a open economy run in a sandbox could work and provide a ground to a competitive game. Low sec planets are already way better in term of resources, on the other hand, HS offer security. You can simply let the rule of the offer and demand drive this market : LS POCOS owner would have to find the right incentive to attract customers, in term of tax rate and security deal instead of simply undercutting the NPC hard tax. On the HS side, there wont be any gift made to the PI producer and POCOS owning corps would likely ask every little 0.1% in tax they could squeeze out of there customers. Should this turn out to be a gold mine, a equal amount of wardec driven by others corps ambition would appear and prevent them to cash in.

To me it sound like you pretend to give more control to the players, but at the same time rub in a handful of dirt on the steer-wheel mechanics hoping for a smoother player control.

As a side note, if the NPC tax aim at keeping pi market price in check, i suggest you look at the resource supply or production usage instead throwing few sticks in the wheels of a new pvp business you want to implement.

Thank you for listening and sorry for my bad English skills : /

Cheers!

Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.

WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??!

That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose.

But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP.

Some thoughts:

1. Penalize alliances for "spreading thin" their POCO empire, ie having too many, while keeping it attractive.


• For example, make the cost to wardec inversely proportional to the number of POCOs an alliance owns in hisec. The more they own, the cheaper it is to wardec for POCO control.


• Or, require that a planet that they want a POCO at needs to have at least one command center owned by an alliance member. CCs can be placed before a POCO is placed. A simple enough task, but requires a little more motivation on a large scale.


2. Or, Force attentiveness. Again, nothing too crazy, keep it attractive.


• For example, add a mechanic that would allow another entity to begin placing a POCO at a planet where there already exists one. Send a notification that within 5 days if no action is taken, their POCO will be replaced by the challengers. With the required action simply to go to the planet and click a button. The challenger loses their materials invested.


• Or, make it so that a POCO's orbit needs to be "corrected" every 20 days. The owner must go to the POCO and click a button to correct the POCOs orbit, or it will burn up in the atmosphere.

Can I suggest a 5th mobile structure be introduced along-side these changes?

Add a Personal Resource Processor: a structure that I can anchor in space, anyone can shoot or steal from, and will grind away at a set of PI goods. Give it a slower cycle time/a relatively small cargo/a consumption penalty or something to make it less good than the planets.

If something like this is introduced, I can run PI as a single player on a planet with no CO or side-step importing and exporting taxes by launching lower level goods. Yes, bigger groups will have a better chance of taking over and holding a CO, but not at the expense of me being able to run PI.

I noticed an inconsistency with POCOs. In nullsec, you must have sov to anchor a POCO. In lowsec, nobody cares. In highsec, you don't need standing with the faction to anchor.

Lowsec doesn't matter either way since no mechanic exists there, but anchor rights should be consistent in highsec and nullsec. Either require sov/faction in both or in neither. If I need faction to anchor a POS, why don't I need it to anchor a POCO?

Oh god, CCP rooting out the massively online singleplayers is chubtastic.

Like vermin shrieking in uncomprehending fear as you shine a light on their putrid hovels made of excrement and waste.

Too bad this happens so infrequently.

wealthy nullseccers can't afford to buy characters off the market with high faction standings, apparently

oh you must be confused, a sandbox means that powerful groups can have influence because it's exactly that: a sandbox, and not an instanced game

perhaps there are instanced games more suited to your needs

back to the drawing board for you guys I suppose