Of course they could C, just like they can now live on Alpha risk free. But having an outpost is going to have some benefits, and having a 'harder' outpost will have more benefit.

There's lots of outpost right now, compared to the active player base. Even if the top (5) corps all took 1 beta-1 outpost, that would still leave (4) for smaller corps to wrestle over.

But as was pointed out, even for an active larger corp, its going to be hard enough to keep (1) outpost over 50%.

If the beta-ii's remain empty, then the devs can look at boosting the benefits for those higher, or have no benefits on beta-i other then docking rights (no auras).

The decision to make (2) levels of beta outposts is the hard decision, the balancing part is something that can be worked on.

So it would be preferable to cater for what the future player count might be? Couldn't they tweak that in the future?

Doesn't make much sense.. low player base is certainly partly to blame for a loads of issues including pvp, outpost ownership and market, some cannot be fixed but certainly made easier with certain temporary mechanics in place.

I'm not arguing anyone should be able to have an outpost, I'm arguing that there are alliances (grupations of big percentage of concurrent subscriptions) out there that operate together in terms of living on the same island, producing in the same outposts, and doing trade in the same outposts.

So, in order for the other corporations that are not on the "owner" sheet to be able to defend their outpost that they're living & producing in, they would have to... Hope someone is online from the owning corporation? And if they touch the SAP, they do harm to their alliance?

Besides, since the SAP activation timers are "random", there is a "random" possibility you'll get X SAP's activating in your corporation's off-time. Snowball & etc to follow from that random possibility?

I mean, the LOGICAL reaction to this would be to do a massive recruiting spree, merge corporations and/or bring in new players to ensure 24/7 presence, if you want to get the maximum/optimal "return" reward for the risk of living in an open-PVP zone.

Of course the analysis of that situation is spot on.

But if alliances can assist in holding outposts, then it's no longer about corporate power, and it opens the door again for large alliances controlling more then one outpost/Island.

That doens't mean you can't ally, it just mean that each outpost owning member has to be capable of pulling their own weight. That seems reasonable?

Also, even if they can only hold the stability at 50%, that means they keep control of the outpost for alliance use. The benefits of outpost owenership aren't alliance wide, its for that corp. The 'shiny' benefits sit unused, wasted by the alliance allowing a corp to own something they can't stablize.

But yes, changing this mechanic will absolutely require a change in how the game is played to take the most advantage. But as I mentioned, the community in general is against NAP's and alliances, so it's not surprising that a mechanic was presented that doesn't benefit alliances.

Arga,

It's clear alliances and NAP fests is not popular , but not at the expense of having mega corps ruin the individuality of smaller corporations. This could make it even worse than a NAP fest specially with such a small player base imo.

You changed a corp pulling it's own weight to an individual. Many hands make light work.

I don't believe that majority rule is the way to design a video game, just because most players are doing something doesn't make it right.

However, I'm actually for alliances in some situations. But I don't think corps should need alliances to hold an outpost, to join together to hold an entire Island, yes.

24/7 coverage is just a fact of life on a global server. And 12/7 coverage (by a corp not 1 person) still allows outpost ownership, so we aren't even talking about if a corp can hold an outpost, its more about how much functionality can they exert on it.

This is where I think the alliance is a problem for outposts. When you have 1 or 2 strong corps and alot of smaller corps, its less of an alliance then it is 'renters and pets'.

It would be better if each outpost holding corp of the alliance could hold it's own, and have an equal voice at the table. This doesn't stop the smaller corps from using the outposts and being allied, it stops strong corps from having puppet outposts.

I know what's this all about; pets and meat shield nerf

Edit: Some might say: its the same! pets would be in corp, but no they are corp members, pets  might steal your storage goods

What I don't want to see is:

Hey new guys want to pvp?

There are 3 choices join Alliance A, B, or C (changed to) Join corp A, B or C.

Disclaimer:
Let me make it clear that what I'm posting is a personal opinion and in no way reflects on the opinion of my Corp. I've had no discussions with them at all on this topic in fact.

After reading this thread through several times today at work, it seems to me that the majority of the discussion has been about the "Max" side of how these changes effect the game, Corps. and alliances, not about the "Min" side: i.e., what are the lowest barriers to entry for these changes to be beneficial to a Corps.

I think it's impossible to read the whole devblog about these changes and not assume the devs want to create more opportunity for more Corps. while reducing the value of alliances. By opportunity, I don't just mean Beta outpost ownership but also more PvP and more economic activity, which will benefit all the players and make the game more attractive to new ones.

The discussion, so far, has primarily focused on how to make an outpost "safe" for the owner and allow them to get the maximum benefit 24/7. The "solution" to this dilemma has been mostly stated as increasing the size of ones Corp. with recruitment or the absorption of previously allied Corps. Frankly, I think the whole Max/safe line of reasoning is both a bit carebear and counter to what the devs intend and what's best for the games growth.

So let's look at the other side of the equation.
There are currently 15 Beta outposts. Considering the cost and attention required to maintain the stability of even one, it would be unlikely that even the largest Corps. (currently anyway) would care to own anymore than two. The "average" sized, current Corp. will want to focus on just one. So how many Corps. is that? It's certainly not 15 so some islands will be "open" even to smaller Corps.

Now let's factor in the advantages of owning a Beta Outpost versus the costs AND the advantages versus the costs for attacking the SAP's of another Corp.

It would take someone with more knowledge of the market and manufacturing than I have to put hard numbers on these variables but a medium-sized Corp. that is currently in an alliance does not get any direct (game-mechanic provided) benefits from being in that alliance if they aren't the outpost owner. The alliance members may choose to trade amongst themselves in favorable terms but station ownership directly benefits only the actual owner.

This won't change in the new structure BUT owning their own outpost, even if it is not maintained at 100% stability, will - or more exactly - can, do so. While outpost ownership will confer cost reductions (even to zero cost) to the owning Corp., it will also require constant "upkeep" costs in the form of ammo and items and bots potentially lost in routinely taking their SAPs.

A Beta outpost-owning Corps. ability to balance these costs against the benefits is tied to how much benefit they can draw from their outpost by manufacturing, mining, refining and selling.

These costs will be multiplied for any Corp. that owns a Beta outpost AND wants to harass another Corp. by consistently contesting the SAP's of that other Corp. I would suggest that, even for the largest Corps., there is no direct benefit in contesting someone elses outpost UNLESS you intend to take it over.

For a Corp. that owns no Beta outpost, there is also ZERO direct reward unless you intend to take the outpost.

I'm not suggesting Corps. won't do this just for grins, but, until or unless there is a game mechanic that rewards a Corp. just for taking someone elses SAP, it's going to be perceived as a waste of NIC and time very quickly.

On the flip side, it benefits EVERYONE if all the Beta outposts are owned by Corps. As stated previously, the disincentives for a Corp. to own more outposts than they can manage to keep the stability high on are great enough to stop anyone from trying to own more than a couple. But, when every Beta outpost is "owned and operating". their value is increased for everyone due to the availability of more goods, more "soft" PvP targets like miners and haulers, more hard PvP targets in the form of "guards" and SAP defenders and by the improved quality of everyone's Bots through a more vibrant market.

Beyond that, alternative types of Corps. and Corp. relationships become viable. For example, a very efficient, skilled manufacturing/mining Corp. may seek to hire other Corps. as protection for their Ops and transporting. Both will benefit. NAP's and alliances will still have value, just for different reasons...and probably on a more transitory basis.

This is all good for the game. Stability is the enemy of a sandbox PvP game...particularly stability that results from domination. Anything that lowers the cost of entry to outpost benefits will improve PO by creating more instability, increasing PvP opportunities and "spreading the wealth" directly through game mechanics.

While, personally, I'd like to see these changes released simultaneously with more of the benefits to station ownership that have been discussed, they are, without any modification at all, beneficial to the game.

I didn't make my post in order to cast aspersions on the motives of any Corp. or Corp. leader but your point is well made as the ability to arbitrarily not just kick an ally but lock down their assets is indeed a major disincentive to be wholly at the mercy of the whims of another.

Remember that, especially given these and future changes, today's minor or medium Corp. may well be tomorrow's uber Corp. due to factors like more efficient production, better marketing and/or simply superior PvP combat ability...IF they are independent enough to earn the outpost benefits for themselves.

After all, It isn't the availability of T4 fittings and Heavy Mechs that results in a "professional military". Any student of recent history will tell you that having lots of T-80 tanks or Predator drones, will not necessarily win you the war.

We need to avoid mechanics which lead towards alliances, and encourage mechanics that encourage help smaller corps. This way there is more diversity. Unfortunately people tend not to think about the health of a game, and only think in terms of large power blocks having empty stations.

The developers made the right choice in developing this.

Unfortunately, formal alliances in EVE almost entirely annihilated corp culture and replaced it with alliance culture. If you look back at our oldest political maps you'll realize that back then tiny corps held sov and it was viable and they formed into bigger alliances, but those alliances weren't stable. Corps were constantly joining and leaving and it was common for civil wars to start.

Once a group of corps is tied into a formal alliance, that's no longer possible. Corps can leave, sure, but it becomes less likely as  interdependence has been created. I mean, if RG could just buy stuff on the alliance market from CIR, would they really bother building up their own industrial wing? Or would they consider it needless duplication and give it up for a bad job?

Not having that guarantee forces corps to be self dependent, and it keeps their culture alive. It also creates a more fragmented and protean political landscape, something everyone should prefer.

Will mega corps form if alliances aren't added? Well, no, probably not. Based on experience in EVE and other games, I can say with absolute certainty that mergers between corps tend to go poorly, with the old leadership irritated that they no longer have a say in the day to day operation of the corp, and the old members annoyed that they don't mesh well with the existing group. It's a difficult thing to pull off, and it's very likely that a lot of corps will say no to a merger because they don't want to lose their culture and their independent power. It's one thing to join an alliance. It's another thing entirely to give up your shared history and join another corp en masse.

A community makes a great sounding board for concepts and ideas. Certainly EVE would be a better game had the devs paid more attention to the CSM.

The whole purpose of this change is to get people to spread out. Allowing them to continue sharing territory on a single island is at cross purposes to this design. The nic isn't the important part, the population density is. Nova, as an example, has a way higher population density than Norhoop or Dom. Why? Because the current system rewards building a densely populated island and using that dense population to watch the gates constantly and protect activities.

It's not necessary for corps to split out of the alliance. A small corp (5-10 members) isn't all that likely to complete an SAP in the first place, let alone have guys on when it becomes active. You can easily share out some of the income from services to them to compensate them for the lack of moolah. 

There's only a wheel if you get obsessive about holding 100% stability.

After having re-read the entire thread again today, I can honestly say that there is alot of good ideas put forward here, and the changes are exactly what Perpetuum needed.

The only people that don't like what's being said, are the ones that directly stand to lose influence with this change. Power doesn't always have to come from military or economic areas, but charisma combined with the followers to do your bidding in the form of waging war or building your stuff to wage war is a dangerous tool.

I find this acceptable.