unlimited-use SPARKS:

Reduces/changes strategy for the worse ("spark positioning" more important than bot positioning)
Reduces overall PvP (less likely to flag as blob is a single click away)
Reduces size of the world (smaller space, less factions/sides)

Fix sparks^^^^^

True, before sparks, the CiR had a mega alliance but:

1. The other side was always a weak alliance at best and there were ALWAYS small corps here and there holding on to stations not joining any side.  I remember as we tried our best to get some of these small factions to join us.
2. For the CiR people it would have been next to impossible to hold all betas. Without sparks it wasn't possible like it is today.

Back then Nia was much larger so you could get away with being small and holding a station.  Today, everything is local, Nia is much smaller, so you HAVE to pick a side to hold a beta.

That is not a hard investment to make.

It wasn't too long ago, CiR and others were cranking out thousands of bots.  They are not expensive to make and t2/t3 fitted bots are decent enough to pvp for the newer player.

Vets will have no problem fielding all those bots needed, I'm cranking them out right now at a fast pace because I know this is the new reality.

I lose maybe 10 or 20 bots a year.  All I have to do is invest one time in about 50 bots (ongoing now), then be able to place them where needed. Then after the initial one time investment, all I need is my regular 10/20 bot replacement rate.

No!

This about the ease of any large force to be able to own all beta outposts because of sparks.

Because of sparking, a side, given it is large enough, will ALWAYS BE ABLE TO OWN ALL BETAS.

DEV Zoom, is this intended? If so then we will simply make the adjustment and live with the new reality.

BEFORE SPARKS, you had to make an investment into an area.  You had to "live there" and invest time into an area to hold an outpost.

AFTER SPARKS, all you need is to do is click one button, blob in, defend, and leave.  No investment, no using the terminal, ghost town.

STC guys, like Martha Stewart, have stated very clearly that a smaller force should never be able to "compete" (i.e. not hold on any outpost not even a single one) in the face of a larger "overwhelming" force.

SPARKS contribute to blobbing, and there are many anti-blobbing rules in PO.  Fix sparks and vote no to the BLOB.

Reading comp 101, I said we allied for SAP defense, those were not SPARK-overwhelming force-gank.  Read my poasts without emo and you will make less mistakes in future.

You have no idea what I like or dislike.  Unfortunately we never served any same corp so how would you know.  Ask people who know me what I like/dislike it will be quite different that what you think you know.

No!

I do/have traveled around, but that yields very little pvp today as my targets generally use sparks.  I do stay on one island but I probably travel ten times more in any given time period than the average STC guy typically travels.

BTW, nice to know you have a file on me.  I have noticed a precipitous decline in argano liquizit mining for missions in my "gank" zone  .

So based on your above statement you agree that the act of conventional travel does increase the opportunity for pvp, yes?  Isn't it better to implement those things that increase pvp opportunities (i.e. traditional travel, less sparking, etc.)

Wait a sec, Martha Stewart in post #16 just said there is very little pvp, now you say above we can get all the pvp we want.

You really should get with your corp mates and decide on a single story before posting lies.

I have NOT fought precisely BECAUSE of the threat of having 10 mechs spark in on me.  I can attest that I have PvPed LESS because of the spark situation.

DEVs, if you listen to these guys who want to protect the "little PVP we have", then you will never move beyond the current situation of small scale PVP we have now.  Change the spark situation and see if PVP picks up or not (which I believe will pick up).  I know for sure, I would flag up more...

I fully support a fix (MUCH sooner than later).

I have seen first hand (and participated in) the very broken, "beacon Manhattan project".

If you are only doing 5-6 beacons at one time you are way ("waaaay") behind the curve.  You really need to look at your process otherwise how the heck are you supposed to process the thousands of tokens in any given day?

I believe what happened (I'm just speculating here) is that the falloff bonus was supposed to play a much more important roll to the Numquol when PO was in development.

In EVE (which PO is based off of) the Minmitar very regularly engage in falloff ranges.  Similarly, it was probably decided at one point that Numquol weaponry was to have extremely short optimals and extremely long falloffs (sort of like autocannons/machineguns).

Because that (obviously) never got implemented, the falloff bonus (both the main extension as well as the Numquol combat bot falloff bonuses) has very little effect in game.

Falloff in PO needs to be looked at and fixed before any cost changes to the extension itself.

Of course what Martha Stewart forgot to mention is the time it requires to accumulate all those beacons.

1. ICE - I am okay with

2. The EP catch-up game - I do NOT agree with.
    a. There is a catch-up mechanic already built in
    b. New players can (and should) specialize
    c. If you allow a mechanic that allows a quick catch up to 25% you will solve nothing and create more of a headache for yourselves
        1. New players will still complain that they don't have enough EP
        2. If you quick-boost noobs to say 400k EP taking (3 months instead of 6), they will complain that they have to "waste" 3 months of game time until they get the "minimum EP required" to be competitive
        3. There will be numerous posts with analysis about how DEVs should increase the boost from 25% to 50% or sumesuch
        4. Newbies will still feel like newbies regardless of EP because of older players' experience and resources