C'mon, use your imagination here...imagine a logoff trap where there are already a bunch of bot statues on the landscape...

If, and it's a big "if", this is the truth, then sounds to me like your best option is to go back to the negotiating table.  TBH, knowing your history, I seriously doubt this.  However, like I said, maybe you should be talking to STC instead of using the forums.  You might also see if someone can mediate for you in this, a third party.

An offer of some mechs and equipment, these are relatively new guys to the game, their articles on Rock, Paper, Shotgun have been excellent and also promote the game, and adding some equipment to guys just getting started might smooth the way.

Trying to "buy" public sentiment in this issue is somewhat undignified, and is the perfect opportunity for many of us to troll.  I'm rather surprised I haven't yet.

No.  This would triple the area that walls can be deployed.  If they are linked to outposts, and utmost limit is 3km from outpost, that is more than enough to cover saps and resources around an outpost, while still leaving at least half an island to be unwalled open terrain.  And that is the issue here.  Providing outpost defense is one thing, full island coverage should not be part of this.

Risk, for reward, embrace it...else stay off beta.

Confirmed, this indeed happened.  However, Mara Kaid did fight against it.

:::Lupus does a quick count of the posts in this thread:::

Hum, I'm only seeing one island's group of players advocating it...

PS: You have no business assigning motives to ppl's post to try and benefit your case.  I don't speak for Hokk, I don't even speak for M2S.  I'm just another player, trying to be objective about game balance because I want a healthy Perp.  Maybe you should try the same.

Don't feel bad, makes me feel dirty too, and I am in the same corp as him...

Let's be objective here folks.  And honest.  Those who went totally ape spamming walls are obviously going to hate this.  Those who have few or no walls really will not be impacted much at all.  The point being, that you can still have as many walls as you want, you just have to be willing to maintain them.

This is appropriate, because now it is not just a matter of grow and ignore, and only replaceing the holes punch thru.  It requires effort to sustain, just like SAP scanning, just like outpost defense.  It allows for groups to create essential structures, but not to be able to sustain spamage.  You can build what you want where you want it, but now you have to be willing to maintain it, you actually have to spend effort and NIC to keep them strong.

It will take 21 days for a fully grown wall to decay, based on 4 hp ( the average) every 8 hours decay rate.  Personally, I think that is too long a time, 3 weeks. But it is better than what it was.  The ablity to create your own structures has to be balance with some sort of mechanic, else they can be deployed everywhere and anywhere, with the only limitation being how much NIC you have.

Regardless of personal investment and agendas, we have to look at things objectively.  Just because it benefits you personally does not make something a good game mechanic.  We want a healthy and dynamic environment that will provide interesting and exciting gameplay.  Sorry to say, but sitting behind massive static structures is about as exciting as as, well, watching concrete set.

As I have stated in other threads, my main complaint is that these kind of issues should be exploded before it is introduced to the game.  People will cry "over nerfed!" when something is changed after they have invested heavily in it, so it is critical that when features are released, that as many as the potential issues as possible have already been investigated, and taken into consideration.

Understand?  Theorists there are plenty of, armchair generals and quarterbacks, art critics, etc.  You may "understand" everything about art and oil painting, but could you paint a Mona Lisa?

If I spoke to a professor of military history about Tobruk, and also with Rommel or Patton, who do you think I would listen to?  And who would I pick to fight a similar battle?  Don't get me wrong, when I first started playing stEVE, I was an EFT warrior, and no one could convince me that one should not normally fit a self rep on a ship, that a buffer tank, preferably a shield one, was the way to go.  After 6 months of fighting that concept, take a wild guess what happened?  And that was due to experience, the realization that what is on paper and what the actuality was are 2 different things.  Experience is the fire in which knowledge is tempered.

And as of yet, I have not seen any objective evidence to substantiate any assertation you have made on this topic.  Otherwise, I would debate the "facts", but as of yet all you have offered is subjective opinion.  At least if there was experience to back up that opinion, it would at least be an informed opinion.

No.

And btw, I was not refering to any group specifically ( well, maybe one).  Sorry to burst your bubble, you are not the center that Hokk alliance revolves it's guns around.

Edit:  And as far as the pvp since CIR's exit, I actually think it was the healthiest I'd seen in awhile.  No one had a totally overwhelming numbers advantage.  For the most part, things were pretty balanced as far as powerblocs.  And for some, I do think that was an issue.  It's a hard thing to go from nigh unto total domination to being on equal par or weaker the the majority of everyone else.  Instead of rebuilding to a competent force satisfied to at least somewhat hold their own, for some the walls must have seemed a god send, a way of offsetting that loss of firepower.  Others, who have managed to make enemies all around and were having a hard time sustaining against them, the walls must seem a way to save their collective *** from most of the server.  Regardless, personally, I see it as the more insecure you are, the more walls you build.  But that is just my opinion.

The perspectives, they are astonding...

Here is what walls have done.  In order to get any pvp, you have to set up to punch thru walls, get to and destroy or avoid probes, and make sure everyone has at least a mobile teleport with them.  By the time you actually get to your objective, you have spent at least an hour getting there, and your opponents have had all the time needed to dock up if they cannot engage, or batphone everyone working with them to get to there.

Meanwhile, all the mining types are having a field day, literally, mining and hauling with almost no risk of any threat getting to them before they can dock up.  They are still reaping the rewards of beta living, but with no substantial risk to justify those greater gains.

Whereas in the past people actually had to scout out their area of operations, and have a defensive force available to defend assets on the field or SAPs, now all you have to do is wall spam the hell out of an island.  You can't even get in and out to even scan for sap timers, and by the time you punch thru the walls, you're lucky if you can get to a SAP before the intrusion completes.

The only way to counter this is a massive blob with the firepower to punch thru relatively quickly.  One wall takes little time to get thru if you can set up properly around it, but multiple double thickness walls, even a huge gang takes too much time to actually get to the objective.  Due to this, you are seeing alot of outposts sit at 100% stablity, because no one can be bothered to actually take the time and effort, and marshall enough manpower, to actually try and take the SAPS.

Ther was huge crying by the same individuals now advocating walls against the change from being able to jump on an island to having to actually be within 1000 meters of an active SAP to detect it. The arguement used was that "it was too much effort and risk" to be able to scan the SAP times ( yes I am refering to 62nd) and that it would "shut down random pvp due to active SAPs".  It did not, there was actually significant pvp going on after the change. 

The real issue here was that some corps and alliances were starting to get their heads handed to them, and were seeing greater activity targeted against them due to that.  Walls for them came at a perfect time, because it allowed them to make it so difficult that the majority of people actually fighing them can't now be bothered to spend all the time to be able to get a fight, only to find that if the oponent does not have 2 to 1 odds they have docked up and disappeared.

I ask the DEVs to keep in mind that what is good for dynamic gameplay, and what causes a stagnant environment, and not be swayed by personal agendas.  Some defensive structures should be allowed, but not indiscriminate spamming all over an island.  there should be a range and limitation mechanic, like a nanopump hub that has to be energised, or tied to an outpost ownership and the region of that outpost, or some sort of maintenance fee, that limits use of walls to absolutely necessary defensive implacements only, and not just who has the most cash to fill in every available slot in the landscape and turn the beta islands into, effecticely, alpha, with no risk but greater rewards.

Wow, some of the arguements and accusations of lazyness here is just epic.

What involves more effort here:

A) 1 time spamming of walls, with occasional review for punctures, making it almost impossible for anyone to get beyond immediate entry to an island, with probes at strategic locations that ping everytime a hostile gets near it

B) Constantly having scouts out, or detectors, and a ready defense force to respond to any incusion of hostiles on the island in question, and having to pay attention the whole time you are out doing any activity on beta?

It's astonding that so many who in the past claimed to be pvpers and want to have "good fights" now want to hide behind walls and be totally safe, with no risk, farming and mining on beta.  Another "easy button", and yes it is easy.  It's expensive and takes time, but once that time and expense has been done, it's a simple and and cheap to maintain.

It's a good indication, when people resort to ad hominem attacks and insults to argue their points.  An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument..  It's a pretty good indication that those resorting to it have little or no valid points to add to the arguement.

PS- keep posting in yellow Dan, it suits you, you are defineately "yellow", so concerned to be able to hide behind your maze of walls and not actually have to work to defend your territory.

Already see an issue, once the initial expense is paid, there is no further upkeep required other than replacement.  We are already seeing wall spam on an epic scale, and some limitation might be in order.  Two possible immediate suggestions come to mind:

1)  Walls become non-permanent structures, that have a limited life and have to be replaced, or require some maintenance to keep them healthy

2)  Walls have an associated cost over time.  Call it a maintenance fee, for every wall segment you have, there would be a monthly fee.

Either of these would limit spamming walls to some extent.  Right now, it's just too damn easy to build thousands of walls all over beta, and for them to remain as permanent features useless specifically targeted with bombs or weapon fire, with no need to do anything to maintain them.