Game should be more dynamic: i think "SAP"s should be like POSes. When you capture OP, you should build your own structures arouns it, and if enemy want to capture OP it should destroy\hack\disable this structure(s). In my opinion outposts should be intermediate level between alpha and your own city (what top corps will build on terraformed ground), so i think outpost should be a hub, around what you should build upgrades/sap's. And when you will get from OP all you want, you will move your corp to the your own city. In this system i think you will get large and small scale pvp, instead of sneak-hack of current saps in intrusion 2.0 system.

You disappoint me... son.

No delivery.

Not entirely true syndic as you know that a corporation that size wouldn't survive very long as is the nature of people and personal agendas.

Stop trying to scare monger, as per usual your political machinations are blunt and unskilled

Is that because of our capitalist approach to the game over the commanistic approach? Is it that we came here in masse from anther sandbox game that has allowed us to adapt more quickly than new players that have never been in a sandbox game before? Is it because of our internal structure of council type management over the dictator approach?
   
While I agree that mega corps have before and can survive, there are too many variables at this time to say that X method is the best method to use.

I think it boils down to a certain "ideal" of sandbox games...

No players should be "forced" down a certain path by artificial game mechanics. There are players out there who want to be part of a small corporation of friends that isn't allied with anyone, there are also players out there who want to build something bigger; an alliance, a nation, kingdom, empire, whatever.

Both playstyles should be equally encouraged by the Developers, because in the sandbox both of those playstyles provide the CONTENT.

Just look at what Goonswarm did to EVE, 5 thousand(!) nerd-people focused on annihilation, trolling, griefing, scamming, etc. Worst thing that could happen right?  They were the content that CCP could never have anticipated or implemented, and it was the best thing that happened to that game.

Syn-

An artificial game mechanic preventing small corps would be needing to have 30 people minimum to start one. A play mechanic in the game that requires a larger corporation to accomplish doesn't stop small friendly corps from forming. But as for outposts, a small group shouldn't be able to hold an 'empire' sized game mechanic. We're always at the edge of talking about how the game is now and where it is going, so a beta outpost now looks like the top prize, but after content releases who knows where it may go to.

Working with just what we have, I suggested and I think you're saying something similar, is one size doens't fit all. Making the current outposts hold-able by only the 3-4 largest corps not only locks many players out of that content but also leaves 60% of the content unsused. To accomodate the now, outposts that can handle (2) sized of Corps, large (200+) and Med (over 100) would allow much more of the content to be used, and then adjust the mechanics of holding it as the game progresses.

Slightly confused. The feeding cycle of smaller to larger corps taking outposts isn't prevented by the dev proposed mechanic. In fact taking an outpost is much easier for a small corp. They just won't be able to keep it or get any particular benefit from it. Heck even No-PVP PIE corp could get lucky and hang arounda 0% outpost for 10 mins and win a passive SAP, then buy up tp 100% and have some benefits for about a week.

If your saying outposts should all be 24 hour SAP's, yeah that's probably OK too. It could even be better for the game to have some outposts that are continually changing hands. Although I don't see this working well, because even if you buy up the % it's going to be difficult logistically to use an outpost for 'a few days'; and you'll probably lose more lithus's then you gain in production output or NIC.

Any corporation that is going to base itself on beta would have to have a minimal amount of firepower, to fight off SO's if nothing else. I think the worry here is that a small corp that captures an outpost, will again choose not to base there, since they would have difficulty moving supplies, mining, and just otherwise controlling the area around the outpost.

When I think of small or medium, I'm more considering the time zone coverage. A 'small' corp would still be an average of 20 active players online (about 60 player base), but they may only cover a 4-6 hour window; where a medium corp could cover 6-12 hours (200 players), and a large corp could cover 24/7 (500+).

It would totally defeat the purpose of the outpost change if it ends up in the same situation again where a corporation can't keep the area safe so they end up mining and ratting on Alpha and simply run back to beta each time the SAP goes active.

An alliance supported scheme, that is allowing multiple corps to band together and secure outposts, is just going to support the current model of play under the new mechanics. The ability for same Island corporations to be Allied isn't stopped by the game and is actually beneficial for both. Requiring each corp to be able to hold their own outpost though ensures that they can be equals in the alliance. It also doesn't stop outpost oweners from making alliances with small corps and allowing them access to both the island and the resources. This is actually better overall, since the outpost owner can't just use the small corps as a meat sheild, so the small corp actually needs to be doing something Useful for the alliance; which can simply be using the outpost which provides the owner with NIC.

I think it's inevitable that as the world expands there will be a need and desire to have alliances, but I think as was pointed out on the podcast, that's its not really needed now and that corp features would be a priority.

I think it's probably OK to implement the new outpost setup without alliances, but there's a real possiblity that no CURRENT corporation will be capable of holding it at 100% as stated in the blog, due to the lack of 24/7 coverage.

I am not that really interested in holding an outpost with the new intrusion or  the present one. Risk/work involved versus rewards needs to change. Others will find interesting/chalenging to hold and lock access.

I am also in favour of alliances been formed, only, as equals with each corp holding its own OP as Arga mentions. 200+ man corp 'should' be more than enough to hold it close to 50-70%mark and mechanics should reflect that preference.
500 man corps to just to hold on at 50%, is way over the top if those are the game mechanics changes intentions.

We can't be sure what would happen until implemented, then tweak as necessary depending on feedback.

If corp leaders would rather lose their identity, just to keep an outpost 100% so be it,if they feel more strongly about keeping the Corp, then they will not compromise in losing it and keep their own op at 50-70%. No one is forcing anyone to blob in a Corp.

If corps are going to be more busy defending, then less frequent attacks or far less numbers will be expected IMO.