It's always going to be impossible for the second most powerful entity and below to take the most powerful entity unless they are both very finely balanced. The game needs to make full beta control as close to impossible as possible. I think making you take your own saps to prevent decreases in stability would be a good start.

Really stations are only half the issue though. Detectors and sparks make you able to respond anywhere you want anyway (and thats before we get in to alts).

I don't believe you should have to be able to beat whoever is the dominant power in PvP to own a station. This does not promote emergent gameplay, it promotes small numbers of powerblocks and alliances.

Perhaps an alternative would be allowing beta 2 to be locked out and not beta 1? I still think the having to take your own saps arguement is more elegant.

syndic, you logic and math skills always make me shiver...

m2s had the outpost supremacy under intrusion 1.0, that was a different situation regarding the station lockout, but similar reason why they could that.
For example to have assets in abundance in all outposts so you can travel there with only the fastest bots or today, with spark teleporting. you got the homebase advantage everywhere.

second part is - you need to do NOTHING to raise the stability of an oupost. since you have so many of them, and they nearly never cycle to be open at the same time -> you can focus all your effort on the one that is going to be attacked, which you will know without putting any effort in it.

writing any more is wasted effort...
but

is not what it takes to capture and hold an oupost from your corp. If you think so, then you know less about this game is played then... DEV Zoom.
(or you are lying for you forum propaganda)

SAP's have to be defended for 1 hour. If you don't defend, anyone can come by and complete the SAP, therefore reducing the stability. If you do defend, you're sitting there twiddling your thumbs for 1 hour. That's not "NOTHING", that's 1 hour of someone's time for 20-30M worth of loot.

If stations are that easy to defend without putting any effort into it, how did we take them in the first place 3-4 months ago?

Knowing what will be attacked where and when takes quite a lot of effort. Informants need to be bribed, covert agents must be maintained, and rank ladders must be climbed.

My logic is very straightforward. I took a few more stations and fought a few more wars then you, so keep your wannabe posturing on how the game is played for Zoom.

Sounds like nobody is trying to attack the outposts. Working as intended.

but the point is that one side owning all outposts (and by your own words watching every sap) is bad for the game as it crushes emergent gameplay.

finally we get to the point. I agree with you wholeheartedly .. now what do we do about that?

The plan right now is to close threads

Finish Gamma for Christ sake, so you can start the PVE content!

It does, yes, but not consistently. Even if there's two important SAPs happening at the same time and one is lost, it's extremely unlikely to happen again on the next timer. It essentially all boils down to numbers.

We have 50 players online and you think nothing should be fixed?

Actually there's about 170 to 200 online.

I agree with the comparison to FW in Eve. The difference here is there is no way to force the defender to cap their ow sap. I dont mean the defenders destroy their own destro, just that they have to sit on it for 5-10 minutes then their own little timer is up and as long as someone else doesnt come in and destroy it anyways then defense success.

If the defender doesnt show up to atleast sit in the sap for 5-15 then the sap goes uncontested the control rat naturally decays by 5%. othing game changing but would make it a little more difficult for one group to control everything.