I this case it’s the change I’m interested in and change is I fluid time not stagnant so let’s see.
Bjorn seems to be planning this well , it’s has begun but he has planned for short and long terms so again let’s see
2 Likes
So you’re saying that you support tyranny?
1 Like
I’m a tyrant to some and a freedom fighter to others , it’s the way of things
1 Like
I do lol at those that think this is some anti monopoly thing. When all Bjorn wants is to get that passive isk himself. He want to be the POCO king in highsec. While it is easy to take a poco keeping them is hard.
1 Like
So you admit you’re a griefer.
Excellent 
Let me put it this way: at the moment, the one and only way to fight for the monetary proceeds of POCO’s handling of the PI transfer is through the use of brutal violence. Everything is based on the destruction of POCOs and fleets facing each other. There is no other way to fight for POCO. I think this is an overly simplistic mechanism and that one would expect a game that has been around for 18 years to have more to offer… finer ways to generate conflict around POCO.
Think, for example, of a conflict between players wanting to mine asteroids from the same asteroid belt in the same system. One group can make gank attacks on the other’s mining or transport ships, they can pay other players/corporations to make ganks, they can hinder mining by bumping ships (add to that the chance to steal mining drones), or by deliberately mining the same asteroids as the opponents mining ships to reduce their yield. If the opponent has a citadel and is mining moon goo, you can shamelessly mine their moon chunks while their players are offline, or even better, at the same time they are mining moon ore. Anything to put pressure on your opponent. To limit his income. To ultimately discourage him from fighting for resources in the same system. And it is not necessary to declare war, which will end with the meeting of two fleets and mutual (or one-sided) destruction.
Now imagine that players can, in similarly versatile ways, generate conflict around POCO, put pressure on the POCO monopolist by forcing him to take other actions than simply paying off one (or more) groups of professional paid murderers who will easily crush in a few days, by their superiority of expensive equipment and ships and their sheer numbers, anyone who gets the idea of throwing down the gauntlet to the POCO monopolist. Which is precisely what is happening in the case in question of 10.K vs Omega. BjornBee is about to lose war HQ astrahus in New Caldari (hull timer), the war will expire and he will not be able to declare a new one for 2 weeks.
This topic is not the place for me to describe potential methods of fighting for PI and POCO related resources other than declaring war and slaughtering each other. Believe me though, I had a few ideas - it’s just that I no longer have faith in the goodwill and competence of CCP to be able to implement more interesting and diverse mechanisms regarding POCO. Why? I gave the answer earlier - CCP has not been able to solve the POS issue for many years, despite promises. CCP is not interested in refreshing/improving the existing aspects in this game that require such actions, because they apparently lack competent staff to do so. Instead, they’d rather spend time and resources on a one-off crossover, or releasing more SKINs and apparels with slightly altered colour schemes for heavy money.
1 Like
To be honest, I always thought that CCP should enable the ability to plonk down more than just one POCO on a planet.
Interesting post, I expect 10.k to lose their war HQ. But he can just make a new corp and switch everything to that and come again. I looked at the battle report after making my post above having not seen it before and was interested to see Naga’s being fielded by 10.k, but talk about easy to kill long range sniper fits. However logi is too weak or non-existent. They are just feeding massively…
1 Like
The only reason POCOs work like this is because after massively nerfing high-sec wars after caving to carebear demands, CCP needed to leave something in the game to fight over to say “see? wars are still okay! look at all the meaningful content that’s happening!” Without POCOs, they might as well have cut anything to do with wars out of EVE’s source code, since there would be virtually no wars happening in the game.
1 Like
I am not saying that the solution to the POCO monopoly problem would be a change to remove armed conflict from the equation. I’m just noting that there could be other ways to create conflict and content around POCO beyond the only existing model, which is armed conflict.
Dracvlad immediately noted the first potential solution that naturally comes to mind when considering the POCO monopoly problem: the ability to anchor more than 1 POCO on a planet. Owners of several POCOs around the planet could create competition among themselves by setting different taxes for the transfer service and picking up customers. If, in addition, POCO offered more than just PI transfer + storage, we would immediately have a separate conflict layer, similar to the conflict of interest margin traders face in trading hubs.
And nothing would prevent a POCO monopolist, unhappy with the loss of revenue and customers, from declaring war on competitors. But then he would have to put a lot of money into such activities, further exposing himself to wars that could take a turn unfavorable to him. Finally - I doubt it would be financially sustainable to maintain a monopoly with wars all over high sec against every competitor. So he would have to calculate costs and simply, at some point, let go of full control where he could in favor of maintaining influence in a smaller area. This is how you break a monopoly. This is how you create competition that can serve as a content driver for everyone. This is how you create a more interesting universe in New Eden.
1 Like
The POCO monopolist wouldn’t have to put in any more money than under the current system, because POCO monopolists operate on the reputation of being willing to defend their POCOs. Random parties wouldn’t throw up additional POCOs on planets for the same reason that random parties don’t go after POCO monopolists today: because they know that it will be a losing proposition for them.
Once again, not any more so than today. If you’re war-eligible, you’re war-eligible. If there’s someone out there stronger than you who can take what’s yours, they won’t necessarily wait to be a defending party in a war before doing it; they’ll just go after you as is. It’s once again reputation that prevents this from happening. Dracvlad doesn’t understand this because he’s a non-combatant, and never does anything that exposes him to risk. It’s theory-crafting by someone without experience.
In EVE, you break a monopoly by becoming stronger than your competitor. Does the party that has a monopoly on POCOs also have a monopoly on military power? If so, you need to break that monopoly first. This isn’t real life, where government intervention is required because an average person is extremely limited in the scope of actions they can take against someone else. In EVE, everyone can fly a massive warship, and recruit an army of like-minded people who can do the same, and then project that military power at will. Players who ask for mechanical changes to break up monopolies do so because they’re weak, and can’t compete for the resources they desire. Why should weakness be rewarded?
2 Likes
That solution(…) Is pretty much “spam more structures” which is the opposite of what the game needs and is really just the passive aggressive carebear stare way of doing things. Not really a surprise there.
We don’t need more ways of avoiding conflict and content.
LOL, putting a structure up is setting up for conflict and content.
No it’s avoiding the content that already exists while frantically avoiding conflict.
Question………
If you allow more than one POCO per planet. How many do you allow? Are they going to be like mobile depots round trade hubs?
Like do we ever get to the point that anyone wanting to do PI just puts up their own one and its lost beside the other 50 that are round the planet and they are all kinda safe coz no one has the time or energy to try and blap them all?
Coz i can see the argument for allowing only 1. But saying there can be more than one just sets up the question of where is the cap? 2? 3? 4? 10? 50? Unlimited? And why?
As for the this “war” i love how AG are jumping in. It’s like when Fiji send 10 guys to help during world war two and then wouldn’t shut up about it. To the point that those 10 guys basically won the war single on their own lol
What content existed previously? Hardly anyone bothered going for POCO’s.
Putting up a structure enables wars. Your logic is not sound.
@Etch_Masuka talk about trying too hard
How many would you suggest, I was thinking 20 a big enough number so people should not be able to just flood all planets but a low enough number to remove spam.
So you feel that just because I have done AG means that I don’t have a point of view or a voice in terms of this. I have actually been involved in about four hisec POCO wars, how about you?
Additionally if I was still in hisec and had a specific area in which I was operating in I would in fact take advantage of this and shoot some too, but I am currently using nullsec POCO’s which are far better.
I like seeing the backup corp created 26/01/2022 ready for another war HQ…, smart man.
FYI: no AGs have jumped in as of yet. The water’s just too cold.
- Having more doesn’t improve anything.
Now why would you take a general comment about AG latching onto someone else content and pretending its their own as being directed at you?
It is your opinion that it does not improve anything, my opinion is different. So what?
Personally I always thought POCO’s would have been an excellent combat driver for small entities and small wars, but in fact it ended up only being for big boys to the detriment of the game… Though all credit to the Omega & Friends player who really did an amazing job with this.
I don’t think that Githany or myself were doing that, Githany was suggesting that people could stand up and get involved and as such it would be a smart move to put pressure on the defenders. If I was focussed on hisec then I would be doing just this. Suggesting that people do that which would help 10.k open things up is actually fine and a valid point.
I would do this for POCO’s that I wanted to use myself first and foremost, and I would see it as an opportunity. Of course over time someone would come take it back, but if you don’t make an effort you miss out on content. You think that people like Githany can’t push people to think about going for content. It seems a bit odd that this is your point of view when in fact we went more people chancing their arm and putting out.
But I do think it was directed at me, I am in an alliance which is made up of mainly AG players or players that have partaken in that content, though we are all not really doing AG atm. Hopefully that clears things up for you a bit.
In any case this is fun to watch and comment on, so fire away.
The issue I have is that its always presented as some grand crusade. To “throw off the shackles of large groups” like thats going to make life better for everyone in hi-sec. But we already have the face of this POCO hunt saying that he wont be changing the tax rates when he replaces them.
So its not benefiting anyone. It’s just short term fun.
If you guys just said “hey this thing is happening. It’s some good content and its going to be fun blowing some stuff up. Come get involved” then fine. But you don’t. It’s dressed up in the nonsense rp you guys do as something thats going to benefit everyone. Which is just crap.
I think you are projecting.