The question is, is it right to turn maintaining districts into a job, where you must have a full team logged in every day at the same time, or risk losing your district without a fight? And while this would hurt vet corps ability to assemble ringers, a lot of newer corps wouldn't be able to manage under this system at all.

PC is pointless without actual EVE integration, at least FW has an effect EVE side as well as giving players Loyalty Points that can be spent on Aurum Substitutes or specialist/state gear that is flat-out just "Better."

At this point I'd like to see a removal of the pointless PC and re-introduce Corp Matchmaking, until we actually find a reason why anyone should give a damn about owning literally useless land that has zero effect Dust side or EVE side.

Disrupting the blue doughnut is hard, Maken.

Ask the General Tso's guys what would have to be done to the game to make them drop their allies, stop allowing Nyain San to hide under their skirt, and actively and intentionally go after each other.

Passive ISK, with the following changes, is the most feasible proposal to revive this game's high-end content, while requiring minimal dev time:

1) Limit timers to 1 per hour.

Every district can have their timer changed, but only to x:00. This will mean that a corp that can reliably field a team 24 hours a day can hold 24 districts. If they want more than 24 districts, they'll need to be able to field 2 teams for at least one timer. If they want to sleep, then they can probably hold 12 districts, etc.

This will greatly reduce land hoarding and open up land for smaller corps, especially with the new 150 clone attack pack.

2) Lower passive ISK payout

Previous payout was too high, but with the throttle on how many districts you can actually hold and defend, the amount it should be lowered by can't be too much.

Do those things, and you WILL have wars again, with greater accessibility to weaker/smaller corps.

Add your tweaks to the list.

The big point to a sov maintenance bill is a cost for maintaining the district is one of the few scalable ways to penalize holding land you aren't using. If you make money off fighting on the district, but it costs money to hold the district, you only want to hold as many districts as you can fight on.

If a regular cost to district ownership was had, but you could earn a profit on combat, theory stands that you would not want to hold more districts than you could actively field players on regularly.

Scaling the cost or penalizing multiple district holdings doesn't work, because you can just use alt corps to keep any individual corp's holdings size low. But a flat cost for every district scales naturally, and there's no way to avoid that cost through shell corps.

You would. Unless you're using that district to attack others and profit off of that.

Sov bill means that stagnation will equal bankruptcy.

Squatting on 50 districts in the 12:00 timer would deplete your cash flow real fast.