Why do you not like player owned bases

[Haste]

Ah yes, because we need another round of bases built on top of mining fields and jumpholes. The amount of regulation around POBs is too small as it is, and you want to get rid of it entirely?

I think Fab is suggesting we make the game handle these things itself. So, for example, a player would just be unable to build a PoB right next to another Solar, another PoB, a jumphole, mining field, a lane ring, etc. Instead of regulating, have the game do it for us.

I do also believe core upgrades and attack declarations should all be handled in-game, as they were when PoBs were first introduced and they stayed that way for a long time.

Where I think Discovery missed the mark is by not really picking a direction for PoBs: destructibility versus non-destructibility. We've kind of just taken the middle ground: incredibly slow and grindy and un-fun to destroy, and similarly grindy to build up. I'd like to see a shift where both of these things are a little bit more fun/manageable to do. Before people assume anything: no, purely reducing base hitpoints and the resources required to build PoBs and their modules wouldn't be all. Our plans for a sieging rework are a little bit more comprehensive.

It would appear that slowly but surely the PoB-focused part of the community has started viewing their PoBs as permanent structures, and any threats towards them as personal harassment, when that is clearly not how any of this was intended. PoBs are temporary. It is important that game mechanics are designed keeping that in mind. Local unlawfuls sieging a lawful playerbase (or vice versa) should be a routine part of gameplay, and so long as the defenders can muster some forces whenever required, they should be favoured to keep the base intact. But if they can't, they'll have to rebuild instead.

(To answer the OP, I do actually like PoBs and think they are one of the more interesting features Discovery has, they're just not very well thought through.)

---