Daily Archives: September 28, 2014

Null Sec Lords Come Together for “The Null Deal”

Fixing null sec has been a discussi0n point for a few months now.  All sorts of pet philosophies have been floated about power projection, apex forces, travel, fleet sizes, the effectiveness of logistics, how easy or difficult it ought to be to take a system away from another null sec entity, what actions/efforts should be required to even hold sovereignty, to going back to the pre-Dominion system of sovereignty.

Which ever theory is your favorite, the consensus seems to be that null sec needs to be changed.  Big battles in null sec garner the most attention for the game, but right not the effort it takes to actually run a war is beyond what anybody really wants to commit to.  The giant brawls are the shiny jewels in the crown of null sec, but having been through a few sovereignty wars now, I can say that actual victory goes to side that can maintain a hellish operational tempo the longest.  Winning is wearing out your enemy, and the inevitable “fail cascade” in a war generally amounts to one side declining to show up for a seemingly endless string of timers and structure shoots.

Null Sec Sov - Sept. 28, 2014

Null Sec Sov – Sept. 28, 2014

So everybody involved seems to want to fix null sec, CCP included.  We’ve admitted we have a problem. Now how do we fix it?

Towards that end, members of the major sovereignty holding null sec entities, including N3, Pandemic Legion, and the CFC, have come together to draft a list of things that they feel are important to a successful update of null sec.  The list is short, with just three items, that I would summarize as:

  • Occupancy Based Sovereignty – You should only be able to hold the systems your alliance lives in and uses.
  • NPC areas in all null sec regions – NPC null is the spring board for smaller groups to inject themselves into null sec, however much of sovereign null sec is out of reasonable range from NPC null stations.
  • Increased Player Density – A backwards way of saying that null sec systems should be able to support more player activity.  Right now based on various factors, systems can only support so many players ratting or mining or running anomalies, and there are many systems that support so little of each that they are essentially useless and are held only because the alliance in question holds the systems around it.

You can read more detail here on what is meant by each of these propositions, and who has signed on the bottom line in support, but they strike me as a reasonable and positive set of goals for a new null sec system, as opposed to a lot of the talk that has gone on over the summer, which focuses a lot on just altering one mechanism or another from the current system.

Of course, any change is a long way off.  CCP has to lay a lot of groundwork in their code just to be able to change things from what I have heard.  We may have to get things in bits and pieces over time.

There is, of course, a forum threadnaught associated with this as well.