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.

6 thoughts on “Null Sec Lords Come Together for “The Null Deal”

  1. dsj

    Underlying what would be a seemingly simple set of issues are far more complex ones.

    Occupancy based sov and changes to allow increased player densities create a series of problems that many in Eve (including the signatories to that letter) leave un-addressed.

    Principally how do you create a system of occupancy based sov without addressing the prevalence of alt accounts and the use of ISboxer within eve? Both of these behaviors have been either encouraged or ignored (in the case of ISboxer) for a very long time. I can easily see a scenario unfolding where we see “occupancy” by a fleet of what are essentially one-man bot armies.

    A second and related problem involves the terms of establishing and maintaining “occupancy”. Most plans currently floated involve systems which heavily favor the in-space performance of PvE, either in anomolies or in mining. These current measures leave out entirely PvP, industry, PI, or other forms of activity that should be equally supported.

    The added point of seeding NPC space into all 0.0 sov areas creates an additional problem and demonstrates a clearly self serving interest on those that have signed the letter. With the new changes to force projection of capital ships moving forward, where are the ideal places to store for future use fleets for rapid deployment? NPC system are ideal for this purpose. The largest coalitions routinely have pilots maintain doctrine ships in multiple systems with JC’s at the ready. No they can do so in total safety across every region in the game.

    I’m not convinced we have yet seen a viable plan to move forward with 0.0 and I don’t think every existing power in 0.0 would sign that letter if they thought that the changes would in fact greatly alter the relative power of the coalitions.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Wilhelm Arcturus Post author

    @dsj – Well, I don’t think anybody at this point, CCP included, knows how this will really end up. I was more interested to see this was a series of end-result goals as opposed to dictates on mechanics.

    The most astute criticism I have seen of these items is that 1 and 3 seem to be very nice for alliances running rental empires. But item 2 seems to be the counterweight to that, by suggesting that all null ought to be within range of some NPC space. If you look at that map that is part of the post, there are a lot of green systems, systems that are 25 or more jumps from an NPC station. And, hey, those systems happen to also make up much of the core of a couple rental empires.


  3. halycon

    One of the things listed on the o7 show was jump clones. Most people delightfully ignored it and started talking about Capitals Online. I think it’s fair to say not even Jump Clones are going to work they way the do now though, and the idea of jumping to a staging system on the other side of the map is going to go the way of the dodo.


  4. Stabs

    I think sometimes what they don’t put in is as significant as what they do. While these proposals are nice as far as they go Eve probably needs to break up the big coalitions by redesigning game mechanics not to suit them. To do that probably means reigning in the power of the titan blob.

    Otherwise “occupancy based sov” is just a fancy name for renting.


  5. Knug

    … and Item number 3 is a not-so veiled call to buff null sec even more. If the space wasn’t so “crappy” why hold it? Well, because its strategic. #3 goes away when #1 is introduced. If you don’t like someone living in *that* space, don’t hold it. Just don’t be surprised if no one wants to live there because it doesn’t generate enough income to cover the downside of living next to you. If you want folks to live next to you, why don’t you “rent” out the space that is actually valuable ? Maybe the problem isn’t that renters won’t rent the space you’re offering, rather that renters don’t want to pay for crap. Its a case of dealing with the landscape, not whining when the land you’ve fought over isn’t what you thought it was.


  6. Wilhelm Arcturus Post author

    @Knug – Buff null sec even more? You’ll have to explain to me why level 4 missions in high sec are more lucrative than low sec anomalies to make that argument anything beyond hating on null sec.


Comments are closed.