Some decent ideas. I didn't read them all nor will I comment on them all.

Concord in low sec no. If anything allow to spawn a police force similar to Faction Police where its not insta kill.

Ice belts should not be removed from High sec. There is too much demand and if moved to low/null then there will be too little supply. If anything change Ice to deplete similar to Ore.

Remove insurance payout for Concord deaths but not Faction. Think of it as whatever faction your fighting for is covering insurance cost.

No on the teaching flagging. Dealing with war decs is part of the learning experience. Also I know there is a application process however anything thats not automated(similar to alliance logo submission) would require unneeded Dev involvement. This could lead to favoritism. If it was automated it would lead to being exploited.

What's up with all the haters? >>The OP specified that he did not necessarily endorse these ideas.<< This thread should be a discussion of game altering suggestions, not a game breaking demand or a flame. Chillax and read, comment instead of panicking.

I found the variation over time of system security interesting but it's certainly too big a change to be done ever.

I like some of the ideas you propose, although, I think if they were all implemented, they would probably destroy what high-sec is and a lot of people enjoy the high sec part of the game.

I like the idea of low-sec buffers between warring empires. This would create more price variation between the different empire market and it would allow for cross-empire traders to turn a profit by blockade running the low-sec systems.

Allowing Concord to protect low-sec system seems like a bit of a stretch though. It would be preferable if system conquered by militias could earn some faction police. Not much, but enough to be an annoyance.

A while ago, CCP also proposed the idea of having dynamic quality for mission agents. I would like this. If agents became obsolete for a while after being ove-used, people would have to move around.

About the Ice Belt, being from a wormhole, I would favor Ice belt being added as a new type of Gravimetric site that requires being scanned down. They would despawn/respawn after a few days. This would add a layer of difficulty to Ice mining, but it would also increase the security. It would be suicide to mine in an open belt in low-sec without a strong escort, and having an escort makes it un-profitable to harvest. If it's in a Gravimetric site, you see the probes in space before the hammer falls - that gives a chance to the miner to escape if he's paying attention.

I'd keep the current system of cost scaling how it is ...

If there was a giant button that read "I could not vehemently disagree with these "ideas" any more than I am," I would be mashing that button with fervor.

4. Empire space moats. Every racial region is surrounded by a two to three system ribbon of lowsec. Even the alliances between races are shaky and a no-man's land is necessary. Travelling from Gallente to Caldari space requires passing through two to three jumps of lowsec space. Travelling from Minmatar to Gallente space requires passing through two to three jumps of lowsec space. Shortest routes are still bottlenecks (e.g. Rancer), but ensure there are a number of choices for longer routes.

The problem with the current cost scaling is that it encourages people to game the system with decshields, and since CCP is not willing to police decshields, I figured it would be best to come up with a price structure/system that eliminates the need for them entirely.

As to the rest of your post, re; pricing corp vs. corp. I see where you're coming from. 100M ISK is just a number. I didn't want to make it too ridiculously low. Maybe 50M ISK is a better price point. Anything less is throwaway money. The price point should be at a point where it discourages most griefdecs, but still allows for people to **** each up over actual grievances.

Griefing should still be a part of the game, of course ... it shouldn't be completely inexpensive to do it though.

Currently anyone with a corp, a spaceship and a few isk can get into highsec wars that's good and I've seen people do exactly that, increasing the cost of that acticity by 2500% would make it less accessible to younger players and that's bad. I might spend all my time and effort victimising new players for entertainment, but different types of gameplay should be accessible to everyone and small groups should not be discouraged by putting prohibitive pricetags on what should be entry level gameplay.

Once an alliance has had war declared upon them, no corporation in that alliance may leave until the war has come to close. Any corporation not in an alliance that has had war declared upon it may not join an alliance until the war has come to a close. Players may leave a corporation that has had war declared upon it (or its alliance), but no players shall be able to join that corporation until the war has come to a close.

You realize that nullsec alliances are constantly wardecced...
so you can add/remove corps/members maybe twice per year if youre lucky.
what if i wanna kickout some spy?

The problem there is the opposite of putting a high flat rate on corp wars. Anyone could just get themselves an alliance for a billion isk ...

number 4 will just stagnate empier even more try and force people to goto lowsec and guess what they wont pvpers already have it easy enough if we put our brains to it no need to make bottleneck systems that will be perma camped

number 5 means that i dock my carrier one day but theres the possibility of the next day i wont be able to undock it or worse i do and it goes kaboom from concord

number 7 WHY if people want to spend there entier high sec lifes running L4s why dont we just let them it aint hurting us by putting most L4s in low sec wont force them to go there they will either just farm hsec l4s or quit let them find out themselves that there is more lucrative rewards out there in low/null sec without punishing those who choose to make themselves easy targets in hsec

number 11 again why exactly is this needed we have all seen what low sec hubs are like god forbid we dont need another one jita is already semi overpriced enough and tbh imo the safer the system the lower the taxs would be they are more civilised after all

number 13 is just not needed noobs need to learn fast not have a safe place to live for months on end

number 16 im getting the feeling you dont like people in hsec making money so your crying nerf so just a flat out no to that one incursions are fine as is more money faster = more time to pvp if your a pirate we made our choises and now we have to live with no hsec and if we are in nullsec well have you even tried to run a site the isk/hour ratio beats incursions by a lot so quit whining

number 17 yet again more crying nerf hsec money is fine as is

number 18 NO ******* WAY firstly the profit margin is already slim secondly have you seen how much it costs to run a decent hsec pos i bet you have no clue about this subject but you choose to whine about it anyway again this wont force people into lowsec or nullsec they will just quit or move on to other things and god forbid we dont want the nullsec powerblocks to have any more stranglehold on the market than they already do

number 19 While it would be fun it would ruin the balance of hsec and lowsec if you want bombs goto nullsec and on the side note talk about the node breaking concord spawn

number 20 again nerfing missions dont you like people making money or do you have something against people who pay 15 bucks a month to shoot rats

Your main argument against the original fees I'd outlined were to allow new low SP players to still participate in declaring wars.

New, low SP players can't afford to set up alliances for 1B ISK ... and if they can, then the other fees are of no consequence. They obviously have the ISK.

As well, to set up an alliance requires a substantial amount of SP to be trained. Not a lot of players are going to waste their time doing that. But if they do, more power to them.

Ah, ok, didnt read all of it.
So basicly you wanna force miners to not undock for a week, before they can corp hop ?

well what do YOU think would happen (with in this concept) when some 50 man pirate corp wardecs 10 man mining corp ?

ps. next time try splitting multiple ideas into different topics.

Problem is that all people dont wanna PVP.