Power projection is not realy the issue.

EVE is full and I will try to explain.

@baltec1
Just because there is no one willing to find or able to make a countersetup work does not mean the game is broken.

open your map and look at stats - null is 80% empty, nobody rats, nobody fights, nobody do anything there - so how can eve be full?
without instant teleport abilities your 1000 man fleet would be on the other side of the map if you plan well.
and if you chek map history null has become _EMPTIER_ as the blue donut consolidated, not fuller.

@ baltec
So we agree on that there are 2 superpowers left and that they will not kill each other.

The question is if this is a failure in game mechanic or is it natural?
I say it is natural.
To make my point let us take a view on the history of humanity.
In the middle of the 19 century we reached the point where we had all continents fully colonized. At the end of this colonization we had 6 nations USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan who wanted more.
For the next 50 years they fought some smaller wars and in the end it escalated in the 2 biggest and cruelest wars the world has ever seen. After that 2 coalitions were left one around the USSR the other around USA with a few states left in a block of states with no alignment.
At the end none could fight the other, but the critical threshold was the moment when there was enough personal, ressources and technolgy to colonize the world. The rest was just a change in distribution of the territory they had control over.

The same applies for EVE we had a colonization time, then we had smaller wars and it escalated to a number of bigger wars and in the end 2 coalitions are left.

I could tell the same story with companys but this is simpler to understand.

So I say this is the natural it is not the fault of CCP or the game mechanics they created.
We just hit the threshold and then we had 5 years of amazing battles.

@Sara Tosa
What baltec said is right we would lock down all gates to empire like we did when we had the cynojammer screen in 2006-2009.

So you can change the game mechanics which is the technology in this universe but it will not bring you below the escalation threshold. It will probaly make the universe less believable which would be sad.

EVE is full

@ baltec
So we agree on that there are 2 superpowers left and that they will not kill each other.

The question is if this is a failure in game mechanic or is it natural?
I say it is natural.
To make my point let us take a view on the history of humanity.
In the middle of the 19 century we reached the point where we had all continents fully colonized. At the end of this colonization we had 6 nations USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan who wanted more.
For the next 50 years they fought some smaller wars and in the end it escalated in the 2 biggest and cruelest wars the world has ever seen. After that 2 coalitions were left one around the USSR the other around USA with a few states left in a block of states with no alignment.
At the end none could fight the other, but the critical threshold was the moment when there was enough personal, ressources and technolgy to colonize the world. The rest was just a change in distribution of the territory they had control over.

The same applies for EVE we had a colonization time, then we had smaller wars and it escalated to a number of bigger wars and in the end 2 coalitions are left.

I could tell the same story with companys but this is simpler to understand.

So I say this is the natural it is not the fault of CCP or the game mechanics they created.
We just hit the threshold and then we had 5 years of amazing battles.

@Sara Tosa
What baltec said is right we would lock down all gates to empire like we did when we had the cynojammer screen in 2006-2009.

So you can change the game mechanics which is the technology in this universe but it will not bring you below the escalation threshold. It will probaly make the universe less believable which would be sad.

EVE is full

No we dont agree. I am saying we CANT kill eachother, the mechanics make it impossible to break the stalemate and also make it impossible for anyone new to take us on.

Yes we can end it we just have disband the coalitions but we are not doing that.

So you say the good space is full and the other space is not worth it.
There will be always bad and good space you can not change that and most of the time this is the buffer between the coalitions.
So you realy say EVE is full

What you might want is more PVP and hope to accomplish that by adding more people into null.
The problem is most people do not want to PVP all the time so adding more people to null will not help.
It also will not increase the fighting over limited ressources because we already done that .

Yes null is not as full as it could be in terms of player numbers but it is definitely in terms of systems and ressources.
You proved my point, thank you for that.

And that isnt going to happen untill the need for those coalitions goes away.

Can you provide an example of what CCP could do for that to happen?

Coalitions were created when alliances were not enough to defend space in the escalation process.
You do not need them if there is enough space for everyone and this again proves my point

Maybe 80% of the systems are not great but you can make 100mil per h per account in them if you want.
I could do that, so I assume people do not want them for other reasons.
To my mind comes " We get SRP no need for ratting", "Ratting is boring" , "I don't rat in a pipe because of the gangs" and " I'm only in this game for PVP"

Coalitions were created when alliances were not enough to defend space in the escalation process.
You do not need them if there is enough space for everyone and this again proves my point

Maybe 80% of the systems are not great but you can make 100mil per h per account in them if you want.
I could do that, so I assume people do not want them for other reasons.
To my mind comes " We get SRP no need for ratting", "Ratting is boring" , "I don't rat in a pipe because of the gangs" and " I'm only in this game for PVP"

Residency based sov. Remove the need to grind through hundreds of millions of HP in a handful of timed fights and you remove the need to have large fleets of caps the grind through those structures.

And how would that end the stagnation?

We lose sov in every system outside of dek because it would be impossible for us to hold it freeing up several thousand systems for smaller alliances.

I suppose theres probably 10 reasons for coalitions existing, but the one I believe will still keep them together under your description is simply that they have grown to share an identity together and rely on that for defense against the NC/PL bogeymen.

PL and NCDot arent going away under any game mechanic change and therefore the CFC Coalition will always have a "reason" to exist. Doesnt matter how much space you create.

I think occupancy or user based sov is a step in the right direction, but how does that stop any large group from imposing protection fees on another smaller group?

Let's say this change happens and alliances own the regions they actually operate in. Wouldn't a group like CFC or N3/PL just tell the little guys that they can keep their space so long as they pay protection fees and grant R64s to their overlords. They can't actually take the sov from them, but they can harass the smaller alliances enough that they aren't willing to live in nullsec anymore. Then we have smaller alliances holding sov, but in essence the system is still the same except it is harder to keep track of the various groups since the renters aren't under a large Alliance like PBLRD or B0T.

As long as there is functionally no cost for large groups to throw their capitals across the cluster the system will remain the same in function regardless of how it is delineated through in game alliances. We saw how easy it was for CFC to take out those titans that were incubating in their region.

I think occupancy or user based sov is a step in the right direction, but how does that stop any large group from imposing protection fees on another smaller group?

Let's say this change happens and alliances own the regions they actually operate in. Wouldn't a group like CFC or N3/PL just tell the little guys that they can keep their space so long as they pay protection fees and grant R64s to their overlords. They can't actually take the sov from them, but they can harass the smaller alliances enough that they aren't willing to live in nullsec anymore. Then we have smaller alliances holding sov, but in essence the system is still the same except it is harder to keep track of the various groups since the renters aren't under a large Alliance like PBLRD or B0T.

As long as there is functionally no cost for large groups to throw their capitals across the cluster the system will remain the same in function regardless of how it is delineated through in game alliances. We saw how easy it was for CFC to take out those titans that were incubating in their region.

The word you are looking for is CONTENT. CONTENT is being created by N2/PL and CFC, also fights.

i would say remove pos and replace with modular pos idea where pos exist in dead space pockets and replace moon minning with a version of PI...

that way goons and pl cant just park thier poses at each r64 moon and protect them with the apex forces...

Super blobs are not content if the subcaps can't do anything about them. Then it is just bullying, plain and simple.

@ baltec
So we agree on that there are 2 superpowers left and that they will not kill each other.

The question is if this is a failure in game mechanic or is it natural?
I say it is natural.
To make my point let us take a view on the history of humanity.
In the middle of the 19 century we reached the point where we had all continents fully colonized. At the end of this colonization we had 6 nations USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan who wanted more.
For the next 50 years they fought some smaller wars and in the end it escalated in the 2 biggest and cruelest wars the world has ever seen. After that 2 coalitions were left one around the USSR the other around USA with a few states left in a block of states with no alignment.
At the end none could fight the other, but the critical threshold was the moment when there was enough personal, ressources and technolgy to colonize the world. The rest was just a change in distribution of the territory they had control over.

The same applies for EVE we had a colonization time, then we had smaller wars and it escalated to a number of bigger wars and in the end 2 coalitions are left.

I could tell the same story with companys but this is simpler to understand.

So I say this is the natural it is not the fault of CCP or the game mechanics they created.
We just hit the threshold and then we had 5 years of amazing battles.

@Sara Tosa
What baltec said is right we would lock down all gates to empire like we did when we had the cynojammer screen in 2006-2009.

So you can change the game mechanics which is the technology in this universe but it will not bring you below the escalation threshold. It will probaly make the universe less believable which would be sad.

EVE is full

Yes the old blocks will claim some of the systems.
But if there are enough systems so they can not claim them all in 2years, then there is space for a new coalition to rise.
There are a lot of bored players in these coalitions who would leave them if there was a new challange.
These players who go away will be the reason for some alliances to disband.