Just means they will break Alliances into 2-3 parts, keeping them in the Collation.

Sovereignty, in it's current form, should be removed from the game entirely.

The true measure of "ownership" is control.

If I control what happens in your sov, then it doesn't matter whose name is on the label.

Control of a system does not require new game mechanics

So we can plant N+1 players in a system for X amount of hours in cloaky ships to flip the system?

What part of "murdering everything" did you miss from my post?

It's not about just having numbers in system, it's about using them to keep others away. Right now system is yours even if you never visit it again after planting a flag. Only thing stopping others from building a station there is that flag not your men power. I'm not talking about some weird occupancy game mechanics, I'm talking about occupancy by being there and fighting other off "your" ground. System should be yours because you actively prevent others from being there and exploiting its resources not because your alliance ticker is in system info panel.

Don't think in terms of "I will drop 1000 ships for X hours and flip occupancy timer" think in terms "I log in and see strange people in local, they poach my belts and rats and maybe even will suck my moongoo, I need to murder them before more will come".

Again, occupancy by keeping land by force not by some new lines of code calculating "presence factors". Null should be no mans land, you deserve nothing unless you can fend off others from it.

... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything?

If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you?

Nullsec - "NERF IT NAO"?

Eve is a game of commitment and even advertised as such with possibilities of specialization or jack-of-all-trades. This can scale from someone wanting to train into a battleship taking a month to people wanting to max out a carrier for some reason spanning over 3 years in skill training alone. Other wanted to dominate the market on a commodity and others want to live permanently in wormhole space. Some want to dominate a FW war zone and work towards that (GJ GalMil).

At some point people went and decided that they want to commit themselves into nullsec and gathering as much space, resources and man power as possible. These alliances and coalitions have flared up quickly and burned down even more quickly.

All the types listed are one sort of commitment and are endorsed by CCP to be great game play and content creators. Now people want one of those commitments nullified because the current status quo is deeply entrenched due to the groups having power being extremely large and powerful in their respective areas, mainly logistics and man power. Why would one commitment need to be erased and others left alone? Clearly people who have worked for something don't deserve to keep their achievements untouched and all their work should be stripped from them.

Most of the ideas people have posted promote "1 person can capture a system but will be overrun by 3 and they will take the system". Some want to limit power projection by cutting jump distance, amount of ships passing per cyno or increasing fuel requirements. All these ideas have a base thinking that the issue is something being easily transported immediately to a battle field or that logistics to handle tower fuel is done too efficiently.

What is being missed with almost all of the suggestions is that the "new guys" wanting to take sov under a new system would still be outnumbered badly. If you cannot exceed numbers of the defenders, occupancy sov wouldn't hold much worth. Cutting jump distance would just force to use more cynos. Limitations on ships per cyno means you'd just have extra alts lighting N+1 cynos so you can drop ships fast enough. Increased fuel requirements only hurt those who cannot produce isotopes fast enough.

All the changes are seen as "yay nullsec is saved" but almost all arbitrary limitations forget that there are players who need these mechanics in day-to-day operations which are not directly related to nullsec. Are you willing to cripple the whole game just to fix nullsec?

Arbitrary limits to e.g. amount of players allowed to enter a system at one time (via a cyno, been proposed many times) could also be extended to normal means of travel. How would a station in hisec where you can only have 20 players docked at a time sound like? Stargate which only allows 100 jumps per hour? Agent which will only give out 50 missions per hour? Arbitrary limits are arbitrary because they are used to limit what is allowed in certain content. FW complexes have ship requirements on the gate and dominant faction can deny docking rights for opposing factions. Ship size restriction has been quoted as a feature which levels out the playing field and disallows shipping up to win the fight.

On the point of FW, Gallente recently dominated the field by having more numbers willing to fight at all time zones; they had superior amount of man power and committed themselves to finish the job once and for all. Current nullsec blocs had a superior amount of man power to commit into capturing all the systems they currently have. Politics was involved in both cases, but why is former allowed and cheered at and latter yelled as unfair?

If nothing else comes from this whole post; please think how the changes will affect people outside of nullsec when you are trying to think heavily-limiting arbitrary rules which will be applied to all the space in the game.

Also screw typos CBA to check for them.

Be very careful CCP. If you break null, I will leave game. Burn Jita will be a tea party. Solve your problems. I remember how you fixed drone regions. You merely took things away. That was not a solution then, and will not be now.

And then you get dropped by a swarm of capitals, get camped until you lose the system.

Here are couple ideas about Agents on Player Owned Stations:

As CONCORD (and pirates) are neutral, so are the agents. Agent-bearing station must be open and accessible to everyone. As long as the agent is in residence (including a week-long "warning period" which sends notification to anyone with any items on station after owner cancels agents' contract), the station cannot be closed to anyone. This allows pirate population to control the carebear population and keeps carebears on their toes.

Station services are available to everyone at same price as long as agent is in residence. Profits from station services naturally go to the owning corp. Otherwise, if you want to get fancy, you could allow other corps to buy, install and maintain their own service modules and run a bit of competition...

Station owners naturally pay for the privilege of having agent(s) on station. This cost naturally escalates with mission levels available. This is, of course, in addition to normal station costs.

i really do like this idea but i find one major flaw. if the residents of this new world were able to build supers and titans and any other form of capitals... how is that going to be fair for anyone from the outside that wants to take it? and who is to say the current null sec groups wont send its legions of men without supers and titans and capitals to carve out a few systems in a region there and then build caps for defensive purposes.

if you have any thoughts on this i would love to hear it

Currently systems worth rattingin are -0.8 and lower, let's say the new space would be -1.0 to -2.0; all you'd have is current power blocs heading to the best systems and leaving inferior space behind.

Also supers don't take long to produce, you'd have first ones popping out from the multiple ovens in 3-4 months and we'd be in the same situation again.

any balance should be focused on the fact that power projection can not be avoided and the best cure for that is that there is no doctrines which can be only and only countered by having more of the same ship.

All I'm seeing is "CCP needs to remove one 'M' from the MMO because I cannot stand other people". There are many games for those who cannot play with others at a large scale, EvE isn't one.

Whatever the implementation may be, somethign is needed. A way that smallers fleets can cause damage or economic disruption on a sov held territory if they are not coutnered. There must be possible to hurt an alliance a bit without the need to bring 500 people.

That is necessary so that smaller fleets need to be coutnered, so MORE small scale combat happens.

For this you need to limit the free social interaction we currently have in-game and out-of-game. This "current situation" has happened because people are allowed to talk to each other and gather in numbers to get safety.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....No. NPC station in the heart of the CFC? You're delusional. Most of the dudes who hell camp that station have their ships already there. I have a few there myself. Like Shepard Wong said, that's a terrible example of power projection. Unless you consider simply undocking as power projection.

Syndicate is the perfect case and point in "want that space? fight for it". It's exactly what people are asking for in terms of mechanics. Why is this bad?

Use it or lose it.

http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/some-ideas-on-eve/an-influence-sovereignty-system/

The very fact that you think we want to keep the current sov is evidence enough that you have no idea what you are talking about. The only people CCP should ignore are NPC high sec players who have zero experience in null sov.

This is what happens when high sec players start spewing forth their terrible ideas on subjects they have no experience or understanding with.

Can you post the link to your set of suggestions posted somewhere in this thread? I'd like to read them.

We make more fleets.

They bulk of null players earn their isk outside of their empires in more lucrative highsec. Again you are doing the mistake of thinking alliance level income is what the line members get, its not.