Feel free to get the supposed signatories to actually state they agree with this publicly.

Then once we know they do, feel free to enjoy nobody caring.

So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first?

CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid.

If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point.

Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space......but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show...
.

And the point is that the suggestions do nothing to create the conditions to make that large supercapital engagement more likely. They are geared towards getting smaller blocs to engage with larger ones - not towards getting the large blocs to directly engage with each other. And that fails to fix the fundamental malady of nullsec - a system of entrenched alliances who refuse to engage in the kind of total war that would really shake things up and allow new powerblocs to emerge.

bwahahahahhaahhaa the most bitter of foes that wont go to war with eachother but rather drop supers on newbie-pilots and rp'ers???

How about this for fixing 0.0 by joint venture... PL and goons mans up and shreds OTEC - voila 0.0 fixed???

So why not go to war with both of them? Literally nothing is stopping the CFC from deploying its supercapital fleet and looking for a major battle ala BR5.

This suggestion serves one purpose: to allow the current power holders to condense their large empires into small, unpenetrable fortresses (cynojam, lot of friendlies in fleet 1-2 jumps away) where they can rat in complete safety, regions away from anyone who could theoretically harm them.

In the meantime both their own PvP-ers and current pirates are pacified by offering them regions full of terrible players who are easy to farm (these are dubbed as "new alliances").

The result: CFC, N3 and PL are ratting in Nyxes in 3 far corners of the universe without any risk of losing them. No more SRP to pay as fleets barely have losses (see PL losses against HERO/Provi), no capital subsidies as there is no need for capital fleet and greatly decreased Sov costs. So alliance leaders could keep the whole alliance income to themselves without the members giving a damn.

A lot of the vitriol is deserved. Most of us have been pulled through the forum ringer at one time or another. Me more than most. Between Ocih, Skydell, Ioci and Sisohiv I have had my foot in my mouth a few times and I've seen a lot of mud in the pits of EVE-O.

My standing issue here is the idea that CCP need to fix this game for us when we are the problem and in the sandbox mantra, we are the solution.

99% of the game breaking aspect of SOV are player driven, NBSI. We can have our Area 51 systems but not all sov needs to be so unwelcoming and the scam central themes make any 'fee' or 'rent' a suckers game. I say that if we want CCP to 'Fix' EVE we try first. NBSI is paranoia and it does far more to keep Null dead than anything CCP do or don't do.

If it's working, why the petition?

NBSI isn't about the rules of engagement, it's about the rules of peace. NBSI does 'work'. It creates a theater of 0 hostility. It eliminates all option for wide scale threat. It creates blue donuts.

Of course that's a double edged sword. We now have a passive null sec and that seems to be the complaint. Sorry, I won't support change in EVE when the people crying for change won't? Change.

:tldr You got what you wanted. Now rot in it. Or change.

ughhhhhh wall of text

Anywhoo......the Null "Back Room" Deal thatGÇÖs being promoted looks like a Trojan horse approach. "Just get it through the door and by the time they stop to really examine what its carrying it will be too late"...

Are you saying that there would be no requirement for the CFC to stay together if you get the sort of sov-system you are after?

Goon want their npc stations in every region so they have launch points.

http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-voices-have-spoken-but-to-what-end/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goon

it's the 1st definition, the one with the number 1 beside it.

And in case you missed this in your propaganda adventures.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5063055#post5063055

Occupancy SOV just adds even more grind than current system.

For SOV warfare, structure grind is replaced by rat grind (or whatever grind, to prove that you 'occupied' here). For both attacker and defender. All day long, for a few days, for each system. Average null people will be rejoiced to grind more stuff i imagine, so many signatures under that letter.
For SOV holding, few afk cloakers with cynos can conquer SOV for anybody in a few days, even if deadspace instances used - just bridge few ceptors through to catch that phat ratting golem, ceptors with 'warping speed' rigs will get on top of him in 15 seconds.
Also for SOV holding, ratting becomes mandatory, it will be more like going to work rather than logging to play game.
Current system is way better in all those regards.

Whoever proposed occupancy SOV had not thought it through obviously.