These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Jita Park Speakers Corner

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Null Sov - Concord alliances

Xavi Bastanold
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2015-07-08 17:05:05 UTC
What if a Sov group in Null conducted negotiations with Concord with the interest of stabilizing their sovereign systems? What sort of assets would Concord provide the Sov group to maintain security? What would Concord see as advantageous in such an arrangement?

Possibly Concord would arrange for pipelines to specific hubs in null with the prospect of increasing trade and transport. What sort of benefits would such an arrangement provide Sov groups?

The idea behind this is based on stability rather than exploitation. Wars are a dime a dozen in null, but stability combined with open and secure trade isn't. Maybe there's a way to have your cake and eat it too?

This would certainly give Sov groups a reason to hold sovereignty--aside from the 'my yard' thang. Not all Sov groups would want this sort of thing, but being able to sustain a number of systems to warrant Concord support for trade purposes could be appealing to some Sov groups.

Good hunting,


Alexander Kalkoken
Amarrian Investment and Trade Company
#2 - 2015-09-06 09:39:28 UTC
Null Sov, from what I have seen & know of it not being in a Sov holding alliance, does have numerous trade-offs. Better anoms, better belts, ability to use certain mechanics such as bombs/bubbles/Cap building/etc, but less NPC security, less safety, and longer travel times (typically) to major hubs.

What it sounds like you are suggesting is a way to raise the Sec status of a system, without loosing any of the benefits that come from having a lower security status. I would have to disagree with this suggestion in its entirety without that trade-off. If a Sov holding alliance wanted to increase the Sec of the system, in having CONCORD, they should loose the benefits of being in Null. No Cap/Super Cap building or jumping in, the higher yeild minerals should be removed, the inability to mine moons, the general freedoms involved in space out there, in the same way as the High Sec systems, the number of Anoms should drop from the same CONCORD/Jove/Empire security measures being installed, along with whatever Alliance it is having a bill each week/month for the ownership of the system.

There has to be a trade off - do you want the Security of High Sec, or the Freedom of Low Sec/Null Sec?
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#3 - 2015-09-06 10:03:44 UTC
Concord can't police the entirety of their existing jurisdiction - when was the last time you saw a cop in lowsec?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
Snuffed Out
#4 - 2015-11-19 12:41:08 UTC
The Angel Cartel would decimate any Concord forces with fleets of Machariels should they even dare come into our space

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Long John Silver.
#5 - 2015-12-08 11:44:24 UTC
At the end of the day CONCORD will be the ones protecting the criminals from the rest of the players, just like in High Sec. Si vis pacem,. para bellum Justicia alla Napolitana, is what crime demands.

What did you say about CODE?