Player Features and Ideas Discussion

until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners.

Ppl that want to fight not farm. It would exclude goons but noone would care :D

So you want a nullsec in which it is impossible to live.

He gets it.

Don't worry, I think the goons will realize it before the end.

For many years their standard reply to everything regarding fighting the blob was "sorry I have more friends than you," and even that is now changing. They'll get there, eventually...

Grrrr Mordus Angels.

You could only hold that which you use, at least 80% of our space would be impossible to hold onto.

This deal posed by the existing coalitions is interesting. While the proposal appeared genuine, it also seemed flawed. I do like the bit about more NPC-null presence in all the regions, but the idea of occupancy felt like it was coming from the wrong angle. The reason was that while CCP could create a mechanic for ownership to be contingent upon a requisite number of players being present in that system for x amount of hours a day(or something along those general lines), that doesn't address the imbalance of power that would continue to exist between the null coalitions and anyone optimistic enough to settle near their borders. It seemed pretty obvious to me that what would unfold was a transformation from renter corporations to 'serf' corporations.

For example, a corporation/alliance sets out to settle in a null system. Maybe they had to compete with another rival organization to get it. Now, say this system is a mere two jumps away from a CFC system. What's to stop CFC from visiting that system to pick up a monthly 'protection' fee? Nothing. It would be almost feudal. And, that's when it hit. Feudal.

See, right now, nullsec is very tribal. You're either part of the warband or you're not. Organization along these lines has gone to extremes with a cold war stagnation in place, but it's still very tribal. Moving to a feudal system would be an evolution of the current null culture. It would create more inter-dependency between the haves and have-nots.

At first, this inter-dependency would be in the coalitions' favor as they would possess the deepest pockets and most members. In time, however, would this persist? I don't think it will. At some point those various 'serf' corporations/alliances are going to develop their own power base and in turn, their own coalitions. The main coalitions will have to decide what to do at that point. Either destroy a 'rebellious' system/s and all the revenue that came from that, or find a means of compromising. Destroy the rebels and you run the risk of weakening yourself as well. Compromise and become more powerful but also relinquish more control.

It's an interesting idea and may actually work.

Once this stops being exchange of arguments between moa and gsf, you could take in consideration that density isn't problem in null sec(number of anomalies is fine). Stagnation comes from boring and slow Sov capturing mechanics. More havens in system wont change absolutly anything

Both empires shrink massively allowing room for new alliances to enter null.

but that's the point, you don't need to use it until some one contests it... then dogpile in to the system.

unless i'm missing something.