I posted this in reddit earlier but here’s my 2c:

Whilst I’m a proponent of the agents in sov nullsec idea to increase population density in null systems, I don’t think it should be agents in the traditional sense.

Sov holders should definitely be able to recruit them in a similar manner to Teams, and the rewards for the missions should be greater than those found in highsec and even lowsec. Rewards should not be given in LP though, rather in raw ISK or even tags similar to that which you get from the ESS (would drive content) and sold to NPC buy orders. Otherwise LP stores would need to be rebalanced to prevent mass price tanking of faction modules.

I’d also like to see this drive more localised Incursion level PvE in nullsec, where perhaps for level 5 security missions an entire fleet is required to complete them and they should definitely not be soloable. Anything that encourages null players to incorporate capitals, supers, or fleet PvE is good for content and the game. Similarly anything that is able to be done AFK and mostly risk free is bad for it, and the rise of AFK ishtars as the primary source of income for most null players is certainly that.

The only concern I have about this implementation is that roamers will not just be able to warp to anomalies and get kills anymore, they must first scan the mission runners down giving them plenty of extra time to escape. Counter this with warpable beacons or a means of disrupting all active missions in a system until the offenders are dealt with, which again would drive more content. I remember reading someones non mouth frothing suggestion on reddit a while ago of a way to interact with the IHUB or some other sov structure in system that can disrupt all PvE in the system until the offenders are forced off. In the high population systems and constellations that these mission hubs would support, a mechanic like this would absolutely result in roamers being able to easily get fights and defenders having to actually defend instead of dock up.

As for an increase in anomaly spawns, I personally disagree with this. You’ve said it before that a greater amount of sites in systems to support a higher population density would result in a confusing and overall unnecessary clusterfuck of a probe scanner. Imagine warping to 15-20 sites, trying to find an empty one.

But it remains that the only reason larger alliances (save for maybe GSF) own all the sov they do is to support the number of players they have. Moons, POCO’s, etc are not tied with sovereignty, and an alliance can happily own 5 systems in a region as well as all the moons in it; if those systems can support their playerbase. If an entire 2000 man alliance can live in 1 or 2 constellations, vast amounts of space would eventually be freed up as the players found themselves coalescing around central hubs. Sooner or later they won’t mind as much if another corp or alliance comes along and takes their old systems, as long as their moons are kept intact. And within time maybe that new alliance can find itself contesting even the moons, giving us localized, small scale conflict all over eve.

Oh sorry I accidentally ranted about my ideal vision for nullsec.

NPC Venal right now (or any NPC null space really) can pretty much support an infinite number of people running missions making like 150-200m/hr. I honestly couldn’t give an accurate number on the number of people running concurrently, but during the busier times you’ve definitely got 20-30 people all doing that in the same spread of 3 systems. Thing is, the money is actually much better than running anoms even with a carrier, but all it takes to run them is a cheap t2 fit ishtar.

I think the general point Endie’s trying to make is that with these proposed changes, sov null offers a really terrible risk/reward balance compared to NPC null and low sec, and I tend to agree with him on that one.

Second this.

I´d go as far as saying let NPC´s run the maintance of sov structures and the better standings you have the better services, rates, infrastructures you can have. This would give the PVE some actual meaning to the game instead of just printing ISK. Because honestly ratting is dead boring, null missioning would open up a world of opportunities and draw players to null.
Also kill the standing cap with NPC factions.

All I’d like is actual group PvE content in nullsec so that there are groups of sheep that are both worth hunting and willing to fight back.

For example, an instantly-respawning, incursion-style site per system based on the sov level seems like a complete no-brainer. Say, a scout (5-person) at sov level 1 that turns into a vanguard (10-person) site at sov level 3 and turns into an assault (20-person) site at sov level 5. Balance difficulty and payouts accordingly so we can make around 80-100m isk/hr per person in PvP-fit ships. Anomalies are still there if you want to do something solo, but now we have actual group PvE content and the ability to have a standing fleet that is both making decent isk and is available for PvP.

I’m having trouble imagining a single problem with a system like this, other than the isk faucet, and if that’s a concern just start with a single Vanguard at sov level 5 or nerf the isk/hr to be worse than afk ratting and see what happens.

All of this is coming from a MRCHI member – we are absolutely the sheep in this scenario and we’re also dumb enough to do something less efficient if it might be entertaining.

I agree: reinforcing a structure should mean putting something of value on the field. I’d quite like to see activating the entosis module disable a ship’s warp (and jump) drives and be on a 2 minute cycle or the like. They could still be mobile and part of a fleet, but they are still putting down a stake.

Capturing sov is being addressed but owning sov hasn’t been yet. As you mention, the new sov would encourage local congregation but the best systems can only support a dozen or so players. We are months out from the patch but I’m concerned that CCP isn’t looking at the ability for null to support player density. The dev blog noted the changes that have occurred already in Null, pointing to station changes, ESS and some anom changes but the tone I got was CCP saying, ‘well that’s done, on to sov warfare’. It seems we are getting strategic benefits to occupancy sov without economic benefits.

If missions are off the table, anoms are the only other source for bottom up income. With anoms, it seems the only options are to make more of them, seed them with new spawns or make entirely new anoms. The first is the simplest option but doesn’t address the monotony of EVE PVE. With the new AI CCP is ramping up, the option is present for seeding pirate ships with ‘newer technology’ that are worth more but take multiple ships to bring down. Alternatively, entirely new anoms could be introduced, comet mining comes to mind and ghost sites were a good step in this direction but there’s a multitude of paths this could go. It requires more development though than the other options. Regardless of the method, the goal of creating economic incentives for occupancy needs to be explained, even in just conceptual form, before the June patch.

Where do you see capitals in this new landscape, Endie? Are they essentially limited to CSAA harassment? I’ve read comments about them acting as blockades for constellation choke points but I’m not enough of a tactician to speculate on the practical effectiveness of roadblocks.

Endie, I’m going to link your analysis in my own post. I agree with much of it.

The idea that “null sec is rich enough” is a silly one. CCP needs to address wealth-generation in null-sec from the ground up. As of right now, the only player-based means of earning isk from null-sec is anoms and signatures (anoms for sheet quantity, sigs for quality). That’s a fundamental problem. It needs to be addressed with this pass.

Otherwise, sov is going to be like the mounted knight. You don’t see them around today because the technology to kill them outstripped the technology to protect them. Phase II is currently a “let’s burn down all the castles” plan, with no thought behind building them back up.

As I said in the first paragraph, my largest concern with the sov changes is that CCP thinks it’s done working on ground up nullsec economic incentives. According to Fozzie, from EVE down under, incentives to own sov area already there – anom ISK generate tons of wealth. But those incentives do not support large populations. Maybe that’s the point CCP wants but I don’t think it’s a good game mechanic to push people out of nullsec.

Don’t you want a ceiling on how many players can live in a system? Having a thousand man alliance living in a single constellation while the rest of the region is empty seems undesirable.

a thousand people in a constellation is fine, though I doubt it’s likely to happen (assuming it’s not a couple hundred guys and their alts). In their prime time, having dozens of people in local means I might pass unnoticed long enough to either find a target or to traverse their home safely.

The thing is half the subscribed people have no desire to leave highsec so the density will probably never get that high in all but a few cases.

Missions in null mean your pilots aren’t jump cloning to HS to make isk for null, especially in places with trash income like Provi and Cloud Ring. More people staying in null means more opportunities to target them and the locals would have a larger pool to get a defense fleet going. Missions also mean more gate travel. Someone running Dread Pilot Scarlett is going to be four-ish jumps from the agent, which means a number of jumps to get there and return safely.

Perhaps instead of station upgrades, agents in space could be used and the upgrade handled by the iHub. This could allow those station poor regions to have some of the same benefits.