These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Collective petition about fozziesov

First post First post First post
Author
UAxDEATH
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#1 - 2015-07-31 20:15:03 UTC
Introduction

We are the people of nullsec! Living for years in this epic and massively rich in conflict environment, we set aside our differences to join forces against destructive actions from CCP against sovereignty mechanics.

The new game mechanics, called by many fozziesov, turned out to be the greatest discrimination against nullsec dwellers in all of EVE Online history. This untested release shouldn’t build the platform for life in 0.0 for the most organized, united and active part of New Eden. Alliance leaders, who signed this statement, have collected enormous amount of proof that confirms this statement.
We, like no one else, can see that this release leads to stagnation in 0.0 and death to nullsec. Only in a short while since the release, we have collected a record amount of negative opinions about the new sov. We combined our strengths and analyzed, what does it mean to live in fozziesov for the nullsec people.

Our opinion is - this game mechanics needs to be tweaked and the shortest time possible.

Problems and suggestions


Problem: fozziesov in its current state critically reduces chances for large scale fights, fights that significantly separate EVE Online from its competitors. Large amount of spawned beacons, motivates sides to not engage, but to hunt down ships fitted with entosis link. In one of those cases, to defend off 2 structures players spent 6 hours of game time, most of which was spent jumping through gates and warping around in systems. Pilots who took part in all of this were rewarded with exhaustion and emptiness, instead of glory from being victorious and enjoyment from the overall process. Besides that, fleet commanding and fleet bonus structure took a hit as well. We want massive fights, not cockroach races.
Solution: reduction of beacons (nodes) , to about 1-3 per system, which are located next to a contested structure.

Problem: low skill requirement practically affirms harassment towards any sov owner. While new player harassment is subject to a support ticket. Roaming fleets or interceptors shouldn’t be able to affect sovereignty. The game mechanics shouldn't be a tool to force exhausting actions upon players - a single ship can force entire alliance of players to take part in tiresome and hollow defence. Currently the entosis link module is a tool for trolls, not a key to sovereignty contest.
Solution: reduce the amount of tactics that create invulnerable situations, which are currently based on ship’s speed. Entosis module should reduce speed dramatically, up to 0 m/s.

Problem: CCP didn’t give the right interface tools for players to engage in sov-wars, every aspect of ever changing situation has to be memorized, written down somewhere and kept up to date. This results in quick exhaustion and aggravation towards the game instead of enjoyment.
Solution: introduction of a new sov window, similar to watchlist, that displays information about structures/nodes that are being defended or attacked using entosis module, with pilot's nickname, solar system, structure id and progress.

Problem: fozziesov has a potential exploit in relation to Entosis Link II - using this module allows attackers to do a quick 2 minute cycle, which sets structure vulnerable, regardless of vulnerability period or until the status of vulnerable structure becomes known to its owner. Vulnerable structure can be noticed after a close inspection. This aspect of game mechanics negates vulnerability period.
Solution: remove vulnerability from such structures at the the end of the vulnerability period, but allow owners to entosis structure back up. If structure was partially attacked, it should be clearly visible.

Problem: structure that exits reinforce timer, doesn’t regenerate back, which in the old game mechanics served as a defensive mechanism against sov trolling. Attacked systems spam node beacons, which can last forever, which is discrimination against sovereignty owners - they must defend their space despite the fact that no one will show up to contest it.
Solution: a new type of status - defended. If the nodes are not being captured by any attackers during contested campaign for a period of time dependent of defence index, then structures change from contested to defended.

Problem: notifications about attack contain no useful information except the fact of aggression (and system). Solution to this should be inclusion of information about the system, structures and nicknames of attackers. Command node names are too long, which obstructs quick overview of the system nodes and forces to expand overview window to 1/4 of the screen, just to see the full list of nodes.
Solution: to use abbreviations TCU, iHUB, Station and remove "command" from the name.

Problem: in Dominion sov, alliances had means to transfer sov between them, however long and inconvenient it was. In the new sov, this ability was removed, which is ridiculous for a sci-fi game.
Solution: allow executor corporations to transfer remotely structures via listed sov structures context menu, similar in the way it is now with the customs offices.

Conclusion


Fozziesov is currently a long, exhausting and inconvenient sovereignty warfare model. Sovereignty is absolutely unprotected against sov trolling. This game mechanics stimulates unintended usage. This situation can no longer exist in its current state. We are highly determined and if all our demands and solutions are not addressed in a week's time, we reserve the right to fight back for our game time and fun, which we were stripped off by the new game mechanics.
UAxDEATH
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#2 - 2015-07-31 20:15:17 UTC  |  Edited by: UAxDEATH
Alliances signed petition

Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#3 - 2015-07-31 20:20:26 UTC
UAxDEATH wrote:

Problem: low skill requirement practically affirms harassment towards any sov owner. While new player harassment is subject to a support ticket.


I'm not in null, so I don't care, but to clarify, new player harassment in rookie/SOE arc systems is subject to a support ticket.

If a newly created account is trolling you in null, harass away.
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#4 - 2015-07-31 20:20:47 UTC
"This game mechanics stimulates unintended usage."

Is this not the definition of emergent game play? Adapt.

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!

Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Triumvirate.
#5 - 2015-07-31 20:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Patrick Archer
I support all the solutions brought up in this post 100%.

CCP, please listen to your players, or at least the CSM. That would be a start.
Julia Hillan
Hotline K162
The Clown Car
#6 - 2015-07-31 20:28:34 UTC
+1
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2015-07-31 20:38:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
I wonder why speed penalty is the to-go request to nerf trollceptor-like ships. If you aim at trollceptors, hitting other ships with nerfhammer seems like unfortunate consequence.
Wouldn't it be better to, say, do something like this:

- Increase PWG usage of T2 entosis to BS levels;
- Add role bonus to CBC and command ships that reduces fitting requirements of entosis link.

Optional:
- make T1 entosis link into cruiser module;
- fitting role bonus for AF (add "assault" into AFs at last).

It's not fun to pilot what's basically gimped brick. Let people use their ships at their fullest, but make sure they aren't denying any content.

UAxDEATH wrote:
Problem: structure that exits reinforce timer, doesn’t regenerate back, which in the old game mechanics served as a defensive mechanism against sov trolling. Attacked systems spam node beacons, which can last forever, which is discrimination against sovereignty owners - they must defend their space despite the fact that no one will show up to contest it.
Solution: a new type of status - defended. If the nodes are not being captured by any attackers during contested campaign for a period of time dependent of defence index, then structures change from contested to defended.

If that is what I'm thinking it is, I'm afraid it's abusable.

Also, this probably belongs to F&I.
Swind
Puritans
We want your ISK
#8 - 2015-07-31 20:38:37 UTC
+1 for original post
Redwyne Vyruk
north eastern swat
Pandemic Legion
#9 - 2015-07-31 20:40:53 UTC
I, as BOT manager and XWX manager, completely agree on this thread and i hope CCP will hear our voice.
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
#10 - 2015-07-31 20:41:25 UTC
Like i mentioned in other places i agree that fozzie sov lacks the deeper motivation and drivers behind them, why own and hold sov, why defend it ratehr then evade the fight. Thr meaningless of activity makes it turn into fw, or arranged fights, which isnt why we play eve. Feels like a test server battle.

Purpose too null, unique opertunities and perks for holding sov, buidable sov over time with niche oppertunities, make those first, combine that with fozzie, fix bugs, and then u revive null and the game we love
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#11 - 2015-07-31 20:45:24 UTC
Highsec carebear posting in page 1 of a potential nulldrama threadnaught. Bear

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
#12 - 2015-07-31 20:47:47 UTC
... And Lowbear following, ready for the summer tears Bear
Deborah Aumer
The Versa-Ex Corp
Scourge.
#13 - 2015-07-31 20:51:30 UTC
totally agree with this post
Archie Wah Wah
#14 - 2015-07-31 20:52:57 UTC
UAxDEATH wrote:
muh rentals(((


)))
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#15 - 2015-07-31 20:53:57 UTC
I'd suggest that GD is possibly not the best place to post this. (the churn tends to be high)

We have asked for feedback here?

And possibly into the assembly hall, or Jita park.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f60qd/csm_share_your_experiences_with_fozziesov/

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Kasarch
Surreal corp
Snuffed Out
#16 - 2015-07-31 20:54:27 UTC
Agree with all, except first point.
I not like too much lagging "epics" where f1 monkeys shooting to broadcasts and no brain orbiting anchors. But current mechanics forces troll-ceptors instead fights of mobile fleets.
Sapporo Jones
Upvote
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#17 - 2015-07-31 21:13:39 UTC
In it's current incarnation, my fellow TEST pilots would rather be playing the dominion sov game rather than this. We tried to hold our breath and see what CCP would deliver, and while the system shows there was clearly a ton of thought and effort put in to it, it is still not ready for primetime.

While this system does promote fights, it doesn't promote battles.

We tend to see one or two people in interceptors or frigs/dessies who run the second you form to defend. There are times when you see 4 person omen navy fleets and you fight them, there are no real skirmishes anymore over sov as far as I can tell. Gone are the large fleet battles that we came to nullsec for in the first place.

It was explained that this would be a system more akin to the faction war style of gameplay, I was not fully aware of how deep that meaning would go.

I strongly agree with the OP and feel that CCP needs to pay a bit more attention to this sooner rather than later.
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite.
Ghost Legion.
#18 - 2015-07-31 21:17:24 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
I'd suggest that GD is possibly not the best place to post this. (the churn tends to be high)

We have asked for feedback here?

And possibly into the assembly hall, or Jita park.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f60qd/csm_share_your_experiences_with_fozziesov/



Hello Steve,

I googled for your platform with great interest http://indecisivenoob.blogspot.com/2015/02/csm-x-candidate-analysis-steve-ronuken.html

According to this, its seems you are representing the hard-working industrialists.
I would like to invite you to a place where top level, end-game industrialists make heroic efforts and take great risks to produce end-game products, to a place where you can experience first hand and better understand what kind of involvement is now actually needed to survive in Nullsec. You can also participate in defence. Then I think you would understand the problems involved behind this initiative, and why the place is GD.

If you are interested, poke me.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#19 - 2015-07-31 21:19:12 UTC
"A BLOO BLOO MY RENTAL INCOME!"

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#20 - 2015-07-31 21:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Some alliances are recruiting mining corps, can you believe it!?! MINING CORPS!

Next thing you know we'll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
123Next pageLast page