These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Collective petition about fozziesov

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zajian
Future Tec. Industries
#561 - 2015-08-17 12:40:42 UTC
I support this Petition.

It shows problems, and also solutions for known problems in neraly every 0.0 space.

Hopfully CCP will hear.
Turboauspuff
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#562 - 2015-08-17 13:09:33 UTC
+1
Arcelia Kaundur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#563 - 2015-08-17 13:23:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Arcelia Kaundur
CCP will not change this, with this sovchange you have to use your brain for once and not throw everything you got at it.

This looks like a desperate way to avoid loosing sov.
This game needs some fresh air and it wont happen with all the same alliances holding sov...it gets boring. And it does not change by reversing the changes and turn the own sov into a inpenetrable fotress. Sov changes were made to see some progress in Sov, and this patch is made to make your chair wobble, because currently there is absolutely no progress in sovchanges and thats a stagnation ccp wont allow.

Obviously this patch scares the hell out of you, which is totally the purpose, and it looks like it works
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#564 - 2015-08-17 13:31:35 UTC
Fozzy sov is a great change for eve. Most of the space in the drone region have so much unused systems that you cant count them. You dont need that much space. If you want/need it, be prepaire to defend it. But dont whine cos you dont have the numbers or the will power to do many jumps each night to defend systems you dont live in. I dont feel sorry for you at all.
Big blue blobs is a disease in eve and alliances that hold on to space that they dont live in only feeds this. It stagnates the game.

I do also support for ccp to add the tools in game to support fozzy sov changes and not having to relly on other external apps.
Fozzy sov is the best thing that could have happened to eve. I only wished it was done 5 years ago. Eve would have not been this dead end blue garbage thats turned to. This is suppose to be null and most dangerous part in space. In reality you should be at risk of losing space all the time. Like any front line, it will always get shelled and must have a no mans land!
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#565 - 2015-08-17 13:34:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
I have lived in nulsec since 2009. I do not support this petition. Do not speak for me.

The community which OP represents are the worst of the worst when it comes to actual content. They would have CCP revert to Dominion sov, which supported and even mandated vast sprawling empires of unused space, with massive fleets of SP-heavy capital ships jumping across the galaxy in minutes.

Many of the signatory alliances of this petition are historically known to be the worst offenders of botting and RMT. The true intent of this petition is clear for anyone that has played Eve Online for long enough. They wish a return to farming nulsec with vast armies of bots fueling their alliance coffers and/or their rl bank accounts.

So no. I do not and will not ever support this kind of blatantly and obviously self-serving petition and implore CCP to flat out ignore it.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Brocken Rocker
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#566 - 2015-08-17 13:45:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Brocken Rocker
I don't support this petition.

CCP is right in changing the gameplay for some fresh air.
Their will be more stratetic descisions in defending and attacking SOV.
I think, all of this big alliances are feared, cause they have to split their strike-forces and have to rationing all the Sov-Systems to get a greater defense-bonus.

That means they have much work.
That's them an eyesore.

CCP, please hold your course for the SOV-Changes! I support your decisions!
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#567 - 2015-08-17 13:45:54 UTC
-1

Screaming self-entitlement.

But let's take it down anyway, I love doing that:

1) "critically reduces chances for large scale fights"
You mean like... blue donut? I'd say this is a critical increase compared to blue donut. So no, this is bs.

2) "harassment towards any sov owner"
Like all the griefers have been telling me all the time "it's not harassment cuz CCP said so". Cope with it, fella.

3) "interface tools"
+1 for that point (and for that point only). Tools are lacking indeed. Doesn't justify the rest though.

4) "potential exploit"
You gotta be a real optimist if you think the new sov system would come in without an exploitable bug or two. Report a bug, petition when it's used against you - no harm till it's fixed, no harm after.

5) "doesn’t regenerate back"
Seems like semi-valid post for F&I as a balance suggestion, but hardly requires a petition.

6) "notifications"
While I somewhat agree that only sending a notification is not sufficient, I am severely against adding names to it - because it opens stupid capabilities like mass convo trolling. The rest **** about the names should go to 3) - interface tools.

7) "transfer sov"
Like all the griefers have been telling me all the time "why do you think you're entitled to safe mining?". Right back at you - "why do you think you're entitled to safe sov transfer?". It's a part of the game now that if you wish to transfer sov, there must be a window of opportunity for people to screw with it, and I think fozziesov is an improvement on that.

tl;dr Adapt, bubba. And thanks for your contribution to my tear bucket.
Good Apollo BS4
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#568 - 2015-08-17 14:48:45 UTC
+1 don't necessarily agree with the suggested changes to correct, but anything is better than the current system.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#569 - 2015-08-17 16:45:55 UTC
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
Such is why we do not have a signatory, even though many of our members are outspoken critics of this terrible sov iteration.


That and almost the entirety the list consists of entities that are either hostile to The Imperium or Russian RMT slum lords.

No amount of washing will get the stains off from signing that thing. This all assuming that the petition raises legitimate points and those are few and far between.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Morihiro
#570 - 2015-08-17 17:34:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Morihiro
+1
Anduin Spartan
The Soul Society
Fraternity.
#571 - 2015-08-17 18:09:16 UTC
I'm here just to hang out on the threadnought
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#572 - 2015-08-17 18:23:05 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Many of the signatory alliances of this petition are historically known to be the worst offenders of botting and RMT.
Citation needed.

First off, CCP rarely release the names of alliances housing bots. Secondly, someone botting or RMTing in an alliance doesn't mean that alliance itself is responsible for it. I guarantee every moderate to large group has a number of players RMTing in it, even your own.

At the end of the day, the mechanics they've rolled out are crap and have reduced conflict in null. If the best argument against it you've got is a tinfoil hat theory that they need dominion sov back to bot (which in itself is insane as fewer systems now make more isk and ratting/mining is now a required activity, likely resulting in more botting) then you really won't get very far.

Brocken Rocker wrote:
CCP is right in changing the gameplay for some fresh air.
Correct.

Brocken Rocker wrote:
Their will be more stratetic descisions in defending and attacking SOV.
I think, all of this big alliances are feared, cause they have to split their strike-forces and have to rationing all the Sov-Systems to get a greater defense-bonus.

That means they have much work.
Wrong. Systems are now easier to hold, and while large alliances can hold less total space, they need less as each system supports more people. This system makes it harder to take sov from a larger alliance that wants it, and once it's settled down you'll simply see large alliances using these small alliances that are moving in on the outskirts as farming for PvPers. If you think you'll be able to move a 100 man alliance into a sov system next door to a 10k alliance and not get roflstomped daily, you're having a laugh.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jina Snow
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#573 - 2015-08-17 20:01:29 UTC
I support this Petition.
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#574 - 2015-08-17 22:19:53 UTC
-1 for the reasons given here, and everywhere else I have posted...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5973652#post5973652
Jeven HouseBenyo
Vanity Thy Name Is
#575 - 2015-08-18 02:01:55 UTC
So let me get this straight.

CCP, with the release of FozzieSov, managed to 'break' your 'shiny' when it comes to Sov. And now you want it either quickly changed (to something startlingly similar to what was in place before) or rolled back until a better iteration is brainstormed and passes the Sisi feedback thread sniff test.

I say to those at this wailing wall what was suggested to us 'offering rage, tears and great gnashing of teeth' about the Icongate complaints.

Evolve or move on.

So it's a little different, when it's your 'shiny' on the line..... Big smile

>Jeven's Keyboardist

Minny boat flyer, unofficial squeaky wheel.

'Game Ethics and Morality Monitor' I remember promises.

Snark at 11-24/7/365.25. Overshare? Yup.

Yes it's my fault. And if you don't staap it I'll do it again. ;-P

No you can't has my stuffs OR my SPs.
Arcelia Kaundur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#576 - 2015-08-18 07:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Arcelia Kaundur
Quote:
"If there are two people in a room and both of them agree, then one of them is useless" - Mark Twain.

Thankfully, there are lots of people in our crowd that have different perspectives.


“A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.” - Oscar Wilde


I think thats more like it...
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#577 - 2015-08-18 16:25:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Speedkermit Damo
Soldarius wrote:
I have lived in nulsec since 2009. I do not support this petition. Do not speak for me.

The community which OP represents are the worst of the worst when it comes to actual content. They would have CCP revert to Dominion sov, which supported and even mandated vast sprawling empires of unused space, with massive fleets of SP-heavy capital ships jumping across the galaxy in minutes.

Many of the signatory alliances of this petition are historically known to be the worst offenders of botting and RMT. The true intent of this petition is clear for anyone that has played Eve Online for long enough. They wish a return to farming nulsec with vast armies of bots fueling their alliance coffers and/or their rl bank accounts.

So no. I do not and will not ever support this kind of blatantly and obviously self-serving petition and implore CCP to flat out ignore it.


+1

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if hundreds of botters suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."

Shadow of xXDEATHXx hold sov in 242 systems. I'll wager that this allance would struggle to muster even half that number of pilots in fleet even on a good day. Yet they feel entitled to hold all those systems with a handful of active pilots and not be molested by anyone.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#578 - 2015-08-18 17:37:45 UTC
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
Karti Aivo wrote:
UAxDEATH wrote:
Alliances signed petition




lol what is this? Do you call that group "The Collective of Old ISK and Stable Renting Empires" ?

Fozziesov was supposed to hit people like you and this post is a mere confirmation of its working. Not that your arguments got no substance, but that list on its own is a hilarous collection

Yeah, except even Sion agrees with a lot of what he's saying, and has stated as much here.


And he's such an expert? When was the last time he even logged in and undocked anything?

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
MiRaNTa VaLToN
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#579 - 2015-08-18 18:12:56 UTC
I completely disagree:

I would think that the over all effect of trying to defend shouldn't be as one sided as you suggest, the tiring and discouraging task of a long drawn out fleet roam leading no victory would be of great benefit to those who took the effort of trolling in the first place. They would then be able to act on it at a later time once fleet moral is lost or drained.

As a pilot who roams Nulsec from an outsider's point of view I noticed most groups sov is unused space. Hence it taking so long for large groups to defend it. A 6 hour defense fleets is in no way the fault of CCP or of the trolling ship/fleet. You choose to occupy this space you choose the chore of defending it and yes it should be a CHORE defending other wise there would be no down side to owning so much space. All reward no risk is not the way of life in eve as all pilots learn in the early years.

As for wanting large scale engagements: not all alliances can even field such things. This leads to groups no being able to partake in Nulsec at all w/o joining one side or an other. We seen how these so called "Epic Battles" effected nulsec as of the past few years. When the majority of Nulsec was owned by 2 groups, N3 and CFC coalitions, this did in fact lead to stale nulsec activity. Relying on such tactics makes it nearly impossible for any alliance to join, take, hold, and grown in nulsec space with out being forced into said large groups. Case in point Brave: Brave moved to nulsec in the south soon after where forced back out of Nulsec by larger groups capable of bullying them to the breaking point.

I feel that more changes leading to smaller groups being able to both take and defend sov while taxing larger groups holding large amounts of sov should be encouraged.
Dean Dewitt
Universal Force Army
Neutral Lands Association
#580 - 2015-08-18 19:22:37 UTC
Hi guys,

I see a lot of you, saying "I don't support this petition, the mechanic is fine, there is no problems", others say "The alliances which say that they agree with this petition are mostly renters like Shadow of xXDeathXx". To the guys who says that I would say, Have you tryed defending or attacking a system yet?

I did, so I can say if Aegissov is a sucess or not. In my opinion this sytem is broken, it's been there for 1 month and I'm already bored. What were the goals of Aegis sov? You can read them on this devblog Politics by Other Means
The list of the goals and why they are failure

1st goal: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved.

The old system was a little boring, you had to shoot a structure and kill it before and after rf. Now we have the entosis, if you are an attacker, you wait depending on the ADM between 5min (new system taken) and 60mins, first to reinforce the structure and after just to take ONE NODE (so if the attacker is the only one to take node, he has to take 10nodes, I let you do the math). The defender don't have to form a fleet, he only has to break the lock of the entosis ship (it'll buy him time) or kill quickly the entosis ship.

Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems

With the trollceptor, a lot of people just entosis structure just to **** off the owner, they don't even try to take the sov. With this mechanics you don't really know if you are being attack or not.

Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.

With this mechanics, people want to take the node quickly so you just have to bring more alt the get the nodes. People don't split the fleets because you don't know if your ennemie will split his fleet.

Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.

This one is half a success

Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.

This one was already succeeded, nothing changed.

Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New Eden’s varied geography and to better manage server load.

As I said before, you can't split your fleet if the ennemie don't split his fleet.

Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.

You can't have a perfect system, yes, I agree with that, but you can't release something not finished, if half the idea is good, you have no good idea.

Your goals are failure, you wanted 0.0 to change, you wanted less empty system, yeah I get it. But any alliance who wants to take 0.0 system has to get others blue alliance to help them. You can't change this fact with this. The best change for the 0.0 was jump fatigue and I don't want to change it (or may be for the jump freighter or black ops). Thanks to phoebe conflicts are more local. How many system are rf and not taken? How many sytem are now unclaimed? Here is the Tenerifis map, it'll give you an idea http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Tenerifis or you can see the Catch map http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Catch

Please CCP fix this system quickly, for now living in null sec is not fun.

For the others, I speak for myself and I don't need your approval to say that Aegis sov is broken.