Assembly Hall

Suck it nerds.

I d like to support the petition.
The situation where whole system can be influenced or better say harassed by 1 small interceptor is not going to bring additional people to claim sectors, but in opposite will be drawing them away from claims and from the game as well.

Another suggestion is to make the size of Entosis Links available to use them on Battlecruisers and Battleships only.
Another thing which can be added is to have a cycle for Entosis Link similas as a cycle for Cyno Unit - 10 min per cycle and ship can not be controlled and it will become very vulnerable to defenders.

The idea of it is to force the attackers to bring some additional vessels in order to protect a ship carrying the Entosis Link.

Right now there is no fun at all to have a multiple "catch my interceptor" atta

Problem: You're trying to hold more space than you can defend, and in some cases, rent it out, when the mechanics don't favor that anymore.

Solution: Stop that.

Is "collective petition" high or lower on the tears scale than "open letter"?

I'd like to propose some questions to the above alliances:

What type of systems have you been defending? How many pilots are typically active in them, what do they do in those systems, and how far do they have to travel in order to mount a defense? Why do you want to retain those systems?

What type of systems have you been attacking? What made you want to have Sov in those systems?

Your goal should be preventing anything from being reinforced in the first place. If you cannot do that, you do not effectively hold Sov of that system and you deserve to lose it, or get burned out trying to win the capture events. You should stop fighting over those systems you can't hold on to. Getting burned out is your punishment for trying to operate in the Dominion Sov paradigm.

Interceptors are perfectly suited for effecting Aegis Sov - because the only Sov they can challenge for is unoccupied Sov, and unoccupied Sov isn't sovereignty at all. If you want to hold on to a system but can't be bothered to have pilots in it during its vulnerability window, you don't deserve to hold Sov there.

In NPC null, chasing off a lone Interceptor is incredibly easy. We simply undock. They never stay within 25km, the range of a T1 Entosis. If a hostile Interceptor is Entosing your Outpost, undock. Blap them if they stick around, enjoy the view of the stars for a little bit if fly off and ruin their Entosis cycle. If they're after a TCU or I-hub, simply warp a Navy Vex or Caracal or whatever to it. If this happens in an empty system four jumps away from anybody, you shouldn't have Sov there and it's your own fault you're burning yourself out. You need to adapt. That burnout is Aegis Sov working as intended.

And if that Interceptor is bait for a 100-pilot T3 gang on the other side of a wormhole - there's your large fleet fight you're looking for.

I do agree that there should be a sort of passive regen of defense index, so that simply going after hostile ships without bothering with your own Entosis ships is a valid defense tactic. That way defenders can put all their pilots into mobile offensive ships if they so desire. This passive regen should not happen if there is even a single node being Entosed by an attacker, so that it does not extend the time of an active attack effort.

Multiple systems that are so empty you can't even blap a single t1 frig? Sounds like the very definition of "holding more space than you can defend" to me. Even a lone Skiff can chase off or kill a single t1 frig.

My point is, that I am absolutely for a Good Fight.
Have your fleets ready and claim everything you can claim!
I am not against the principles.
But it looks crazy then you start a war with a country, gather your troops and next day 1 spy is putting enemy flag on central square and you lose your capital.
WTF?!!!!
I want a fight, not "hide and seek" game. I have them enough in a kindergarden.

You're joking, right? I used to live in your neighborhood, remember? Explain to me how what you are describing is any different from planting an AFK cloaker in a system 23/7. Hide and seek game, right?

If you live in the space, you can deal with the trolls. If you deal with the trolls, you will have no timers. If you have no timers, you will have no problem. The only time you will have to actually defend your sov in a capture event is when someone comes heavy, looking to take it.

Well if that one spy drove up in a jeep and you didn't have any soldiers for miles to shoot him, then yeah, that could happen.

You're treating this like dominion sov: ignore the first attack and defend if necessary only at the reinforcement timer. The defender wins by making the attacker do the work 2 or 3 times to win, while the defender only has to show once. You win battles in this system by having lots of buffer systems and exhausting your opponent. It rewards holding more space, if only to make it more painful to attack you.

The goal of fozziesov is for you not to let them reinforce it in the first place. In fozziesov, holding space you don't need, don't regularly use, and don't defend, is DESIGNED to be painful. It's to tell you that you need to downsize a little bit.

You get to select a limited window, when you should have your maximum population on, as the only time you can be attacked. Furthermore, if you are actually using your systems, attackers have to orbit for silly amounts of time, uncontested, to do anything. If you can't deal with it in that amount of time, you probably have too many systems.

Now certain things I could see, certainly fixing any outright bugs like vulnerability timer issues, maybe bumping up the fitting or penalty requirements a *little* bit so that you can clearly counter an entosis ship with its mirror if its undefended. But your post just comes as someone basically wanting the entire basis of the changes reversed, because they liked the way it was. To be expected, since many of the alliances on that list of yours paid for lots of space and/or made lots of money renting it out. This system will no longer work, by design.