These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jang Ezhdeha
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#401 - 2015-08-05 17:29:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
Quote:
And yet it doesn't happen in sov null, because the system actively discourages meaningful conflict. Thanks for proving the point that it's the mechanics, not the players.
The system is three weeks old. We have lots of people playing it as if Dominion Sov were still the applicable paradigm. It's the players, not the system, preventing meaningful conflict right now.
I honestly believe it's the lack of required commitment to contest sov. We've been saying all along that entosis links should be what make battleships relevant again. If you had to drop a battleship to contest sov you'd really only do it if you wanted to take the sov, not for a troll - at least not too frequently.

Eli Stan wrote:
Perhaps you and I have different ideas of what it means to live in a system? Living in a system means availability to defend it by definition, and there's no idle standby required. It does not mean constantly orbiting an Outpost, TCU or Ihub. You can be in station chatting on comms. You can be in space mining. You can be in space ratting. You have no less than 15 minutes to respond to an Interceptor entering system. In our null system, my fleet is constantly, 23x7, on the lookout for Interceptors and other hostiles. We have pilots spread out across up to six systems. We have advance warning. It doesn't interfere with our living within our home system. It's a natural part of our life there. We welcome the activity, even if it's an Interceptor we can't catch but can only chase off.
And I get that, but why bother mining or ratting if you're constantly having to reship and chase around a ship designed not to be caught? A lot of people seem to want sov to be a career choice not an entertaining game mechanic. If that's how CCP want to take it, fair enough, but it won't bring in more players.


I think what you really want by making the Entosis ships Battleships and larger is a reason to drop massive cap fleets along with your other friends in CFC again. You want it so you can remain uncontested as you were before Ageis Sov since no one could come close to dropping the number of carriers, dreads, super carriers and titans as CFC could especially so close to your home systems. The new Sov system make the playing filed a little more even which lets be honest may not seem to be much of a threat to you now but it will be soon enough, especially when the fleets start to become bigger and more organized. I can even foresee a new niche being created out of all of this, merc corps and alliances built for one sole purpose, taking sov from the big and handing it out to whomever pays.
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#402 - 2015-08-05 18:01:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Icycle
Trii Seo wrote:
Icycle wrote:

New sov does not encourages big battles! New sov is borring!
The sov is a small help to encourage small gang warfare instead of a big slugfest.
Quit blue balling everyone you find. Set your neightbours to neut and let the slug fest begin
Deploy to an enemy territory, put a pos and attack them. Dont blame CCP or new sov for your wrong doing.
Dont wait for the fun come to you. If you are an entity that pays off enemies to go away, stop doing it
if you want more action.


So basically "Ignore the objective! Shoot people instead of playing node whack-a-mole!", because this is the only way an actual slugfest would happen?

This is how you actually lose in this system. The system does not require you to fight - in fact, it favours evading the fight. There will be no slugfest, because the aim of most nullsec coalitions or alliances is to win.

It's almost like someone intends to turn the epic war of 0.0 into a contest where two people beat each other with squeaky mallets, seeing who gets driven to insanity and quits first..


No slugfest happen when important systems get occupied, pvp escalation happens or you deploy into someones back yard. It will happen more of then if you decided to set some blues to neutral since you got no one left to fight. At least not any ways near.

I dont see how you are going to win but not fight? I mean to got to show up for to enforce and after reinforce a system. You cant win any other way. "The system does not require you to fight" is a fantacy to me unless you dont defend it in any of the two situations.

Epic battle will happen but it will not happen while every one is blue to each other! Fozzy sov adresses that by forcing to down size in space.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#403 - 2015-08-05 19:45:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Jang Ezhdeha wrote:
I think what you really want by making the Entosis ships Battleships and larger is a reason to drop massive cap fleets along with your other friends in CFC again. You want it so you can remain uncontested as you were before Ageis Sov since no one could come close to dropping the number of carriers, dreads, super carriers and titans as CFC could especially so close to your home systems. The new Sov system make the playing filed a little more even which lets be honest may not seem to be much of a threat to you now but it will be soon enough, especially when the fleets start to become bigger and more organized. I can even foresee a new niche being created out of all of this, merc corps and alliances built for one sole purpose, taking sov from the big and handing it out to whomever pays.
Why would I care if we're dropping carriers or cruisers? Either way we're going to outblob the opposition. The reason I want bigger ships to have entosis links is because I believe that attacking sov is something you should do when you want to take sov, and that should require a level of commitment. If you're too cheap to drop a couple of battleships, what good will holding sov for the three seconds you get to hold it do you?

And no, the new sov system doesn't make it eve. Smaller guys still stand no chance of taking wanted sov from bigger groups. No matter how you try to twist it more, better organised players will always win. All the new systems has done is allow people who don't want sov to be a threat using disposable ships causing the exact dull and conflictless gameplay CCP have been trying to avoid.

Lol, I'd love to see someone pay several billion to a merc corp to take sov, give it to a little guy then watch the big guy roflstomp all over the little guy and take it back. If you're too small to take your own sov how the hell do you think you will be able to defend it? Remember, the easier it is for you to take sov from a big group, the easier it is for that big group to take it back.

Edit: Thinking more abut your "merc" idea, the only way that would work if you continued to pay the mercs to defend your space. So really if you think about it, you're talking about renting.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Akballah Kassan
Flames Of Chaos
Great Wildlands Conservation Society
#404 - 2015-08-05 20:17:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Akballah Kassan
Lucas Kell wrote:


Edit: Thinking more abut your "merc" idea, the only way that would work if you continued to pay the mercs to defend your space. So really if you think about it, you're talking about renting.


And rolling back fozziesov would just create absentee landlords who don't have to defend their outlying renter territory from any low scale harasment.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#405 - 2015-08-05 20:27:36 UTC
Akballah Kassan wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Edit: Thinking more abut your "merc" idea, the only way that would work if you continued to pay the mercs to defend your space. So really if you think about it, you're talking about renting.


And rolling back fozziesov would just create absentee landlords who don't have to defend their outlying renter territory from any low scale harasment.
Which is why I'm not asking for it to be rolled back. I have no problem with unused spoace being easy to take, but attackers should have to actually commit to attacks, otherwise conflict won't be created. As we've seen, people will just fly around in cheap disposable ships trolling.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#406 - 2015-08-05 20:37:17 UTC
....Ya know, it would be sort of funny to charge ISK for using an entosis link. I mean it costs money to declare a war, pay bills, use security tags, form alliances and corps, and maintain them. I think it is a valid point that SBUs used to cost money, there was at least some ante on the table, even though a few billion is actually fairly trivial. It won't stop dedicated trolls (nothing can) and it doesn't give much player vindication (you still won't be able to blow most of them up), but at least it could detract a little bit from people who have no incentive and no cost other than time to go nuts. Honestly we need more ISK sinks.

The ideas to disable nullification on entosis are pretty good. Don't get me wrong, the onus of defense should be on sov owners, but it may be a teensy tiny bit tilted to attackers now.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Nameira Vanis-Tor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#407 - 2015-08-06 07:22:57 UTC
-1 to petition sounds like Argis Sov is broadly meeting its objectives.

Sov Nullsec was not a vibrant content rich environment. It was a 'Blue Donought' where occasionally everyone would gank someone out of the club.
Jang Ezhdeha
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#408 - 2015-08-06 11:33:34 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jang Ezhdeha wrote:
I think what you really want by making the Entosis ships Battleships and larger is a reason to drop massive cap fleets along with your other friends in CFC again. You want it so you can remain uncontested as you were before Ageis Sov since no one could come close to dropping the number of carriers, dreads, super carriers and titans as CFC could especially so close to your home systems. The new Sov system make the playing filed a little more even which lets be honest may not seem to be much of a threat to you now but it will be soon enough, especially when the fleets start to become bigger and more organized. I can even foresee a new niche being created out of all of this, merc corps and alliances built for one sole purpose, taking sov from the big and handing it out to whomever pays.
Why would I care if we're dropping carriers or cruisers? Either way we're going to outblob the opposition. The reason I want bigger ships to have entosis links is because I believe that attacking sov is something you should do when you want to take sov, and that should require a level of commitment. If you're too cheap to drop a couple of battleships, what good will holding sov for the three seconds you get to hold it do you?

And no, the new sov system doesn't make it eve. Smaller guys still stand no chance of taking wanted sov from bigger groups. No matter how you try to twist it more, better organised players will always win. All the new systems has done is allow people who don't want sov to be a threat using disposable ships causing the exact dull and conflictless gameplay CCP have been trying to avoid.

Lol, I'd love to see someone pay several billion to a merc corp to take sov, give it to a little guy then watch the big guy roflstomp all over the little guy and take it back. If you're too small to take your own sov how the hell do you think you will be able to defend it? Remember, the easier it is for you to take sov from a big group, the easier it is for that big group to take it back.

Edit: Thinking more abut your "merc" idea, the only way that would work if you continued to pay the mercs to defend your space. So really if you think about it, you're talking about renting.


I think you do care whether it is carriers or cruisers after all your modus operadni has been the super cap blob where in years past it was blobbing sub caps by various other entities. CFC took it to a new level with the escalation from sub caps to blobbing caps and you did it very well but the fleet composition of the entosis fleets now keep you from dropping caps to a certain degree which again makes the field of battle more conducive to smaller corps, alliances and gangs in general. Ageis sov was intended to open things up for everyone else and so far it looks like its on its way to doing so. While those in CFC or whatever you call yourselves now may look at it as just a pain in the rear for others its creating content and its a way for the little guy to hit the big guy and I'm willing to bet we will see some really fun battles in the near future. You only have yourselves to blame for this CFC and I thank you on behalf of myself, Mordus Angels and the rest of the little guys out there looking to take swings (and land a few) at the big bullies out there.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#409 - 2015-08-06 12:30:11 UTC
Jang Ezhdeha wrote:
I think you do care whether it is carriers or cruisers after all your modus operadni has been the super cap blob where in years past it was blobbing sub caps by various other entities. CFC took it to a new level with the escalation from sub caps to blobbing caps and you did it very well but the fleet composition of the entosis fleets now keep you from dropping caps to a certain degree which again makes the field of battle more conducive to smaller corps, alliances and gangs in general. Ageis sov was intended to open things up for everyone else and so far it looks like its on its way to doing so. While those in CFC or whatever you call yourselves now may look at it as just a pain in the rear for others its creating content and its a way for the little guy to hit the big guy and I'm willing to bet we will see some really fun battles in the near future. You only have yourselves to blame for this CFC and I thank you on behalf of myself, Mordus Angels and the rest of the little guys out there looking to take swings (and land a few) at the big bullies out there.
I think you missed the point. No matter what ship types are used, our response will be the same: blob the **** out of it. The only reason ship type matters is for commitment. Right now, attacking sov requires no commitment. A solo guy can set up and alliance and contest sov on his own without losing much when he's undoubtedly stopped. This is why sov trolling exists and why most people attacking sov have no intention of fighting - thus create no conflict.

If however people had to commit a moderate amount of resources to attacking sov, they would have a reason to fight for it and thus conflict would be created. Dominion required alliances to commit far too much, fozziesov requires far too little. Somewhere between the two is the right balance and the one I'm fairly certain CCP will find in time.

And I get it, you're super excited because you can make goons react to your existence, but it's not creating the type of content CCP wanted to create. Rather than look for balance you're just sitting there patting yourselves on the back, more likely because your overlord told you to rather than because you actually believe in it yourselves. I'm sure even you guys will get bored of mining structures before too long and you'll realise that what we're pushing for is what's best for the game.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Akballah Kassan
Flames Of Chaos
Great Wildlands Conservation Society
#410 - 2015-08-06 12:36:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Akballah Kassan
Always makes me laugh seeing Lucas talk negatively about 'overlords' when his alliance is part of the biggest feudal society yet created in Eve. :)
Akballah Kassan
Flames Of Chaos
Great Wildlands Conservation Society
#411 - 2015-08-06 14:07:39 UTC
Anyway I'm done with this thread. O.P proposal gets -1 from me.

Make entosis ships lose nulifier immunity and destroy the entosis module if the pilot has to flee out of distance without completing it's entosis cycle. Also cap the amount of capture nodes in space to 10 throughout the constellation at any one time and have a new one respawn every time one is captured.
Pah Cova
Made in Portugal S.A.
#412 - 2015-08-06 14:09:20 UTC
Some of you have talked about rentlords.

Well that is te only one option that many corps have to go on null, they have no pvp guys on their corp, and probably they dont want to make pvp, at least on a daily basis.
With this changes, renters have left just because rentlords cant reach everywhere and renters are not going to fight back, so if their system are constantly in reinforce mode, why stay in null and why pay for a system that dosent provide enough is to pay the bills?

Until all the parts usnderstand once and for all that there are at least two kind of players in EVE (the hardcorers pvperrs and those who dont wish to pvp) we are going to see many threads like this one and others well knowned.

This new sov mechanics are not going to attract new players into null, it will make the opposite.
I guess the problem we are talking about here are not only this sov mechanic, theres something wrong or broke behind that and CCP needs to find what are wrong or broke and fix it.

Sov in dominion only can be contested if the attackers want to take sov, even if they transfer that sov to anybody else but that costs isks, now eveyone can contest the sov, not take it, its free of charge and do that everydays.

CCP want to take isks from game, its easy...
As the null sec has pirate faction they are legally the owners of that space, instead of caliming sov for alliances, make a sov claimable to corps, where those corps have to pay the fee´s to those pirate faction in a proportion that have been charged to the renters by renterlords, those NPC provide all the upgrades, they control the sov unit and the ihubs, corps pay the upgrades, onde they pay the upgrade are working, The npcs can provide more services like patrolling space if the renter corp wish to pay for that and so on. Moonmining are only available for the renter corp and no one else can set pos´s on that system, and you will see the alliances dropping sov, new players going into null etc.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#413 - 2015-08-06 14:34:27 UTC
Akballah Kassan wrote:
Always makes me laugh seeing Lucas talk negatively about 'overlords' when his alliance is part of the biggest feudal society yet created in Eve. :)
Nothing wrong with leadership mate, it's how the world runs too. The difference is the level of control pushed down by people like gen eve and gevlon which prevents your members from being able to form their own opinions. I frequently disagree quite publicly with members and leadership of our coalition and there's no way I'd accept being told what and where to post like you have been. Plus, let's face it, your leaders are considerable more childlike and neckbeardy than ours.

Akballah Kassan wrote:
Anyway I'm done with this thread. O.P proposal gets -1 from me.
Careful, you might get yelled at and lose your funding.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#414 - 2015-08-06 15:36:54 UTC
Akballah Kassan wrote:
Anyway I'm done with this thread. O.P proposal gets -1 from me.

Make entosis ships lose nulifier immunity and destroy the entosis module if the pilot has to flee out of distance without completing it's entosis cycle. Also cap the amount of capture nodes in space to 10 throughout the constellation at any one time and have a new one respawn every time one is captured.

That's actually not a terrible idea. It might pull in on a bit of the trolling, given that the entosis module usually costs more than the hull it's strapped to, when used by "sov guerrillas" (since that's what they seem to want to be called). I'd still like to see prop mods disabled completely when running the link, but one step at a time, eh?
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#415 - 2015-08-06 16:43:05 UTC
Akballah Kassan wrote:
destroy the entosis module if the pilot has to flee out of distance without completing it's entosis cycle
That's an interesting idea that I think merits further consideration.

In the meantime, with entities like NOC and BOS getting involved in multi-billion ISK fights (the most recent being 280 pilots in Costolle destroying a total of nearly 200 billion ISK over a period of 70 minutes,) sometimes over a POS, sometimes simply from the result of two groups trying to out-escalate each other, I can't help but snicker at sov null pilots who whine about a single interceptor interrupting their ratting and mining. Sounds like they're better suited for highsec life. Null needs more of the kind of pilot that finds chasing an interceptor interesting.

I think I understand why BOS is saying that getting kicked from CFC was the best thing to happen to them...
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#416 - 2015-08-06 16:50:52 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
Akballah Kassan wrote:
destroy the entosis module if the pilot has to flee out of distance without completing it's entosis cycle
That's an interesting idea that I think merits further consideration.

In the meantime, with entities like NOC and BOS getting involved in multi-billion ISK fights (the most recent being 280 pilots in Costolle destroying a total of nearly 200 billion ISK over a period of 70 minutes,) sometimes over a POS, sometimes simply from the result of two groups trying to out-escalate each other, I can't help but snicker at sov null pilots who whine about a single interceptor interrupting their ratting and mining. Sounds like they're better suited for highsec life. Null needs more of the kind of pilot that finds chasing an interceptor interesting.

I think I understand why BOS is saying that getting kicked from CFC was the best thing to happen to them...

I am 100% positive that the recent BOS fight had precisely **** all to do with interceptors lasering a node. The big fights have been caused by POSes and money moons for a long time now. In that regard, absolutely nothing has changed.

I can count on one hand how many people have said that chasing an instawarping, nullified ship is entertaining. They also happen to be the same people relying on those ships almost exclusively. Funny how that works out, eh?
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#417 - 2015-08-06 17:08:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Stan
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
Akballah Kassan wrote:
destroy the entosis module if the pilot has to flee out of distance without completing it's entosis cycle
That's an interesting idea that I think merits further consideration.

In the meantime, with entities like NOC and BOS getting involved in multi-billion ISK fights (the most recent being 280 pilots in Costolle destroying a total of nearly 200 billion ISK over a period of 70 minutes,) sometimes over a POS, sometimes simply from the result of two groups trying to out-escalate each other, I can't help but snicker at sov null pilots who whine about a single interceptor interrupting their ratting and mining. Sounds like they're better suited for highsec life. Null needs more of the kind of pilot that finds chasing an interceptor interesting.

I think I understand why BOS is saying that getting kicked from CFC was the best thing to happen to them...

I am 100% positive that the recent BOS fight had precisely **** all to do with interceptors lasering a node. The big fights have been caused by POSes and money moons for a long time now. In that regard, absolutely nothing has changed.


Exactly. Big fights will still happen when both sides are willing to commit - that hasn't changed with the implementation of Aegis Sov.

What has changed, however, is the ease with which alliances could hold on to systems they don't use. Once the alliances get tired of defending such systems, we'll still get the big fights over valuable resources/systems, and we'll still get the big fights just for fun, and smaller entities will be able to carve out small niches for themselves.
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#418 - 2015-08-06 17:19:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Gallowmere Rorschach
Eli Stan wrote:
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
Akballah Kassan wrote:
destroy the entosis module if the pilot has to flee out of distance without completing it's entosis cycle
That's an interesting idea that I think merits further consideration.

In the meantime, with entities like NOC and BOS getting involved in multi-billion ISK fights (the most recent being 280 pilots in Costolle destroying a total of nearly 200 billion ISK over a period of 70 minutes,) sometimes over a POS, sometimes simply from the result of two groups trying to out-escalate each other, I can't help but snicker at sov null pilots who whine about a single interceptor interrupting their ratting and mining. Sounds like they're better suited for highsec life. Null needs more of the kind of pilot that finds chasing an interceptor interesting.

I think I understand why BOS is saying that getting kicked from CFC was the best thing to happen to them...

I am 100% positive that the recent BOS fight had precisely **** all to do with interceptors lasering a node. The big fights have been caused by POSes and money moons for a long time now. In that regard, absolutely nothing has changed.


Exactly. Big fights will still happen when both sides are willing to commit - that hasn't changed with the implementation of Aegis Sov.

What has changed, however, is the ease with which alliances could hold on to systems they don't use. Once the alliances get tired of defending such systems, we'll still get the big fights over valuable resources/system, and the big fights just for fun, and smaller entities will be able to carve out small niches for themselves.

You will until "newpos" ends up turning all structures into a node mining quagmire. Then even those will likely stop, since there won't be a reason to commit large amounts of assets to attacking and defending those either.
We shall see, and I hope you're right, but I know better.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#419 - 2015-08-06 17:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Lucas Kell wrote:
If however people had to commit a moderate amount of resources to attacking sov, they would have a reason to fight for it and thus conflict would be created. Dominion required alliances to commit far too much, fozziesov requires far too little. Somewhere between the two is the right balance and the one I'm fairly certain CCP will find in time.


The problem I have with this logic is that it breaks one of the more interesting design decisions of Aegis sov, which is that the defender decides how many resources the attacker has to commit in order to take the system, at least within the limits of the defender's ability to do so.

Is your system undefended? Then why shouldn't some random in a frigate be able to take it from you, if you ignore every chance the system gives you to to defend it?

Is your system defended? Then there should be someone there, or at most a jump or two out, to shoo away the interceptor before it can do much of anything. As it happens, the perfect answer to the entosis interceptor is the even cheaper T1 EWAR frigate. Unlike the attacker, you can have a big stack of them in your station for anyone to grab and use. You can even get fancy and use EAFs or EWAR cruisers. Entosis the station to stop his progress, then damp him until he has to turn off his prop mode to be in targeting range, or just hit him with ECM and force him to go through warm-up cycle after warm-up cycle. Troll the troll. Then, if it's a vanguard for a serious attempt at taking your system, you'll be seeing a fleet before long. If it's just someone buzzing around, they'll go away.

It's just natural that a would-be attacker would not blindly commit in the face of a response they can't reliably anticipate, anymore than you would fully commit to kicking a hornet's nest before you had any idea how many hornets would come out of it.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2015-08-06 17:34:36 UTC
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
You will until "newpos" ends up turning all structures into a node mining quagmire. Then even those will likely stop, since there won't be a reason to commit large amounts of assets to defending those either.
We shall see, and I hope you're right, but I know better.


You mean the Citadels? I see it playing out similarly to TCUs and Outposts - alliances that want to hang on to their POS-equivalents will need to have a constant presence in the structure's system, which will promote consolidation and gives local entities the opportunity to acquire them from remote entities. Anytime there's a real push from one group to take over a moon from another group who wants that moon, there will still be a big fight. (Keep in mind that CCP has explicitly stated that one of their design goals for Aegis is to change how "big fights" happen, so that they don't happen on a single grid in a single system, and instead are spread out across an entire constellation.)