These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » Council of Stellar Management » Assembly Hall » Collective petition about fozziesov

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page2223242526Next pageLast page

Collective petition about fozziesov First post First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Kai55a

Hedion University

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 1

#461 - 2015-08-14 17:30:56 UTC | Edited by: Kai55a

Thanks to new sov, capitals and super capitals are not needed to attack and they don't help to defense sov!

So nothing is limiting power projection now except awful implementation of sov game mechanics. It's boring, time consuming, etc. When CCP fix the worst issues (number of beacons, ceptors, etc.), nothing will limit power projection because it's not a big deal to deploy non capital ships to any borders and start dropping sov. Groups like PL may not stay there for long time; they could do it for fun; for money, etc.

Big fail, CCP!

Arrow Industries 44
Snowmann Arrow Industries Likes received: 44	#462 - 2015-08-14 20:27:05 UTC 1 I think as long as alliances try to hold more Sov than they need, life will continue to suck. The rules of the game have changed and many don't want to adapt to them. Many appear to be trying to do the same ol thing under the new rules, and blame everyone except themselves.

Sonya Corvinus

Grant Village

Likes received: 1,281

#463 - 2015-08-14 22:33:56 UTC

Snowmann wrote:

I think as long as alliances try to hold more Sov than they need, life will continue to suck.
The rules of the game have changed and many don't want to adapt to them.

Many appear to be trying to do the same ol thing under the new rules, and blame everyone except themselves.

Everyone in EVE is a bear who needs to adapt or GTFO (unless you happen to be in null sov)

Alexander Kalkoken

Science and Trade Institute

Caldari State

Likes received: 5

#464 - 2015-08-15 01:53:36 UTC

In the same vein that 'Nowhere in EVE is completely safe', as has been stated multiple times by ganking groups in High Sec, I am extremely pleased to see this same attitude finally being applied in Null Sec as well for the Sov system - in that it Can be attacked by anyone & requires vigilance on the part of the group involved in its defense.

Perhaps if people had not been as extreme in their views about such, I could be a bit more hesitant about the new inclusion of sovtrolls assaulting without intention of use - however, with the repeated calls for less High Sec & more gank options, I see no problems with the system in its current state. You got exactly what you wanted - more risks. The difference is, when it is applied to your own space instead of to others, you now cry foul.

X Gallentius

Black Eagle1

Likes received: 2,982

#465 - 2015-08-16 03:46:17 UTC | Edited by: X Gallentius

Hey let's look at the map through the filter of the old system instead of looking at it through the new system.

Just because you don't claim sov over empty systems that don't matter, doesn't mean you don't control them. (Only defend space you think is really important - maybe stations or station systems - and then go dunk the other side's jump bridges, cynojammers, POSes, POCOs and Citadels for the bigger fights and/or total domination).

England was able to control half the world with worse logistics than you guys currently have. I'm sure you can figure out a way to maintain a large 0.0 empire again. (Suck it up and adapt)

Edit: The purpose of the Entosis links ought to be to make it easy for one side to take down afk structures/sov - which probably should not include fueled POSes / Citadels. Also, automated weapons systems that can pwn mwd frigates might want to be implemented.

Malcanis

Vanishing Point.

The Initiative.

Likes received: 18,382

#466 - 2015-08-16 10:18:00 UTC

X Gallentius wrote:

England was able to control half the world with worse logistics than you guys currently have

That's because Britain had massive capital ship superiority, meaning that no one else could have comparable logistics.

The British Empire is actually an example I used in illustrating how improved communication, logistics and power projection technology increase the maximum possible amount of territory a single group can coherently control.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

X Gallentius

Black Eagle1

Likes received: 2,982

#467 - 2015-08-16 13:29:52 UTC

Malcanis wrote:

X Gallentius wrote:

England was able to control half the world with worse logistics than you guys currently have

I wonder who else has massive cap ship superiority, logistics, and ability to project power across the universe - all the while having enough resources to defend their isolated home island in the upper left corner of Europe, err... 0.0?

Gallowmere Rorschach

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 1,168

#468 - 2015-08-16 18:56:45 UTC

X Gallentius wrote:

Malcanis wrote:

X Gallentius wrote:

England was able to control half the world with worse logistics than you guys currently have

Had would be the word you are looking for. Not has.

Black friday20 7
Aaz Rdtsc Black friday20 Likes received: 7	#469 - 2015-08-16 18:58:43 UTC +1

hotdropoclock Enterprises 6
Hellion Vlad hotdropoclock Enterprises Likes received: 6	#470 - 2015-08-16 19:12:00 UTC Quit QQing and defend your space. I do not see anyone that has alliances that work crying. CCP great job keep it up. Sign, Hellion Vlad - Branded for Life!

Dark Nexxus 117
Caius Sivaris Dark Nexxus Likes received: 117	#471 - 2015-08-16 19:18:05 UTC \| Edited by: Caius Sivaris This thread is proof that, even in its incomplete state, FozzieSov is a success and what was needed to shake the status quo.

Apocalypse Enterprises 0
MeJulie Apocalypse Enterprises Likes received: 0	#472 - 2015-08-16 19:18:48 UTC -1 Lost interest at the Wall of Text.

Boom Miner Corporation 0
Pirs Brostan Boom Miner Corporation Likes received: 0	#473 - 2015-08-16 19:22:08 UTC I am against the proposals in the petition. I for CCP. We all know WHY you are against such mechanics. UAxDEATH, go to working.

Yukimisama

Deviant Dollyz

Likes received: 53

#474 - 2015-08-16 19:22:26 UTC

This is pretty important to be addressed imo as a new player still figuring everything out, I'd probably quit the game after my year or two of skill training's complete if this is really what Null has become. I joined up in EVE for events like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvtp8qaUdNk

Not singular players running around like asshats with Entosis II's keeping everything in an entire region vulnerable together and spamming around not actually doing anything or even trying to initiate any warfare beyond a gatecamp catching them.

In My World...

Viziam Amarr Empire 21
aussieftw Viziam Amarr Empire Likes received: 21	#475 - 2015-08-16 19:42:12 UTC 1 + 1. Fozziesov is pain now, we really need some changes.

True Power Team 74
TOJICTOTA True Power Team Likes received: 74	#476 - 2015-08-16 19:44:40 UTC 3 U DICHA POPKA PRIGORELA NORM.

Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 60
CyberRaver Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State Likes received: 60	#477 - 2015-08-16 19:44:59 UTC 2 Fully agree with this Fozziesov is aids and the games worse off for it

Gallowmere Rorschach

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 1,168

#478 - 2015-08-16 19:47:29 UTC

Caius Sivaris wrote:

This thread is proof that, even in its incomplete state, FozzieSov is a success and what was needed to shake the status quo.

That's the thing, it hasn't.
All of the big sov holders are still the big sov holders.
The only difference is that large fights are all but unheard of now, and everyone is so annoyed with the new mechanics, that they aren't even bothering to go back and laser nodes that have been out for over two weeks.
So, if by shaken up, you mean hit with a taser and thrown into the trunk, sure.