These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#281 - 2015-08-03 22:06:31 UTC
Dark Reignz wrote:
Wow don't people get it yet ? You're not supposed to be able to keep half off null sec with small / renter alliances. The whole point of the Sov update was to stop alliances from claiming much more space than a) they need and b) they are able to protect.

This is just another cry for nullbear easymode status.
How is it? We're not losing space. It's easymode as it is, it's just boring as sin. Nearly nobody wants to take the space and nobody that does wants to commit the resources to taking the space. Because you can just throw a handful of disposable ships around and watch the defenders running around defending, that's all that gets done. Once the novelty wears off, even that will become boring and there will be even less conflict in null. Excuse me for thinking the idea of this change was to make people actually fight each other. I guess it was really because people love chasing cheap ships designed not to be caught. That's why the ACU is soaring, right?

Frostys Virpio wrote:
It currently promote conflict. Just not conflict with explosions. We are continuously fighting over those systems to take/hold them. People's chase for the most efficient way of doing it is what cause trollceptor to be what we see so often. Fight denial was used in EVE since forever. Being irritated that it get used in a new way under a new system is just plain stupid.
It used to be mixed in with actually fights. Of course people will run from fights they won't win, but fights use to occur. Now an all out battle is like ooh, 2b killed. The vast majority of people contesting the sov don't even have interest in actually taking it. Sorry mate, but going from 4k player battles to this crazy "whack a mole with disposable ships" is not an improvement.

Watching all these "grr goons" types crawling out of the woodwork fapping and saying "yeah CCP make null more boring" is quite hilarious though, so I guess there's that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#282 - 2015-08-03 22:16:01 UTC
OP makes sense, for CCP to not have thought and done something about those problems shows that CCP disregards it's sov-base players.

Fozzie sov, the way it is now, basically say's 'go troll sov space'. In no regards does it invite small or large scale wars for sov space, but hit & run tactics which is flooding the game ever since interceptors became the most OP ships in the game.

It's a big **** you to sov owners.

Been around since the beginning.

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#283 - 2015-08-03 22:18:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's all that chasing though isn't it? All sorts of points to be captured all over and you're chasing around disposable ships that the enemy don't care about. And all it takes is one of those many points to slip though while you're chasing frigates about for command nodes to be spawning.

The whole idea of sov is it was supposed to promote actual conflict. It has failed to do that.

There is no mandatory chasing involved. Structures don't move.

If there are command nodes, then you already screwed-up by not preventing reinforcement.

Entosis links are far better for getting fights than SBUs.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2015-08-03 22:19:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because you can just throw a handful of disposable ships around and watch the defenders running around defending, that's all that gets done.
Why would you do that if you want fights?

On the other hand, if you do not want to fight, what difference do the sov mechanics make?

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#285 - 2015-08-03 22:26:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Since you're determined to avoid the point (or too simple to see it), I'll put it in the most basic language I can:
I want to see ships of at least moderate value on both sides going boom. I want to see people trying to take sov, not just slapping a timer then running away to waste the defenders time. The system as it stands does nothing to promote these things.


Everybody wants that. But new groups were not able to move into Dominion Sov and take anything due to the mechanics that allowed for passive in absentia defense via huge HP numbers. What the Aegis Sov system is designed to do is give more groups room to expand into null and take that sov. It does this by deliberately making it a complete pain in the ass for anybody to defend a system displaced from where they spend their time, in the hopes that they stop trying to defend it, making it available for somebody else to live in it. Wasting your time defending a system you don't have anybody in is a deliberate aspect of making you consolidate into space you actually use, making your unused space available to be taken by somebody else.

We are less than three weeks into Aegis. Some people are just having fun with it by trolling. Others are having trouble adjusting. It will take some time for the borders and tactics of alliances to adjust to what their pain threshold can withstand for defending. Yes, it is possible for an alliance to play whack-a-mole and rush around chasing Interceptors and keep a tentative grasp on their Dominion Sov. That is hindering the movement of new groups into sov null. It will take time for groups historically shut out of sov to make their way in. Hopefully some are looking at the map and planning just that, and will be able to once some of the established alliances realize they need to let go of some of their systems due to the pain of holding them.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#286 - 2015-08-03 22:30:23 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's all that chasing though isn't it? All sorts of points to be captured all over and you're chasing around disposable ships that the enemy don't care about. And all it takes is one of those many points to slip though while you're chasing frigates about for command nodes to be spawning.

The whole idea of sov is it was supposed to promote actual conflict. It has failed to do that.
There is no mandatory chasing involved. Structures don't move.

If there are command nodes, then you already screwed-up by not preventing reinforcement.

Entosis links are far better for getting fights than SBUs.
Except there is, since little entosis ships pop up all over the place and are designed to be as evasive as possible, because they are designed to not fight. I'm all for the system for people to more easily contest sov, but they have to actually commit to it to doing so. The idea this was pitched as was "help smaller groups get into sov", not "make sov holders chase frigates".

And so far that's proving to be wrong. Entosis links are getting tiny little skirmishes from time to time while SBUs used to get big fights quite frequently.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because you can just throw a handful of disposable ships around and watch the defenders running around defending, that's all that gets done.
Why would you do that if you want fights?

On the other hand, if you do not want to fight, what difference do the sov mechanics make?
That's my point, they don't want fights. They want to contest sov and run away, knowing that the defenders have to run around unlasering everything. It's the space equivalent of going to somebodies early organise game shelf and swapping all the dics over and scattering them around the room then running away with your pants on your head. You've achieved nothing except the knowledge that the owner of the game collection has to put them all back. As a gameplay mechanic it sucks.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#287 - 2015-08-03 22:37:13 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
Everybody wants that. But new groups were not able to move into Dominion Sov and take anything due to the mechanics that allowed for passive in absentia defense via huge HP numbers. What the Aegis Sov system is designed to do is give more groups room to expand into null and take that sov. It does this by deliberately making it a complete pain in the ass for anybody to defend a system displaced from where they spend their time, in the hopes that they stop trying to defend it, making it available for somebody else to live in it. Wasting your time defending a system you don't have anybody in is a deliberate aspect of making you consolidate into space you actually use, making your unused space available to be taken by somebody else.

We are less than three weeks into Aegis. Some people are just having fun with it by trolling. Others are having trouble adjusting. It will take some time for the borders and tactics of alliances to adjust to what their pain threshold can withstand for defending. Yes, it is possible for an alliance to play whack-a-mole and rush around chasing Interceptors and keep a tentative grasp on their Dominion Sov. That is hindering the movement of new groups into sov null. It will take time for groups historically shut out of sov to make their way in. Hopefully some are looking at the map and planning just that, and will be able to once some of the established alliances realize they need to let go of some of their systems due to the pain of holding them.
But that's not what's happening, is it? People are just running around firing entosis lasers at absolutely everything they can, whether defenders are using the space or not, an the defenders have to run around wasting their time undoing that. The people contesting sov have absolutely no intention of taking it.

I have to ask, have you actually played with the new mechanic? Because it sounds like you haven't really used it. It's boring. Insanely boring. It's much simpler to just go blow up noobs in Niarja since at least there you get to see something explode. To be honest, the idea was flawed from the getgo. They effectively took structure bashing which nobody liked then thought "wouldn't this be better if it was like mining". Turns out it's not better, surprise surprise. Considering the CSM have sat up pretty sharply, I'm hoping CCP have realised that from the incredibly lack of player surge following the release.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#288 - 2015-08-03 22:41:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
They want to contest sov and run away, knowing that the defenders have to run around unlasering everything.
Ah yes, this unlasering part seems a bit strange to me. Are the defenders forced to do it? Or would the structures de-entosis themselves anyway after a certain period of time?

If the attackers were chased off and don't come back in a reasonable period of time (1 hour?), seems to me that the attack was clearly unsuccesful and the mop-up is just a boring chore indeed...

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#289 - 2015-08-03 22:41:51 UTC
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#290 - 2015-08-03 22:45:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Except there is, since little entosis ships pop up all over the place and are designed to be as evasive as possible, because they are designed to not fight. I'm all for the system for people to more easily contest sov, but they have to actually commit to it to doing so. The idea this was pitched as was "help smaller groups get into sov", not "make sov holders chase frigates".

And so far that's proving to be wrong. Entosis links are getting tiny little skirmishes from time to time while SBUs used to get big fights quite frequently.

Aegis Sov isn't meant to allow smaller groups get into sov by fighting the big groups for systems - Aegis Sov is meant to allow smaller groups to get into sov by causing larger groups to stop trying to defend those systems in the first place. Then once done, different groups move into sov null (attracted, hopefully, by the anom changes) and there will be more inter-alliance conflict. We're at the very beginning of the first phase of sov null movement. This is not end-game sov state.

Quote:
They want to contest sov and run away, knowing that the defenders have to run around unlasering everything.
If you have to run around your sov to protect it, you're doing it wrong. The game owner should be holding their discs in their hands at all times, not allowing the pants-on-head kid anywhere near them. If your reach is too short to hold on to your discs, you need to evaluate which discs are truly important.
Kiandoshia
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#291 - 2015-08-03 22:54:32 UTC
Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved

Nope, not seeing any of this.

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

I guess, yes, it's simple enough to understand, so yeah, well done.

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.

Number + organisation will always win and it's probably a good thing.

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

I don't know, it take more or less the same amount of time, requires a lot fewer people to initiate and is still just as boring as shooting 40m HP structures.

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

Longer timers are a significant strategic benefit, I assume.

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.

It's not working but that isn't the fault of the system. Players and organisations are just painfully slow at figuring that out effective ways to effectively sovlaser while everyone else is dicking around in trollceptors.

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

Whatever.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#292 - 2015-08-03 23:11:20 UTC

1. It's not enjoyable
2. The system is more obscure than the last one, and most info isn't readily available in game.
3. By "more people" they mean "more than one" and by "larger ships" they mean "anything bigger than a frigate". Might have gone too far there. If people do choose to bring more ships, you're still SOL if you don't bring more.
4. That was successful
5. That's yet to be seen, since the timer is still short enough that you have to drop everything you are doing to rush over and shoot troll ships whenever they turn up. I guess the main issue here is that nothing makes the attackers have to actually commit more to attacking.
6. Again, this one is sort of done, but it's only because there are no large sov battles. Why that's considered a good thing, I have no idea. Maybe international press wasn't something CCP enjoyed.
7. Any system can be tweaked over time, even the old sov system.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#293 - 2015-08-03 23:21:45 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
[Aegis Sov isn't meant to allow smaller groups get into sov by fighting the big groups for systems - Aegis Sov is meant to allow smaller groups to get into sov by causing larger groups to stop trying to defend those systems in the first place. Then once done, different groups move into sov null (attracted, hopefully, by the anom changes) and there will be more inter-alliance conflict. We're at the very beginning of the first phase of sov null movement. This is not end-game sov state.
The small groups don;t want the sov. They've made that painfully clear by not bothering to show up for timers. And even if by some miracle a big group gets bored of defending and gives up the system, the new guys still can;t move in because the big group will just show up and repeatedly gank them until they stop trying to live there.

Eli Stan wrote:
Quote:
They want to contest sov and run away, knowing that the defenders have to run around unlasering everything.
If you have to run around your sov to protect it, you're doing it wrong. The game owner should be holding their discs in their hands at all times, not allowing the pants-on-head kid anywhere near them. If your reach is too short to hold on to your discs, you need to evaluate which discs are truly important.
Yeah, must be doing it wrong. I forgot that to hold sov we're supposed to stand guard on the TCU and IHUB and station constantly in every single system we own so that if someone shows up we don't have to switch ships and fly around after them.

I have a feeling you don't know what games are for. They are not career choices. The idea that an attacker should be able to just show up in a cheap disposable ship and start lasering while a defender needs to constantly stand guard is moronic. I don't care if it ends up that we can only hold half the space we do, but defending shouldn't be more of a chore than attacking, shouldn't require more committed resources than attacking, and both sides of the mechanic should be entertaining and promote meaningful conflict.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Spectre80
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#294 - 2015-08-04 00:21:26 UTC
Lots of tears means all is well in eve universe. Big smile
Pah Cova
Made in Portugal S.A.
#295 - 2015-08-04 01:11:34 UTC


1 - Not really, nobody are fighting for star systems, they´re just trolling star systems, nobody cares about null sec anymore unless for trolling, so this point is a big fail.

2 - As stated and CCP can see that, theres no new alliances contesting systems, just some alliances that are already in null sec are spreading a create new alliances, so nothing changes, hs people are not going there once again, so we have another big fail.

3 - Well this one is a GO, not much people fighting neither big ships, thats the way to an very nice empty null space.

4 - Conquer what? I dont see any conquered space, just new alliances coming from old ones, they stay where they are.

5 - Strategic benefits? What strategic benefits? Being disrupted is a benefit? Maybe they are talking about from ihub and upgrades sales, that is benefit for those who are manufacturing it in hs.

6 - Sov Battles? I havent see any since this new sov mechanics, just troll, nothin more but trolling.

7 - Well maybe the future changes are bots and more bots providing by CCP due the lack of null sec players and players in game, they are decreasing intead of increasing.


Players who have left are not turning back until they have what they want and part of them are not going back anymore, they are felling defrauded by CCP so I cant blame them since the last 4 years we get all in one way or another being defrauded due the systemic nerfs, changes on the way we play the game and CCP words are adpat. So for at least 20.000 palyers they have adapted themselves once and for all, they leave the game and I belive much more will leave the game soon enough. New players dont count on that, when they reach the game, they leave in a week or two, too complex, too many changes all the time, scaming and harassment to new players who dosent know what to do, so their best way is to move to another game without all of this...


Billy Bojangle
Doomheim
#296 - 2015-08-04 01:16:18 UTC
Pah Cova wrote:

Players who have left are not turning back until they have what they want and part of them are not going back anymore, they are felling defrauded by CCP so I cant blame them since the last 4 years we get all in one way or another being defrauded due the systemic nerfs, changes on the way we play the game and CCP words are adpat. So for at least 20.000 palyers they have adapted themselves once and for all, they leave the game and I belive much more will leave the game soon enough. New players dont count on that, when they reach the game, they leave in a week or two, too complex, too many changes all the time, scaming and harassment to new players who dosent know what to do, so their best way is to move to another game without all of this...



Can I have your stuff?
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#297 - 2015-08-04 01:57:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
Assuming "occupancy" is there, I don't see how massive amounts of structure lasering would ever happen? Within the 15 to 60 minutes required for a T1 Entosis to capture anything, undock a VNI or Caracal, maybe warp to the TCU or Ihub, chase away or kill the Interceptor, and you're done.

If your system is empty and you cannot get anybody to it in time to prevent the capture that results in reinforcement followed by command node spawning, then you're missing the "occupancy" part.

The system doesn't require occupancy, but it punishes lack of occupancy be inflicting whack-a-mole. It's up to your alliance's judgment to determine how they want to handle it.
It's all that chasing though isn't it? All sorts of points to be captured all over and you're chasing around disposable ships that the enemy don't care about. And all it takes is one of those many points to slip though while you're chasing frigates about for command nodes to be spawning.

The whole idea of sov is it was supposed to promote actual conflict. It has failed to do that.


So in a post that goes into detail how you are fighting throughout your sov to maintain your sov holdings you conclude that no conflict is occurring?

To you i introduce the term, "non sequitor" or as it is sometimes referred to as, "it does not follow". Meaning Your statements of fact dont support your conclusion and in fact in this case your facts actually refute your own conclusion which is even worse.
I think what you and I define as "fighting" are disturbingly different. Chasing disposable ships around is not a fight.

Since you're determined to avoid the point (or too simple to see it), I'll put it in the most basic language I can:
I want to see ships of at least moderate value on both sides going boom. I want to see people trying to take sov, not just slapping a timer then running away to waste the defenders time. The system as it stands does nothing to promote these things.


Let me assure you the simpleton is on your side the this issue. When someone makes a poor decision and pays a price and whines to CCP that some change needs to be made, you nullsec types tell them that, 'decisions in EVE have consequences" and that they should stop whining to CCP for changes when they only have themselves to blame.

Let me state that I agree with this statement, it is absolutely the right one to hold for this game.

Now we come to the part where apparently you are a bit thick-headed.

YOU (nullsec) chose non-aggression pacts, YOU chose not to fight your neighbors, YOU knew that your CHOICE was counter to the very fundamentals upon which this game stands.

You made bad CHOICES, now deal with the unpleasant consequences and stop whining to CCP !



Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2015-08-04 02:07:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
The small groups don;t want the sov.
Keep in mind that currently, they can't have sov. Regardless of how painful to the established alliances the tactics are, they nevertheless are effective tactics. Small groups get denied sov, get kicked out of sov, because of groups operating under the Dominion paradigm of keeping everything they can capture.

Quote:
And even if by some miracle a big group gets bored of defending and gives up the system, the new guys still can;t move in because the big group will just show up and repeatedly gank them until they stop trying to live there.
Indeed, larger groups can harass and evict smaller groups. Just like groups can get evicted out of wormholes. Just like GROON or BOS or NOC could hellcamp CAS and if not in reality at least in effect erase us from Syndicate. And yet meaningful and exciting and significant conflict happen in wormholes and NPC null.

Quote:
I forgot that to hold sov we're supposed to stand guard on the TCU and IHUB and station constantly in every single system we own so that if someone shows up we don't have to switch ships and fly around after them.
Well, yes! That's exactly it! You're starting to see! That's the very definition of occupancy sov. I think you still have the cause and effect backwards, however. You don't live in a system because you want to defend it - you defend a system because you want to live in it.

Quote:
I don't care if it ends up that we can only hold half the space we do, but defending shouldn't be more of a chore than attacking, shouldn't require more committed resources than attacking, and both sides of the mechanic should be entertaining and promote meaningful conflict.
Defending a system you live in from a trollceptor is not a chore and does not require committing significant resources.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#299 - 2015-08-04 02:22:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's all that chasing though isn't it? All sorts of points to be captured all over and you're chasing around disposable ships that the enemy don't care about. And all it takes is one of those many points to slip though while you're chasing frigates about for command nodes to be spawning.

The whole idea of sov is it was supposed to promote actual conflict. It has failed to do that.
There is no mandatory chasing involved. Structures don't move.

If there are command nodes, then you already screwed-up by not preventing reinforcement.

Entosis links are far better for getting fights than SBUs.
Except there is, since little entosis ships pop up all over the place and are designed to be as evasive as possible, because they are designed to not fight. I'm all for the system for people to more easily contest sov, but they have to actually commit to it to doing so. The idea this was pitched as was "help smaller groups get into sov", not "make sov holders chase frigates".

And so far that's proving to be wrong. Entosis links are getting tiny little skirmishes from time to time while SBUs used to get big fights quite frequently.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because you can just throw a handful of disposable ships around and watch the defenders running around defending, that's all that gets done.
Why would you do that if you want fights?

On the other hand, if you do not want to fight, what difference do the sov mechanics make?
That's my point, they don't want fights. They want to contest sov and run away, knowing that the defenders have to run around unlasering everything. It's the space equivalent of going to somebodies early organise game shelf and swapping all the dics over and scattering them around the room then running away with your pants on your head. You've achieved nothing except the knowledge that the owner of the game collection has to put them all back. As a gameplay mechanic it sucks.


Destroying the will of an enemy to fight is a core combat technique even in the real world, certainly it has applications in a video game.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#300 - 2015-08-04 02:26:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Concerning CCP Fozzies goals for the new mechanics.

1. you could consolidate your holdings to places you occupy and use thus reducing your exposure to being entossed, you could entoss your neighbor alliances, you could show up when said entossed alliance must defend its space giving you the big fight you claim to want. This would be using fozziesov rather than whining about it. In short, you are not having fun because you are chosing not to, not because the game mechanics are wrong, only your approach to them is wrong and your approach is now outdated.

2-7 working as intended....

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.