Assembly Hall

It's not that it's completely useless, it's that it's low value. In massive quantities it's OK. To most people though taking a few systems is worth less than just moving into a WH or living in NPC null, and none of it is really worth massive battles these days, hence the lack of real conflict in null. It'd be nice if there were good reasons to fight over it.

I wonder if we added to those maps the headcount/system and relationship between that and crying about the current system....

What's OK about "massive quantities", given that the primary wealth generators in sov 0.0 are the anomalies, which improve in quality and quantity as the indexes are increased?

For an alliance the size of INIT., 2 constellations would be ample - we actually have more space than we need sharing Tenal with RZR. When Citadels are introduced, allowing multiple structures per system, then the incentive to consolidate will increase even further.

Aint mean we won't fight for what we have though. We might even use our super special space-magic power of undocking and having fun.

The common theme I see running through this thread (and others like it) is people complaining about having a bad time when they try and engage with Aegis Sov as if it were Dominion Sov. You've put more effort into telling everyone you're not having fun trying to do things the old way in a new system than I've put into actually having fun in it. And I'm having plenty of fun tyvm.

Your cheese has been moved. It's time to cast aside old assumptions about "the right way" to do things and take a fresh look.

The more you have, the easier it is to defend. If you're fully utilising your space, then 100 people working in 2 systems will be more efficient that 2 sets of 50 in one each. Scaled up that continues, so when you hold a couple of constellations and fully utilise it, the effort to defend it balances out better with the rewards from it.

Most people aren't having fun even when playing it as Aegis sov. Mate... it's a mining laser and a structure. That's what the bulk of the mechanic is. Add to that the most efficient way of attacking sov is by using lots of uncatchable ships, and it's a textbook example of a bad mechanic. The mechanic should be engaging and fun for all parties, but it's not. Clearly there are plenty of groups of people who see it as nothing but a chore to play whack-a-mole to defend systems.

Congratulations. I guess if CCPs aim was "make malcanis happy while clearly the vast majority of null players find the new mechanics boring as sin" then it's a win. I'm not generally docked, we still have fights, much less than normal (dotlan stats show down 16% AFAIK) but less doesn't mean none, and neither am I crying, this is called "providing feedback on game mechanics". You're not so good at trolling these days bro.

Yes, it should require effort, but it should be entertaining. That's the goal of Fozziesov. And that's where it falls down. For most people involved it's not very fun.


You may want to just accept crappy game mechanics, many people would rather provide feedback and have them turned into good game mechanics. It's why we attend roundtables and the like to provide feedback on the game and it's why the CSM exists. Fozziesov could be good and fun for all, but currently it's not.

Nope. I was in the audience.

Yeah, was fun

What that I've posted has made you think that?

The way I see it, the goals have always been:
1. Make sov entertaining for all players involved.
- This I feel has failed. Most players attacking sov are doing so to troll. They don't want sov, they just want to waste people's time by forcing them to chase them about. It's very amusing I'm sure for the people doing the trolling, but it's the equivalent of wider spread blueballing for defenders. In addition, when you are taking or defending sov properly, most of the fleet is sitting about waiting while the "entosis crew" run around doing stuff. Because entosis doesn't benefit from more players, if you bring 20 players, most of them have nothing to do if there's no engagement.

- For this I suggest increasing the minimum size of ship for fitting an entosis. BC would be a good choice. How to get the whole fleet involved in capture, I don't know. The system seems to be inherently boring if you don't get an engagement. Perhaps a much more rapid takeover or defense of space if completely uncontested would be good.

2. Make the system to contest sov simpler.
- This has been a success. The only thing I'd suggest here is more in-game info as info available on crest should always be available in game so that everyone can access it with ease.

3. Ensure the system directs you to bring fleets that defeat your enemy and measures success on control of the grid.
- This is partially working, but with evasion fit ships, you can just spread out over the system into small fleets who couldn't actually control the grid, hoping that one or two of them get through. As you successfully trigger timers, you make it so that the defender has even more locations to go to to reset the systems and it continues to grow from there. There will likely be a large scale demonstration of why this is bad soon. Empty systems, sure, they should be sure easy to take, but occupied systems shouldn't be under threat from tiny evasion fit fleets. Those types of ships should remain primarily for scouting and intercepting a target for a fleet, not to actually run the takeover.

- For this I suggest letting systems naturally reset if aggressors don;t continue the takeover of sov, and requiring multiple entosis links to get a sov capture started with a higher ADM.

I am going to need to push for my old damage stacking penalty I wrote up years ago. Incentive to split fire over press F1. Still can blob fire, but total damage is less than if spread, etc etc. Squad on squad fight, need ewar, etc.

Problem: fozziesov in its current state critically reduces chances for large scale fights, fights that significantly separate EVE Online from its competitors.

False narrative. The large scale fights you speak of center around legacy tactics ( capital blops etc.). The new mechanic levels this playing field by allowing "guerrilla style" tactics to be an effective tool. By "effective tool" I mean:

1. A means in which an opponent can gather intel by measuring your response.
2. Requires the SOV holder to defend what they desire to keep and prioritize SOV holdings.
3. Requires any group who is determined to hold SOV, That they have ability to demonstrate force projection in relation to current or desired SOV holdings.
and much more...

Gone are the days of holding SOV under the "threat" of response umbrella. If anything, you will have a fight. The scale depends upon your willingness to risk ships or SOV. That also means you will no longer be able to make the statement to your prospective renters that "the area is safe" Nothing is safe. Period!



Really? By your own logic that would also mean that low sp members of CODE, flying Catalysts are harassing miners and haulers in hi sec! Your logic also demands that they should have to fly something other than a cheap destroyers in order to gank in hi sec.
This whole petition nonsense is without merit. For years and years players have claimed null is broke. The fact is that those players whining about the new SOV are nothing more than a bunch of elitist adolescents who stomp their feet and throw tantrums when things don't go according to their liking. Adapt or leave!!

but we want you guys to suffer