These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Assembly Hall

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Collective petition about fozziesov

First post First post First post
Pandemic Legion
#61 - 2015-08-01 00:56:48 UTC
Kalen Pavle wrote:
Tappits wrote:
Kalen Pavle wrote:

Except we're not. Orbiting nodes on alts is not fun. Orbiting them on mains is less fun. It's only quicker when you consider the additional timer. Actual time commitments are immensely longer than in dominion sov.

I would ask how many systems are you taking to live in? tri has 1400 people in 22 corps. so how much space do you need?
if you are taking more than you need i would have to ask why?
the whole sov system is designed to make it a bit easier to carve out your own home.. but much much harder to take and hold more than you need so why are you trying to take more than you could possibly need even if you were 2x the size?

It's not about the sovereignty, or holding the sov, it's about getting people to fight. As it is now, the most effective way to get your opponent to go away is not to fight them, it's to force them to afk on nodes with alts while the rest of the fleet says '**** this, i'm going back to [insert staging system here].'

Defense now is about stationary objects in space, which don't shoot back, which use boredom as their primary tool of dissuading the enemy from engaging.

So your way of getting people to fight is to create so many timers (that you hate making) that there are for sure not going to bother fighting?
Randy McSoggybotto
Almost Dangerous
Wolves Amongst Strangers
#62 - 2015-08-01 01:00:40 UTC
the only people complaining are the people that dont live in their space/arent competent enough to defend their space
Brian Harrelstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#63 - 2015-08-01 01:06:23 UTC
UAxDEATH wrote:

If you beat that dead horse any harder, it's going to turn into a pulp. Roll
Kalen Pavle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2015-08-01 01:09:52 UTC
Brian Harrelstein wrote:
UAxDEATH wrote:

If you beat that dead horse any harder, it's going to turn into a pulp. Roll

It should have been pulped before it ever made it live.

We were forced to retaliate by trolling Insmother after they trolled the Spire.
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2015-08-01 01:15:42 UTC
+1 for original post
Pandemic Legion
#66 - 2015-08-01 01:17:05 UTC
Kalen Pavle wrote:


Did they come over to your house put a gun to your head and say entosis 600 things all night?

or did you at the time (before the 1st entosis cycle) think it would be super funny to troll entosis all there space in one go?
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#67 - 2015-08-01 01:19:12 UTC
There are no nodes to deal with when you defend.

If you are dealing with nodes, then you are doing it wrong. Nodes only appear if you allow reinforcement.

It takes 3 people per system (tcu, ihub, station) to defend against troll-ceptors during the vulnerability window.
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#68 - 2015-08-01 01:27:44 UTC
It seems to be promoting skirmishes but not battles. I would be concerned about the missing half of the equation if I was CCP.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#69 - 2015-08-01 01:37:58 UTC
Zappity wrote:
It seems to be promoting skirmishes but not battles. I would be concerned about the missing half of the equation if I was CCP.

Battles will happen when people stop trolling and make a serious push at actually capturing a new area of space.
Of course battles don't happen if all you are doing is trolling around the edges of someone's sov.
Pol macWolf
Zima Corp
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#70 - 2015-08-01 01:39:40 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#71 - 2015-08-01 02:13:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Unsuccessful At Everything
Cant help but smile when I read the list of alliance in the OP.

Please enjoy this nice BBC article on what they have dubbed 'the majestic arctic unicorn'.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Jenshae Chiroptera
#72 - 2015-08-01 02:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Signed on a personal level as a compromise.


Fozzie SOV is contrived. You wave a wand that has a fixed cycle time. You can not augment your ship to improve damage and grind the structure down. You can not augment your ship to repair the structure faster.
Shoot the Hairy Potthead fan who loves waving wands around.


- Cut carrier and dreadnaught DPS by 10%
- Heavily nerf Titan and Super Carrier DPS.
- Roll back to Dominion SOV and cut the hit points off the structures that you no longer need.

Additionally, find a way to hard limit how many Supers and Titans an alliance can have active in a system or region.

Causes for the stagnation

- No space for small independant corporations and alliances to grow big enough with the super / titan fleets to contest for space.
- The ships were the problem. Not the structures.

Now you have ruined SOV for sub capitals. Our SOV has gone from building castles out of stone to building it out of plastic. It feels cheap, nasty and childish, catering to giggly little griefers that have too much energy and no patience.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Slutty McCarrierPilot
#73 - 2015-08-01 02:21:14 UTC
tl;dr -

Owners of the largest renter empires in EVE are in a tizzy because they hold massive swathes of space that NOBODY uses. In Dominion nobody could contest the empire at all, now they're complaining that they might actually have to do something to hold onto their space.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#74 - 2015-08-01 02:35:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Slutty McCarrierPilot wrote:
tl;dr - Owners of the largest renter empires in EVE are in a tizzy because ...
Check Reddit. It is not only xxDeath, it is many other people from all over Null Sec.

Phoebe saw much change and fragmentation. Before and after.
Fozzie SOV is seeing fewer and larger coalitions.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Raata Invicti
#75 - 2015-08-01 02:58:44 UTC
Things will be fine when people get used to the new sov equation. The essential problem is that people have delusions of old grandeur, when an entity that could field a decent sized fleet could hold a region or more. Forget that. In this new regime, the maths are going to look more like this:

Call a CTA in your prime time. How many do you get consistently? 50? 100? 200, 500?

Divide that number by 20. That's probably about how many systems you can hold. Try to take more than that, and you're going to have a bad time. Get yourself established in a realistic amount of space. Bring in some indy types if you don't want to mine and stuffs. Once you are well established, you can pew-pew with your neighbors. You'll have a good time. If you get big enough (use the number you can get in a CTA, so you don't BS yourself) take some more space.

You're going to have to adjust your expectations to the new reality. The new reality isn't going to adjust to your expectations that used to be realistic, but aren't anymore.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#76 - 2015-08-01 03:01:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
davet517 wrote:
Things will be fine when people get used to the new sov equation. The essential problem is that people have delusions of old grandeur, when an entity that could ...
... have fleet battles, will now have silly little gang / solo spats that could be better done in Low Sec if that is your style of playing the game.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

#77 - 2015-08-01 03:03:09 UTC
Little early for this since most people don't even understand fozziesov yet.
Ransu Asanari
Caldari State
#78 - 2015-08-01 03:06:22 UTC
I agree with a few of the pain points made, but strongly disagree on others.

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

Spreading fights out between systems was part of the original design of the Aegis sov system, to avoid creating a chokepoint where all battle activity must happen on one node, and to better use the resources of the server cluster housing New Eden. When we look at large scale battles like B-R5RB, 6VDT-H, and HED-GP they are remembered for their scale, but those who actually participated remember the sub 10% TiDi, lag, and 20-22 hour slogfests. Large blocs are quick to cry out that these battles are what gives EVE the best publicity, but we know that many of the pilots drawn in from these do not experience these type of epic battles, and leave due to incorrect expectations.

Problem: low skill requirement practically affirms harassment towards any sov owner. While new player harassment is subject to a support ticket. Roaming fleets or interceptors shouldn’t be able to affect sovereignty.

Solution: reduce the amount of tactics that create invulnerable situations, which are currently based on ship’s speed. Entosis module should reduce speed dramatically, up to 0 m/s.

I strongly disagree with this, and I'm slightly amused by the large nullsec blocs comparing "sov trolling" to player harassment requiring GM tickets. HTFU.

Entosis is designed to influence the type of ships brought to contest nodes as little as possible. There may be some extreme cases that need to be dealt with, but there are viable counters you can bring to most of these situations. A 12km/s Vagabond orbiting the beacon at 250km? Park a T1 frigate with a T1 Entosis module on the beacon and pause their progress. Or hunt down their links ship and kill it instead. Right now a 1M ISK Griffin can jam out that ship and force them to go through the warmup cycle again; or a Maulus can damp down the Vagabond to lose its lock at that range, and force it to come in closer.

If ADM indexes are raised for the systems owned, it will take 40 minutes to reinforce a structure - giving lots of time to form up and chase off the invader. The increased ADM will also result in a lower vulnerability window, so there is less time the defense fleets will have to be vigilant. And that's the point of occupancy sov - if you are living in the space and raising the indexes, you'll be able to defend it before the structures go into reinforced.

As for roaming gangs, I'm finding Entosis a great way of encouraging fights. It is creating content and a more vibrant Nullsec. Rather than roaming through regions of empty space, where ratters and miners POS or dock up as you come through, we can provoke a reaction and get a good fight. If the residents would rather not form up, then they'll have a lot of timers to deal with in the next few days, and risk having someone come and 3rd party it. Some good examples of this:

Problem: fozziesov has a potential exploit in relation to Entosis Link II - using this module allows attackers to do a quick 2 minute cycle, which sets structure vulnerable, regardless of vulnerability period or until the status of vulnerable structure becomes known to its owner.

I agree with this issue - sov kiting shouldn't be a thing. Even if a structure is partially captured, at the end of the vulnerability window, it should go invulnerable and save any capture progress for the next day. Being able to partially capture a structure, and then come back out of timezone to complete it is not balanced or intended design, in my opinion. Especially where the amount captured is almost unnoticable - this seems more like a UI problem.

We could discuss a similar exception to the POS reinforcement - where when the remaining time on the structure capture is < 10-25% the structure does not go invulnerable, allowing the attacker to continue reinforcement. This would prevent race conditions like what we've seen in the past with with SBU destruction but still leave enough time for the sov owners to form up to defend the structure.
Ransu Asanari
Caldari State
#79 - 2015-08-01 03:07:14 UTC
Problem: structure that exits reinforce timer, doesn’t regenerate back, which in the old game mechanics served as a defensive mechanism against sov trolling....

Solution: a new type of status - defended. If the nodes are not being captured by any attackers during contested campaign for a period of time dependent of defence index, then structures change from contested to defended.

I would also agree with this. Sov ownership shouldn't feel like work, and cleaning up uncontested nodes should be able to be done with a minimum amount of effort.

One suggestion I would have is if no parties show up to attempt to capture any of the command nodes, the original owners can run through ONE Entosis Link cycle on the original structure to defend it. If any parties attempt to capture any of the Command Nodes, this progress pauses. Otherwise, once completed the structure goes into a "Defended" state, is invulnerable until the next day's vulnerability window, and all Command Nodes disappear without having to be individually captured.

Problem: notifications about attack contain no useful information except the fact of aggression (and system). Solution to this should be inclusion of information about the system, structures and nicknames of attackers.

No complaints about this. Optimizing the information received through the notification system, or via CREST would both be very helpful. Similar to how Dominion and POS structure attack notifications would show you the corporation or alliance attacking, that is valuable intel which will help determine your response without having to send a scout to confirm for every notification.

Problem: in Dominion sov, alliances had means to transfer sov between them, however long and inconvenient it was. In the new sov, this ability was removed, which is ridiculous for a sci-fi game.

Solution: allow executor corporations to transfer remotely structures via listed sov structures context menu, similar in the way it is now with the customs offices.

I completely agree with this, in fact I posted about this in the "Sov Little Things" thread. I think we need a lot more micromanagement with the sov structures themselves: Being able to drop sov and unanchor to reclaim TCU/IHUB rather than exploding them.

Also we need a way to micromanage IHUB upgrades, as we are only allowed one per system now, and currently you cannot remove or online/offline specific IHUB upgrades.

I would like to see the ability to turn off/on individual IHUB upgrades as long as it is not being reinforced. Having the ability to unplug and move unneeded upgrades would also be helpful - so we can recoup some cost if those upgrades aren't needed, or we want to strategically reposition them.
Emma Kado
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#80 - 2015-08-01 03:14:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Emma Kado
"It Is Not the Strongest of the Species that Survives But the Most Adaptable to change" - Charles Darwin.

Any change to any system within EVE will come with those who win from the changes and those who will lose from the changes. I would like to point out that all the signatories to this post are the powers of old, those who adapted to the dominion sov system and built their empires using the tactics and strategies that worked for that system and those times. They are obviously the ones losing out on the new system, but does that make fozziesov a bad system?

I would ike to offer a counter perspective as a new alliance taking sov in nullsec for the first time.

We (The CORVOS) were determined that we would not become a part of a coalition when we made the move to sov null. Many of our leadership had been involved in sov before but we wanted to own our space in our own right. Ours to hold or lose on our own merits. We made some allies, but no supercoalitions with blues for 30 jumps.
So far we have been able to hold off much larger groups with better ship comps and numerical advantage by adapting to fozziesov. Small teams (2-3 pilots) have been able to effectivley stop the enemy gaining any control whatsoever. sure we havent won every fight but we have been able to maintain our sov without simply being forced to face the enemy head on. We can fight hit and run gurella style, deny the enemy pilots their F1 pressing sessions while giving our own pilots invaluable small gang experince as we destory entosis ships and their escorts.
Fozziesov has allowed us, as well as many other smaller independant groups to compete in the sov game.

Of course it is no wonder the empires of olde are unhappy, they lose out on this. Their weaknesses of old are now gaping holes in their battle plans. Their pilots and FCs will need to change if their alliances are to be able to survive.

No longer are fights decided on one single massive engagement.
Individual pilot skill matters. A small team of commited and experienced pilots can hold off or at least delay a larger force.
Big F1 pressing fests are not what every player wants. I want to be able to, mid fight, take command of a small detachment of a larger fleet and hit enemy positions and eliminate enemy entosis ships and their escorts.

If you cannot adapt to the new system you will die. And those who can adapt and survive will take your place at the top of the food chain. You will not be able to have massive afk empires that noone can ever threaten.

Welcome to fozziesov boys.

This isnt to say its perfect. UAXDeath does make some good points, such as not having to clean up uncontested nodes. But with CCPs new release cycle they will be able to monitor and change the system as it needs. But the system as a whole is great, if the powers of old are complaining its an indication that fozziesov is working.

And to CCP: Keep up the good work.