These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenshae Chiroptera
#81 - 2015-08-01 03:16:24 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
.... 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. ....
There is a huge gap between High Sec and Null Sec, while Low Sec is not bridging that.

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
Doomheim
#82 - 2015-08-01 03:17:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Slutty McCarrierPilot
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
[quote=Slutty McCarrierPilot]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.

Alliances signed petition



  • Alexander Leros, leader Hard Alliance - who the **** are these guys
    Fafer, leader Tr0pa de elite., curator Brothers of Tangra - Renting Empire Malpais and region
    Frosch Koenig, leader Synergy of Steel - Irrelevant
    Garst Tyrell, leader Triumvirate. - Renting Empire Eth-Reach and Spire
    I Sam, leader Solar Fleet - Renting Empire Outer Passage
    Lorianna Lee, leader Dream Fleet - No idea who the **** these guys are
    NullParseException, leader Soviet-Union - Renting Empire Eso/Feyth/Impass
    titanokiller, leader Infinity Space. - Irrelevant
    tru drksniper, leader Advent of Fate - Do these guys even have space?
    UAxDEATH, leader Legion of xXDEATHXx - Pretty sure he bought a couple of bugattis with the sweet renter isk RMT
    Unionn, leader The Afterlife. - lol pseudo russians
    Redwyne Vyruk, manager of BOT and manager of XWX Shadow_of_xXDEATHXx - Do I really need to spell this out?
    meandeane651, head diplomat and alliance command for Gentlemen'sClub Gentlemen's.Club - Renting Empire Immensea
    Rots Mijnwerker, leader The Blood Covenant - irrelevant


#dunkedm8
Jenshae Chiroptera
#83 - 2015-08-01 03:26:30 UTC
Slutty McCarrierPilot wrote:
... #dunkedm8
Roll
One social circle.

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.

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#84 - 2015-08-01 03:38:18 UTC
UAxDEATH wrote:
Introduction


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. Vulnerable structure can be noticed after a close inspection. This aspect of game mechanics negates vulnerability period.
Solution: remove vulnerability from such structures at the the end of the vulnerability period, but allow owners to entosis structure back up. If structure was partially attacked, it should be clearly visible.



This was a touted feature and is EASILY seen by any alliance member in the alliance sov tab as indicated by the phrase "Overtime" which means a structure has been partially entosis'd and the vulnerability is in "Overtime"


UAxDEATH wrote:
Introduction



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.

Conclusion


Fozziesov is currently a long, exhausting and inconvenient sovereignty warfare model. Sovereignty is absolutely unprotected against sov trolling. This game mechanics stimulates unintended usage. This situation can no longer exist in its current state. We are highly determined and if all our demands and solutions are not addressed in a week's time, we reserve the right to fight back for our game time and fun, which we were stripped off by the new game mechanics.


This was also acknowledged by Fozzie on the 5th reply on the original Sov thread and he said they are working on a method to elegantly transfer sov, there is no need to keep pinging on a core feature, that IMO, they know they left out and know is needed
Xavier Azabu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#85 - 2015-08-01 05:06:04 UTC
Quality OP.
Nice to get Eastern European voices in on this.
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#86 - 2015-08-01 05:19:27 UTC
Sorry I'm late, there was a huge line at the the popcorn stand.

http://i0.wp.com/www.brobible.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/XO685d2.gif?resize=350%2C191

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2015-08-01 05:36:13 UTC
Emma Kado wrote:
"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.


That's doing it right.
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#88 - 2015-08-01 05:39:17 UTC
Tappits wrote:
UAxDEATH wrote:
Alliances signed petition




What wars have any of these people done with the new sov system that lets them make informed ideas on how to fix a sov system that’s just over two weeks old that will affect every single person in null sec?
What has any one done in the new sov system other than get some unused systems attacked?
None of these people speak for me.


None whatsoever. Furthermore, Garst Tyrell has signed this RMT rental whine without any kind of mandate from the alliance, and he is acting here as a single player, and as such his personal opinions in no way represent the official stance of Triumvirate alliance.
Shonion
FREE GATES
FREE GATES COALITION
#89 - 2015-08-01 06:30:10 UTC
It is working as intend.

There are no sov wars ongoing in EVE or just some small scale local fights for not much important systems or taking space undefended. Almost 3 weeks spent in the new system, and its visilbe, that if you not live in your space, your defense multiplier will be close to 1 and you can easily lost the system. You shouldn't own regions without manpower and ppl living out there. Thats the point.

As someone already mentioned earlier, the new system prefer the preventing defense, so if you live there, your defens multiplier is high then troll ceptors will need 60 mins for reinforce anything in a 3 hour window and your primary interest to defend yous space preventively, so kill that damn ceptor.

Well if you not live there, you deserve to lose that space... the old style renter empires are over. Goons already adapting instead of typing wall of text on forum.
Shonion
FREE GATES
FREE GATES COALITION
#90 - 2015-08-01 06:33:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Shonion
Nituspar wrote:
As an FC that's currently abusing all of these mechanics to our advantage, I fully agree with the need for all these changes and points that Uaxdeath brings up.

Being able to set entire regions on fire and making defenders have to deal with thousands of nodes due to 20-50 trollceptors sent from several regions away, without any intention or commitment to taking the sov we're attacking, is horrible gameplay for everyone involved. It just happens to be 5-10 times more horrible for the defender than it is for the attacker.

The system is currently extremely broken, and the current consensus between a lot of groups seems to be that the best way to deal with Fozziesov in its current state is to not care about it at all.


You wouldn't be able to do that if they live there. Its works as intend. You can say its not sweet, but still work as planned from my view. Just try to entosis some CFC systems where ppl live around, you will see the difference comparing with the south rus empty space.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#91 - 2015-08-01 06:35:18 UTC

UAxDEATH wrote:

Solution: reduction of beacons (nodes) , to about 1-3 per system, which are located next to a contested structure.
...
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.

Yes to reducing the number of nodes if they are left uncontested.
No to regroup them next to a contested structure.
...
Yes, even have them automatically revert to the defender if left untouched for a while.

UAxDEATH wrote:

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.

Yes, speed reduction is a must for entosis ships, and make sure entosis forces a value commitment to the action, and not be done with worthless hulls (like the ridiculousness of rookie cyno ships).

UAxDEATH wrote:

Solution: introduction of a new sov window, similar to watchlist, that displays information about structures/nodes that are being defended or attacked using entosis module, with pilot's nickname, solar system, structure id and progress.

Absolutely not. Local intel/activity and scouting must be a thing and not being spoon-fed information.

UAxDEATH wrote:

Solution: remove vulnerability from such structures at the the end of the vulnerability period, but allow owners to entosis structure back up. If structure was partially attacked, it should be clearly visible.

Makes sense.

UAxDEATH wrote:

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.

+1

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Felicia D'Arch
Star Freaks
#92 - 2015-08-01 06:41:18 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Tappits wrote:
UAxDEATH wrote:
Alliances signed petition




What wars have any of these people done with the new sov system that lets them make informed ideas on how to fix a sov system that’s just over two weeks old that will affect every single person in null sec?
What has any one done in the new sov system other than get some unused systems attacked?
None of these people speak for me.


None whatsoever. Furthermore, Garst Tyrell has signed this RMT rental whine without any kind of mandate from the alliance, and he is acting here as a single player, and as such his personal opinions in no way represent the official stance of Triumvirate alliance.


...Didn't you guys have like 350 nodes to contest just the other day?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#93 - 2015-08-01 06:51:16 UTC
Emma Kado wrote:
"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.


Well said and bravo to your alliance, good sir

Keep on Doing It Right.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#94 - 2015-08-01 07:01:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Felicia D'Arch wrote:
...Didn't you guys have like 350 nodes to contest just the other day?

... or they could have just prevented the reinforcement in the first place and have 0 nodes to deal with. Roll

And if they couldn't be bothered to do that, then why would they bother to deal with the nodes!

/facepalm
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
WE FORM BL0B
#95 - 2015-08-01 08:38:47 UTC
Literally a rogues gallery of RMT.
Virus ll
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2015-08-01 09:00:02 UTC
+1 thoughtful and true post!!!
Nituspar
Shiva
Northern Coalition.
#97 - 2015-08-01 09:15:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nituspar
Shonion wrote:
Nituspar wrote:
As an FC that's currently abusing all of these mechanics to our advantage, I fully agree with the need for all these changes and points that Uaxdeath brings up.

Being able to set entire regions on fire and making defenders have to deal with thousands of nodes due to 20-50 trollceptors sent from several regions away, without any intention or commitment to taking the sov we're attacking, is horrible gameplay for everyone involved. It just happens to be 5-10 times more horrible for the defender than it is for the attacker.

The system is currently extremely broken, and the current consensus between a lot of groups seems to be that the best way to deal with Fozziesov in its current state is to not care about it at all.


You wouldn't be able to do that if they live there. Its works as intend. You can say its not sweet, but still work as planned from my view. Just try to entosis some CFC systems where ppl live around, you will see the difference comparing with the south rus empty space.


Occupancy bonuses are something I've always been advocating for, just beacuse that's a facet of the current system doesn't mean the system as a whole isn't utterly flawed and designed for one side of any sov conflict to bore the other one to tears without any kind of meaningful fleet engagements ever happening, which is honestly the biggest problem with Fozziesov's design.

There's also quite a difference between having decent defensive bonuses tied to occupancy and using your space, and any systems you don't mine or rat in for a few weeks to be able to be burned down by a handful of people in trollceptors at almost any given time.
Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#98 - 2015-08-01 09:31:52 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
I'd suggest that GD is possibly not the best place to post this. (the churn tends to be high)

We have asked for feedback here?

And possibly into the assembly hall, or Jita park.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f60qd/csm_share_your_experiences_with_fozziesov/


Can you please rationalise why proper discussion of EVE is done better on a 3rd party site rather than the official General Discussion forum?

You can't.
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works
#99 - 2015-08-01 09:41:22 UTC
Oh look, another nullsec group who enjoys telling everyone to HTFU when change happens to highsec and lowsec.

And now a balanced -BALANCED- nullsec change occurs and?

Out come the giant alligator tears and cries of 'this sucks'. This is AIDS. This is ruining game play.

No, it's made it so groups like yours can't own HUNDREDS of nullsec systems that sit empty and unused. CCP wants you to defend your land. Can't? Figure out how. Still can't? Your problem.

HTFU. Only keep what you can defend.

Adapt or leave null. Simple as that.
Konrad Kane
#100 - 2015-08-01 09:49:55 UTC
I love the fact rental alliances have signed this.