Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
UAxDEATH
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
714
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:15:03 -
[1] - Quote
Introduction We are the people of nullsec! Living for years in this epic and massively rich in conflict environment, we set aside our differences to join forces against destructive actions from CCP against sovereignty mechanics.
The new game mechanics, called by many fozziesov, turned out to be the greatest discrimination against nullsec dwellers in all of EVE Online history. This untested release shouldnGÇÖt build the platform for life in 0.0 for the most organized, united and active part of New Eden. Alliance leaders, who signed this statement, have collected enormous amount of proof that confirms this statement. We, like no one else, can see that this release leads to stagnation in 0.0 and death to nullsec. Only in a short while since the release, we have collected a record amount of negative opinions about the new sov. We combined our strengths and analyzed, what does it mean to live in fozziesov for the nullsec people.
Our opinion is - this game mechanics needs to be tweaked and the shortest time possible.
Problems and suggestions
Problem: fozziesov in its current state critically reduces chances for large scale fights, fights that significantly separate EVE Online from its competitors. Large amount of spawned beacons, motivates sides to not engage, but to hunt down ships fitted with entosis link. In one of those cases, to defend off 2 structures players spent 6 hours of game time, most of which was spent jumping through gates and warping around in systems. Pilots who took part in all of this were rewarded with exhaustion and emptiness, instead of glory from being victorious and enjoyment from the overall process. Besides that, fleet commanding and fleet bonus structure took a hit as well. We want massive fights, not cockroach races. Solution: reduction of beacons (nodes) , to about 1-3 per system, which are located next to a contested structure.
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 shouldnGÇÖt be able to affect sovereignty. The game mechanics shouldn't be a tool to force exhausting actions upon players - a single ship can force entire alliance of players to take part in tiresome and hollow defence. Currently the entosis link module is a tool for trolls, not a key to sovereignty contest. Solution: reduce the amount of tactics that create invulnerable situations, which are currently based on shipGÇÖs speed. Entosis module should reduce speed dramatically, up to 0 m/s.
Problem: CCP didnGÇÖt give the right interface tools for players to engage in sov-wars, every aspect of ever changing situation has to be memorized, written down somewhere and kept up to date. This results in quick exhaustion and aggravation towards the game instead of enjoyment. 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.
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.
Problem: structure that exits reinforce timer, doesnGÇÖt regenerate back, which in the old game mechanics served as a defensive mechanism against sov trolling. Attacked systems spam node beacons, which can last forever, which is discrimination against sovereignty owners - they must defend their space despite the fact that no one will show up to contest it. 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.
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. Command node names are too long, which obstructs quick overview of the system nodes and forces to expand overview window to 1/4 of the screen, just to see the full list of nodes. Solution: to use abbreviations TCU, iHUB, Station and remove "command" from the name.
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. |
UAxDEATH
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
714
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:15:17 -
[2] - Quote
Alliances signed petition
- Alexander Leros, leader Hard Alliance
- Fafer, leader Tr0pa de elite., curator Brothers of Tangra
- Frosch Koenig, leader Synergy of Steel
- Garst Tyrell, leader Triumvirate.
- I Sam, leader Solar Fleet
- Lorianna Lee, leader Dream Fleet
- NullParseException, leader Soviet-Union
- titanokiller, leader Infinity Space.
- tru drksniper, leader Advent of Fate
- UAxDEATH, leader Legion of xXDEATHXx
- Unionn, leader The Afterlife.
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
18
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:20:26 -
[3] - Quote
UAxDEATH wrote: Problem: low skill requirement practically affirms harassment towards any sov owner. While new player harassment is subject to a support ticket.
I'm not in null, so I don't care, but to clarify, new player harassment in rookie/SOE arc systems is subject to a support ticket.
If a newly created account is trolling you in null, harass away. |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
176
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:20:47 -
[4] - Quote
"This game mechanics stimulates unintended usage."
Is this not the definition of emergent game play? Adapt.
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Youtube Channel and be sure to subscribe!
|
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
48
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:27:11 -
[5] - Quote
I 100% support all the solutions brought up in this post.
CCP, please listen to your players, or at least the CSM. That would be a start. |
Julia Hillan
Sanctuary of Shadows Triumvirate.
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:28:34 -
[6] - Quote
+1 |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
976
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:38:26 -
[7] - Quote
I wonder why speed penalty is the to-go request to nerf trollceptor-like ships. If you aim at trollceptors, hitting other ships with nerfhammer seems like unfortunate consequence. Wouldn't it be better to, say, do something like this:
- Increase PWG usage of T2 entosis to BS levels; - Add role bonus to CBC and command ships that reduces fitting requirements of entosis link.
Optional: - make T1 entosis link into cruiser module; - fitting role bonus for AF (add "assault" into AFs at last).
It's not fun to pilot what's basically gimped brick. Let people use their ships at their fullest, but make sure they aren't denying any content.
UAxDEATH wrote:Problem: structure that exits reinforce timer, doesnGÇÖt regenerate back, which in the old game mechanics served as a defensive mechanism against sov trolling. Attacked systems spam node beacons, which can last forever, which is discrimination against sovereignty owners - they must defend their space despite the fact that no one will show up to contest it. 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. If that is what I'm thinking it is, I'm afraid it's abusable.
Also, this probably belongs to F&I.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Swind
FREE GATES Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:38:37 -
[8] - Quote
+1 for original post |
Redwyne Vyruk
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:40:53 -
[9] - Quote
I, as BOT manager and XWX manager, completely agree on this thread and i hope CCP will hear our voice. |
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
1242
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:41:25 -
[10] - Quote
Like i mentioned in other places i agree that fozzie sov lacks the deeper motivation and drivers behind them, why own and hold sov, why defend it ratehr then evade the fight. Thr meaningless of activity makes it turn into fw, or arranged fights, which isnt why we play eve. Feels like a test server battle.
Purpose too null, unique opertunities and perks for holding sov, buidable sov over time with niche oppertunities, make those first, combine that with fozzie, fix bugs, and then u revive null and the game we love |
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3883
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:45:24 -
[11] - Quote
Highsec carebear posting in page 1 of a potential threadnaught.
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
103
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:47:47 -
[12] - Quote
... And Lowbear following, ready for the summer tears |
Deborah Aumer
The Flying Dead. The Afterlife.
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:51:30 -
[13] - Quote
totally agree with this post |
Archie Wah Wah
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:52:57 -
[14] - Quote
UAxDEATH wrote:muh rentals(((
)))
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5469
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:53:57 -
[15] - Quote
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/
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Kasarch
Surreal corp The Afterlife.
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:54:27 -
[16] - Quote
Agree with all, except first point. I not like too much lagging "epics" where f1 monkeys shooting to broadcasts and no brain orbiting anchors. But current mechanics forces troll-ceptors instead fights of mobile fleets. |
Sapporo Jones
Upvote Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:13:39 -
[17] - Quote
In it's current incarnation, my fellow TEST pilots would rather be playing the dominion sov game rather than this. We tried to hold our breath and see what CCP would deliver, and while the system shows there was clearly a ton of thought and effort put in to it, it is still not ready for primetime.
While this system does promote fights, it doesn't promote battles.
We tend to see one or two people in interceptors or frigs/dessies who run the second you form to defend. There are times when you see 4 person omen navy fleets and you fight them, there are no real skirmishes anymore over sov as far as I can tell. Gone are the large fleet battles that we came to nullsec for in the first place.
It was explained that this would be a system more akin to the faction war style of gameplay, I was not fully aware of how deep that meaning would go.
I strongly agree with the OP and feel that CCP needs to pay a bit more attention to this sooner rather than later. |
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
46
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:17:24 -
[18] - Quote
Hello Steve,
I googled for your platform with great interest http://indecisivenoob.blogspot.com/2015/02/csm-x-candidate-analysis-steve-ronuken.html
According to this, its seems you are representing the hard-working industrialists. I would like to invite you to a place where top level, end-game industrialists make heroic efforts and take great risks to produce end-game products, to a place where you can experience first hand and better understand what kind of involvement is now actually needed to survive in Nullsec. You can also participate in defence. Then I think you would understand the problems involved behind this initiative, and why the place is GD.
If you are interested, poke me. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16771
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:19:12 -
[19] - Quote
"A BLOO BLOO MY RENTAL INCOME!"
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
5144
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:46:27 -
[20] - Quote
Some alliances are recruiting mining corps, can you believe it!?! MINING CORPS!
Next thing you know we'll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! |
|
Shonion
FREE GATES Nulli Secunda
61
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:48:48 -
[21] - Quote
I need a bigger dish to collect all of this... |
The Slayer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
266
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:50:08 -
[22] - Quote
Suck it nerds. |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
119
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:54:56 -
[23] - Quote
UAxDEATH wrote:Alliances signed petition
- Alexander Leros, leader Hard Alliance
- Fafer, leader Tr0pa de elite., curator Brothers of Tangra
- Frosch Koenig, leader Synergy of Steel
- Garst Tyrell, leader Triumvirate.
- I Sam, leader Solar Fleet
- Lorianna Lee, leader Dream Fleet
- NullParseException, leader Soviet-Union
- titanokiller, leader Infinity Space.
- tru drksniper, leader Advent of Fate
- UAxDEATH, leader Legion of xXDEATHXx
- Unionn, leader The Afterlife.
- Redwyne Vyruk, manager of BOT and manager of XWX Shadow_of_xXDEATHXx
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 thatGÇÖs 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.
|
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
58802
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:55:53 -
[24] - Quote
this is gonna be good
I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it.
Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2658
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:56:14 -
[25] - Quote
UAxDEATH wrote:We the renter coalitions of nullsec! FTFY |
Jabbrail
Red Scorpion Corp
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:56:32 -
[26] - Quote
I d like to support the petition. The situation where whole system can be influenced or better say harassed by 1 small interceptor is not going to bring additional people to claim sectors, but in opposite will be drawing them away from claims and from the game as well.
Another suggestion is to make the size of Entosis Links available to use them on Battlecruisers and Battleships only. Another thing which can be added is to have a cycle for Entosis Link similas as a cycle for Cyno Unit - 10 min per cycle and ship can not be controlled and it will become very vulnerable to defenders.
The idea of it is to force the attackers to bring some additional vessels in order to protect a ship carrying the Entosis Link.
Right now there is no fun at all to have a multiple "catch my interceptor" atta |
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
58803
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 22:01:41 -
[27] - Quote
Jabbrail wrote: Another suggestion is to make the size of Entosis Links available to use them on Battlecruisers and Battleships only.
Sounds like an easy enough fix for me. Or, Entosis links remove the "Interduction Nullified"- ability from any ship they are fitted on, no matter what.
I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it.
Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
davet517
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
120
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 22:05:17 -
[28] - Quote
Problem: You're trying to hold more space than you can defend, and in some cases, rent it out, when the mechanics don't allow that anymore.
Solution: Stop that. |
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
46
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 22:08:40 -
[29] - Quote
Tappits wrote:UAxDEATH wrote:Alliances signed petition
- Alexander Leros, leader Hard Alliance
- Fafer, leader Tr0pa de elite., curator Brothers of Tangra
- Frosch Koenig, leader Synergy of Steel
- Garst Tyrell, leader Triumvirate.
- I Sam, leader Solar Fleet
- Lorianna Lee, leader Dream Fleet
- NullParseException, leader Soviet-Union
- titanokiller, leader Infinity Space.
- tru drksniper, leader Advent of Fate
- UAxDEATH, leader Legion of xXDEATHXx
- Unionn, leader The Afterlife.
- Redwyne Vyruk, manager of BOT and manager of XWX Shadow_of_xXDEATHXx
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 thatGÇÖs 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.
Its old more than two weeks, its been explained and analysed before, and its been on Duality, where some of the people mentioned won the sov competition, and also all of them have hands on experience at this moment, which gives them base to be informed. None of this people ever claimed to speak for you, but for sure they don't need your informed approval to voice their opinion about the tweaks.
|
Paranoid Loyd
6463
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 22:11:09 -
[30] - Quote
Is "collective petition" high or lower on the tears scale than "open letter"?
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |