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.

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

[forced

It seems to be promoting skirmishes but not battles. I would be concerned about the missing half of the equation if I was CCP.

tl;dr - Owners of the largest renter empires in EVE are in a tizzy because ...

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 ...

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

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.

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: 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.

Problem: structure that exits reinforce timer, doesnGÇÖt 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.

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.

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.

.... 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. ....

[quote=Slutty McCarrierPilot]tl;dr - Owners of the largest renter empires in EVE are in a tizzy because ...

... #dunkedm8

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: 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.



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.

"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.

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.

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.