There has certainly been a lot of furor over the changes to null-sec mechanics. The recent round-table on jump range changes turned into an ugly exchange of insults that achieved nothing good for anyone. FozzieSov remains a hot topic of debate that, it seems, no-one except the denizens of low-sec are happy with.
Perhaps a lot of the problems lie not with the systems themselves, but with what the players expect of them. The fundamental misconception is on the part of the players, who have misinterpreted what CCP intended with these changes from the outset.
As I have iterated upon many times before, Eve Online is not the dedicated PVP game that the minority of players who play it that way think it is. These people cling stubbornly to a mindset that is at polar opposites with reality. Many of these people both wanted, and expected, FozzieSov to be the end of The Imperium, the end of ratting and mining in null-sec, and open season on PVE, with endless amounts of trolling anyone foolish enough to hold sovereignty.
Please, someone, anyone, show me where CCP stated this was to be the case. Because I remember no such information coming from CCP at all. My understanding was that FozzieSov was to allow organized groups of players the freedom to hold sovereignty over an area of space that was reasonably sized according to their capacity to both use and defend such space. I also seem to remember them saying it was designed in such a way as to put an end to alliances holding large swathes of empty space with little to no effort.
On both of those counts, FozzieSov seems to be working as intended. A recent petition highlights this point nicely. You’ll notice that the alliances who are putting this petition forward have stated separate arguments for different aspects of the mechanics that they argue will kill null-sec. Let’s just examine some of these.
“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.”
Okay, let’s analyze the problem. Can you see the huge misconception? They are pointing out how hard it is to defend a system that has been Entosised into reinforce. Correct! Yes, it is hard to defend such a system. However, if such a system has its indices up, putting such a system into reinforce in the first place is doubly so. The idea of FozzieSov is that any system that is being used by its owners is easy to defend. And who is at the forefront of this petition? Legion of xXDeathXx, the alliance who has clung on to renting out systems the hardest.
Yes, if your alliance does not have PVP players on hand when your system is vulnerable, and for the entire period of vulnerability, it will end up doing things it doesn’t want to do. The message from CCP? Don’t rent out systems.
“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. 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.”
Umm, just no. True, a low skilled player can harass a sovereignty holder with an interceptor and an Entosis module, but he has a couple of problems. First of all, if the owning alliance has feet on the ground during their vulnerability window (see above), then, generally speaking, flying around in an expensive interceptor with a mass penalty is a bad idea. Second, a single ship forcing an entire alliance to take part in tiresome and hollow defense? Again, no. Because a single pilot trolling with an Entosis link, (if that alliance doesn’t have a pilot that can catch him and blow him up on his own) just needs one pilot with an e-war ship to reverse troll him out of his tiny little mind. And who is another signatory to this petition? Razor alliance, who hold vast swathes of space that have what can only be described as piss-poor NPC kills
in the majority of their space (seriously guys, take a pry bar and get all the ratters out of 30-D5G and you wouldn’t have this problem) which means their space is weakly defended.
Yes, if your alliance is full of chest beating die-hard PVP’ers, you can only expect to hold a few systems. The message from CCP? Don’t hold space you don’t use.
I could go on, but there’s little point. Some of their arguments hold water, some are bugs that I have no doubt will be fixed, and most are balance issues which CCP has already said, many times, that they are open to discussion on. Showing hostility to those we need to work with is both immature and foolish.
I know this for a fact, when either of my kids throws a tantrum and demands something, they don’t get it. If these alliances want changes from CCP, they ought to learn how to approach CCP in a mature and calm fashion and ask what can be done.
For the most part, though, the people upset over these changes may need to apply the same counsel they’ve given to the hordes of players they’ve driven out of the game for years;
go back to WoW.