These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2015-03-09 14:43:16 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:
There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios.

That is exactly what all this is. The fat and lazy coalitions see this as a threat to being able to control their territory so they are screaming at the top of their lungs.

These changes are great and the sooner they get here, the better. Smile
Dave Stark
#142 - 2015-03-09 14:43:31 UTC
davet517 wrote:
The unaligned aren't going to sit still for you to grief them. They're going to hit you from NPC space and laugh until you get tired of being hit.


but when the idea is "being as annoying as ******* possible", the cfc have everyone beat hands down really don't they?
DeadDuck
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#143 - 2015-03-09 14:44:03 UTC
Harkin Issier wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.

They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.


Kiting trollceptors need LOTS of room to burn around in, putting them in the 100+km range. All you need to do to counter them is fit sensor damps. Congrats, your interceptor is now useless. "Step into my fleet's optimal range", said the Lachesis to the Crow.


Hey what about if the troll ceptor comes with 3 or 4 normal ceptors along? What you think will happen to the maulus or whatever ? It's the question of agility also... a ceptor can be in 1 system and 5 minutes after can be at 10 jumps out doing the same thing again... to the same alliance...
Jack Hayson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2015-03-09 14:46:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.

With that in mind I don't really get why the T2 E-link have such an insane range. You only need that range when you don't have control of the grid.

Or maybe increase the fitting cost for the T2 module so that it can only be reasonably used by BS/BC without gimping your fit to discourage fitting them on range kiting ships.
But generally I think it would be better to just reduce the range by a lot.
Admiral Goberius
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#145 - 2015-03-09 14:47:05 UTC
As others suggested, you should have classes of Entmosis like you have classes of rigs:

Frig
Cruiser
BS
Capital


Keep the same range but make it so a higher class link trumps lower class link:

Interceptors/ cov ops / svipuls trolling your space? Chase in stabbers and secure the link

Nano orthrus trolling with 10mn mwd? Ishtars burning at mondorange? Sit BSes on the target and ignore them

>This would also reward committing heavier and less mobile comps to the game of sov<
>Including giving a buff and strategic role to battleship doctrines<


Whether or not capital links trumping all other links is op or not might be debatable, but let's not forget using caps for the constellation wide command points chase makes the moving caps extremely vulnerable including the one that cannot be repped for 10 minutes while running the capital entomosis link.




PS: silly gunas its called a WINDRUNNER not a fozzieclaw you jokers
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2015-03-09 14:47:27 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity?

If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers.

It's like you keep ignoring the fact I can just skip over and stop you with my own Entosis link. Why do you keep doing this??
Elenahina
No.Mercy
Triumvirate.
#147 - 2015-03-09 14:47:38 UTC
John McCreedy wrote:
Doesn't this just lead to escalation which is what the proposed change is meant to remove? That said, is there anything wrong with escalation initially?


There really is nothing wrong with escalation, in and of itself, if the target demands it, The issue we have witht he current meta is that every target demands it, because you have to burn through a gajillion EHP to get anywhere. So the attackers bring their biggest guns in bulk, because they don't want to be there for three days shooting structures.

So now the defender has two choices - respond in kind, or stay home.

I have lived in sov entities that have crunched the numbers, and stood down from a timer fight because there was no way they could win it with the people available. That is what shouldn't be happening.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2015-03-09 14:51:20 UTC
Huffy Dragon[b wrote:
]Make them only fit to command ships and T1 (no faction) battleships.

Time to revive some dead shipclasses.[/b]


I don't fear the entosis-ceptor on grid. I fear the entosis-ceptor crossing an entire region in 10 minutes, escaping gatecamps and ninja-reinforcing everywhere.

He just said this was not an option and gave a very good reason why. Did you even bother reading it?
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#149 - 2015-03-09 14:52:14 UTC
Remember folks, interceptors are unkillable, unstoppable machines of destruction, unlike slowcat and super blobs.

When the enemy drops ceptors on the field, you know the fight is pretty much over.



rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2015-03-09 14:52:30 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
rsantos wrote:

If you can't muster 136 mauluses a night you own to much sov. As if quickly reshiping to a defense fleet would take 4 hours a day!
This beeing said by a 15K man alliance makes me puke! Sry no offense intended.

people who are unable to own sov sure seem to have strong opinions on what other people should have to do to hold sov while demanding the absolute minimum effort on their part



If I wanted to own sov all I had to do was to join CFC or NC. I had plenty of invites!
Don't think your special!
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#151 - 2015-03-09 14:52:39 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them.

Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links .

AttentionNone of these ideas are mineAttention - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.


  • Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
  • Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
  • Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.


I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks.

Cheers!


Here's a thought; the Entosis Link kills your targeting range, -75%, rather than the ridiculous 250km range. You have to be on top of it, rather than kite from 250km.

I still think a triple plated triple repped abaddon would be the way to go with it. but that's just me.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#152 - 2015-03-09 14:52:43 UTC
Querns wrote:

The interceptor disengages, and uses its superior agility and warp speed to move to another capturable object.

The celestis cannot keep up with an interceptor.

The ability for an interceptor to be countered while sitting at one beacon was never in question. The interceptor's ability to disengage and travel with impunity is the issue.


Then... think of Ghost Sites.

Make it so that breaking the Entosis link does like 25k EXP damage (I am sure CCP Falcon will find a reason why that happens).
Interceptor disengages -> Poof.
Gets jammed or RSDed -> Poof.
(ok, please do not discuss whether a Svipul could possibly tank that - you get the idea)
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#153 - 2015-03-09 14:52:51 UTC
Quote: "All in all, I want to make it very clear that we are going to make adjustments to the Entosis Link in order to get the best possible gameplay and to match these goals as well as possible. If we clearly see a situation emerging where any pure evasion tactics are going to become dominant, we will make changes to the Entosis Link to bring the gameplay back into balance."


Translation: We are going to give you a broken mechanic that 'can' be exploited from day one -- and will iterate on it at some later date after enough pain has been applied to the large empire blocs of Null (CFC specifically), and then months and months later we'll patch it


CCP's 'bar' for deeming something broken is very low when the Null blocs use it, and very high for when the rabble use it.... just bear that in mind everyone.

Some will say 'that's okay!' -- but shouldn't our sub fees go towards producing things that aren't released broken?

Entosis Links should not be able to be fit on Interceptors - period

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
davet517
Raata Invicti
#154 - 2015-03-09 14:54:23 UTC
Alexander McKeon wrote:

This guy gets it. What the entosis link module as currently envisaged does is create a massive asymmetry in effort and expense betwixt the aggressor and defender; creating a dozen combat timers is far easier than defending the sixty systems which those timers could represent. There is also greatly differentiated risk in terms of assets required to defend versus to force a defense. If Brave can't muster the warm bodies, who in Eve could?


Yes. It is exactly asymmetric warfare. It does create a massive asymmetry, but, it counters the massive asymmetry in resources that exists in the game at present. An asymmetry that, if left unchecked, grows trillion after trillion. How many months of trillion isk income do you need before you are, for all intents, untouchable by anyone other than someone else who has trillion isk income?

I get that you'd like attackers to have to commit super-caps so that you can 3rd party in and kill them. I do. I've played that game. It's fun, but it's not good for the future prospects of the game. Between moons and renter income the asymmetry in resources has gotten way out of hand. A mechanic that makes wealth matter a lot less is probably exactly what's needed. I say that while sitting in a pimped Titan that I probably will have trouble giving away if this goes through.
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
#155 - 2015-03-09 14:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: John McCreedy
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
John McCreedy wrote:

It would require a small fleet to disrupt sov which in itself would be seen as a threat and therefore require a response which would lead to more content. But what's to stop the defender from undocking 150 angry dudes? Doesn't this just lead to escalation which is what the proposed change is meant to remove?

escalation is good because it means fights: a small fleet getting a response from the defender and fighting is great

if you attack someone and get immediately outnumbered by a local defense fleet, you picked a fight above your weight class and should work on some less densely populated space


You caught the thread before I edited it. Basically it provides a multi-layered approach to sov disruption. Brute force attack for putting stuff in to reinforce mode, mobility for the actual capture. But you would need a longer timer than two minutes. There's no way an average alliance is going to be able to throw max dudes in to a properly organised fleet inside two minutes.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#156 - 2015-03-09 14:56:44 UTC
davet517 wrote:

Yes. It is exactly asymmetric warfare. It does create a massive asymmetry, but, it counters the massive asymmetry in resources that exists in the game at present. An asymmetry that, if left unchecked, grows trillion after trillion. How many months of trillion isk income do you need before you are, for all intents, untouchable by anyone other than someone else who has trillion isk income?

infinity months, once supercaps are no longer the end-all of nullsec fights. isk isn't power.
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2015-03-09 14:56:47 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity?

If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers.

It's like you keep ignoring the fact I can just skip over and stop you with my own Entosis link. Why do you keep doing this??


Hah. Made you babysit the structure by putting your own ship in the open. Objective complete.

Rinse and repeat until you run out of people willing to do that for 4 hours a day.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#158 - 2015-03-09 14:56:52 UTC
Jack Hayson wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.

With that in mind I don't really get why the T2 E-link have such an insane range. You only need that range when you don't have control of the grid.

Or maybe increase the fitting cost for the T2 module so that it can only be reasonably used by BS/BC without gimping your fit to discourage fitting them on range kiting ships.
But generally I think it would be better to just reduce the range by a lot.


The fact that there's two different type of sov beams ensures that no single tactic can dominate in every situation. If your attacker brings kite beam, you can just go at 0 on the structure with armor comp and laugh at them. If the defenders bring a 500-man triage Domi ball at 0, you kite them with your 100 Ishtars.

If there's would be only the short range Entoffee Link, the side with bigger armor T3 gang would automatically win.

Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#159 - 2015-03-09 14:57:20 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Hero owns 98 systems in Catch, and 38 stations. We now need 136 mauluses to spend 4 hours a night sitting on an ihub/station. Except of course if these trollceptors have any kind of weapons, it can kill the maulus, so we partner them with a RLML caracal to prevent that from happening. There, we've kept one of the most densely populated regions in the game save from trollceptors, and it only costs us 1088 man hours per night!

I think you're missing the point. (Not just you, but you stated your (major Sov holder's) point eloquently enough.) If it's a bother to defend your sovereignty, then 1) maybe you should question the amount you possess and 2) if you're not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, then perhaps it should be lost. I'm not speaking specifically to the trollceptor "ruckus" per se; it's more addressing the complaints that defending sovereignty will be too difficult. Sovereignty shouldn't so easy to defend that you can do it with a corp full of dis-interested recruits. If you want to keep sov, then it should be something that you and your corp want to defend. As it is, CCP is giving Sov holders the ability to lock out people from reinforcing their structures until a time set by the owner. If the owner can't find it in them to defend their home in a nice four hour block of their choosing, then it sounds more like the sov holder should reassess their priorities.


Bolded the important part.

You've hit the nail on the head here. These mechanics cause too much grief for the defender to be worth the benefits of holding sov. The end result will be people moving out of sov null, with sov holders largely staging and living out of nearby NPC nullsec or lowsec, holding regions as a form of content generation rather than actually living there.

These mechanics as currently proposed would kill off nullsec, not revitalise it.
MonkeyBusiness Thiesant
Pandemic Unicorns
#160 - 2015-03-09 15:00:31 UTC
If "controlling the grid" is roughly the guiding ideal, having any significant range on the entosi-links would seem to be counterproductive.