These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#901 - 2015-03-10 00:26:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Veskrashen wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable.

Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space. While a Trollceptor could conceivably only carry a few, a cloaky T3 could carry far more - and a Blockade Runner could carry dozens and dozens. This would allow a single pilot to carpet bomb the hell out of a constellation or region, while not putting himself at any risk at all - there would be no requirement for him to even be uncloaked for his multitude of sov deployables to do their dastardly work. In addition, it would take an appreciable amount of time for a defender to kill them all.

The disparity in effort would be even more Trolltastic than the fabled unkillable uncounterable Trollceptors.

If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill.

Tsk... I have to take back what I said before then.

I forgot groups with some logistics capability and tons of isk might do that. Perhaps there might be a way to limit the number you can keep in your hold... or hhmm

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
SootThis
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#902 - 2015-03-10 00:26:56 UTC
Kale Freeman wrote:
What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective.





Now this makes the most sense of all.....+1
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#903 - 2015-03-10 00:28:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This goal is why we intend to use the lightest touch possible when working towards the first two goals. It would be easy to overreact to potentially unwanted uses of the Entosis Link by placing extremely harsh restrictions on the module, but we believe that by looking at the situation in a calm and measured manner we can find a good balance.


Fair enough, overall this is the best approach. I retract any earlier statements asking for class and movement restrictions.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#904 - 2015-03-10 00:28:34 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:

An interesting idea...

Defenders must shoot the structure deployable. This is of course different from the SBU, as it has to be dealt with immediately (it will reinforce the thing, unlike SBU where the attackers must come back and still structure grind).

Too bad it will probably be buried, but a nice suggestion

If defenders are plinking away at unmanned structures, they're not shooting at other players. The idea is to shoot other players and have "active military control of the grid". If it doesn't require you to be on grid with it to work, it doesn't fit that design goal. If you have to be on grid for it to work, it's far better off to be a module than a deployable. If it's a module rather than a deployable it's your butt at risk, not a cheap deployable you can bugger off from at any point in time.

Besides, that'd make your fearsome Trollceptors even more Trolltastic - they're not even stuck on grid for the 2 minutes Entosis Link cycle time, after all. They'd be able to cause infinitely more damage with a deployable sov item. That'd be a horrific idea, wouldn't it?

I mean, unless you like being able to screw with someone's sov while not even being around. Like, I dunno, AFK Sov Landlords and the like.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#905 - 2015-03-10 00:31:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Veskrashen wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable.

Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space.
M
If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill.


The fix to that is alluded in my op; only allow pilots to have one of these deployed at a time. Sure, this is still a slight change (you can travel to your next target while it cycles, if willing to leave 100m deployable behind and undefended), but would cap the troll rate. Increase cycle times slightly to compensate for this travel edge and you are no worse off than now.

EDIT: Even better, since you add risk for the troll. If someone is trolling space, instead of popping their deployable, I can choose to just drop a defensive one and leave it deadlocked. Now the troll has to waste MORE time travelling back and popping mine, waiting on theirs, and rescooping, OR popping their own, before they can deploy a new one.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#906 - 2015-03-10 00:33:22 UTC
SootThis wrote:
Kale Freeman wrote:
What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective.





Now this makes the most sense of all.....+1


Except you will then have people placing 10-100 of their own entosis deployables around structures much like they do now with SBUs in systems they control. Unless the deployable can be easily popped, AFK defenses/delays will be the norm.

So... no.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#907 - 2015-03-10 00:34:31 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable.

Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space.
M
If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill.


The fix to that is alluded in my op; only allow pilots to have one of these deployed at a time. Sure, this is still gives a slight change (you can travel to your next target while it cycles, if willing to leave 100m deployable behind and undefended), but would cap the troll rate. Increase cycle times slightly to compensate for this travel edge and you are no worse off than now.

But again - it's not *YOUR* butt at risk. It's a deployable, which can easily be sacrificed if you're isk-immune enough. And even if you can only deploy one at a time, YOU are still not at risk - you can sit around cloaked waiting for a defender to come by, or scoop it right back up if they don't.

It's not keeping you on grid and vulnerable. That's a bad idea if one of the design goals is to force you to control the grid to make progress.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#908 - 2015-03-10 00:39:48 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:

But again - it's not *YOUR* butt at risk. It's a deployable, which can easily be sacrificed if you're isk-immune enough. And even if you can only deploy one at a time, YOU are still not at risk - you can sit around cloaked waiting for a defender to come by, or scoop it right back up if they don't.

It's not keeping you on grid and vulnerable. That's a bad idea if one of the design goals is to force you to control the grid to make progress.


That's splitting hairs and arguing semantics. My ship isn't ME either. MY butt is never on the line. If the deployable generates a KM and the isk counted for my KB and against yours, there is literally no difference.

Putting ships on-grid and vulnerable will still be required for actual sov contests anyway; none of this negates the need to control the grid to win so it only matters for the troll-y edge cases anyway.
Groperson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#909 - 2015-03-10 00:40:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Groperson
Grath Telkin wrote:
its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates.


it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics.



Please explain the very simple layout of these sov mechanics then. I am truly interested in seeing your interpretation.

I made some fairly concise and relevant posts in this thread explaining exactly what mechanics I found troubling, and I think my logic is very sound. I'd like you to critique the my logic in the posts I've made because I cannot see what part is flawed.

Honestly, I want to see how I've misunderstood the layout of these sov mechanics.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5565509#post5565509
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&postedby=Groperson&topic=Entosis+Link+

Quote:
[if you allow interceptors to fit entosis links] You are allowing the attacker to risk nothing, a completely disposable interceptor that will very likely never be caught. Whilst the defender risks their entire home and are forced to come out and fight and do 10x the amount of work if they aren't quick enough.

That is pushing it far too much in the favor of the attacker.



I ask you to make it so that the attackers must risk something if they want to attack sov, be it a cruiser or battlecruiser or above. At least they can be caught.
I understand your worry of 'artifically shifting the meta towards larger ships', but if you if you allow interceptors or frigate sized ships to capture sov then you will artifically shifted the meta towards frigate killing/max mobility, since they will be the most optimal choice to attack.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#910 - 2015-03-10 00:41:50 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable.

Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space.
M
If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill.


The fix to that is alluded in my op; only allow pilots to have one of these deployed at a time. Sure, this is still a slight change (you can travel to your next target while it cycles, if willing to leave 100m deployable behind and undefended), but would cap the troll rate. Increase cycle times slightly to compensate for this travel edge and you are no worse off than now.

EDIT: Even better, since you add risk for the troll. If someone is trolling space, instead of popping their deployable, I can choose to just drop a defensive one and leave it deadlocked. Now the troll has to waste MORE time travelling back and popping mine, waiting on theirs, and rescooping, OR popping their own, before they can deploy a new one.

Hahaha, oh that's great. Yeah if you had defensive ones, the troll has to be able to actually kill it.

A blockade runner can't I think... an interceptor might have some trouble...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tycho VI
Horde Armada
Pandemic Horde
#911 - 2015-03-10 00:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tycho VI
Tycho VI wrote:
Tycho VI wrote:
But I mean....You start using the link from a position, you can not deviate more then 90 degrees or a certain verible from the start position or the link breaks....would this alleviate any of the trolling concerns at all? Considering people are worried about users trolling by orbiting at 100+km with a small sig moving at 7km a sec... Not just one guy, but like a fleet of 40+ inty or something in orbit doing a troll circle....If they had to stay within 90 degrees of the start position relative to the structure(you may be able to track them at some point if they make a mistake in their spiral with a couple long range defenders/trolling requires piloting skill etc).



Some quickly made images to illustrate this concept:

The actual angles could be different, this one assumes you pass 90 degrees from the start point in relation to the structure which would deactivate the link.

2 IMAGES:

http://i.imgur.com/2A90q5S.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Ndgfimz.jpg

There would be a plane you can not pass or the link will be broken.



With this, a couple inties harassing a small group would eventually become vulnerable through transversal/angular velocity when they have to stay within the limits of their starting plane to keep the link from breaking.

However, you can still bring enough pilots to actually surround the structure with multiple links activated at once to keep the contest going. But at some point each ship would become vulnerable through transversal/angular velocity to be tracked by a small number of long range defenders. Or they could break their link through piloting error.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#912 - 2015-03-10 00:44:29 UTC
What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted.

This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway)

Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tycho VI
Horde Armada
Pandemic Horde
#913 - 2015-03-10 00:47:39 UTC
sry double post
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#914 - 2015-03-10 00:50:49 UTC
One (or both) of these suggestions would be where I would start on balance:


1) Absolute sigrad penalty for an active EL
- Something of the order '+50m sigrad' would counter trollceptors somewhat, and allow sniper-fit ships to hit them.
- However, you'd still need something that can apply damage - an Entosis Confessor with a 10MN MWD moves so fast that drones and missiles cannot ever hit it. 10MN AB Succubus fits might do the same too, I'd need to theorycraft it.

2) Absolute speed limits for ships with an active EL.
- Something of the order 'This modules limits speed to 4000 m/s' would solve even more issues with evasion fits.

3) Restriction to fitting oversized prop mods and ELs together
- No idea how you would do this.
- Oversized prop mods add to the game and I don't want that gameplay lost as a casualty here.
- I have no issue with normal prop mods with ELs.

4) Reduction in the effect of prop mods when an EL is active
- This might be needed, an 'AB/MWD effect reduced by 80%' effect or similar.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Pooptasticize
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#915 - 2015-03-10 00:53:40 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted.

This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway)

Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node.


Why not you need 5 to start the process? No faster for additional, nothing gained by having fewer.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#916 - 2015-03-10 00:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Veskrashen wrote:
If defenders are plinking away at unmanned structures, they're not shooting at other players.


You also aren't shooting at other players while running a defensive e-link to lock out an orbiting inty that you can't hit.

Veskrashen wrote:
The idea is to shoot other players and have "active military control of the grid". If it doesn't require you to be on grid with it to work, it doesn't fit that design goal.


If you were the last person on grid, dropped a deployable, and left, your (deployable) still has active military control of the grid. It's still trivial for a single small ship to come contest this control if you leave it undefended.

Veskrashen wrote:
If you have to be on grid for it to work, it's far better off to be a module than a deployable. If it's a module rather than a deployable it's your butt at risk, not a cheap deployable you can bugger off from at any point in time.


The point is that this obsession that you have to be on-grid to run an e-link is what is leading to all the theorycrafting around troll-y fits, and all the special exemptions/mechanics necessary in the e-link module to prevent those troll-y fits. If we just make it a deployable with fixed stats it's a lot easier to balance how abusively it can be used, since we are no longer talking about balancing out the endless creativity of EVE ship fits.

No ACTUAL sov contest will work without controlling the grid anyway, since if you aren't on grid to defend a deployable it's not going to win. Possible addition to deployable mechanics to further reinforce this point: if the deployable is taking ANY damage, its cycle pauses. Also, I have no intention of the deployable being cheap. I'm thinking the T2 price; 100m or so. Since you can re-scoop it if successfully cycles, this is fine for the control node sov contests, etc... but if you troll and someone interrupts you, the 100m KM from a deployable is actually far MORE risk than the 15m inty you put at risk to get it there (which will almost never be caught, merely chased off, so no KM's with e-link modules ever).

Veskrashen wrote:
Besides, that'd make your fearsome Trollceptors even more Trolltastic - they're not even stuck on grid for the 2 minutes Entosis Link cycle time, after all. They'd be able to cause infinitely more damage with a deployable sov item. That'd be a horrific idea, wouldn't it?


Again, one deployed per pilot is probably a reasonable limitation, and actually puts the troll-er at high risk of wasting time (as per my point about dropping defensive deployables to deadlock it until they come back in a previous reply). Though to avoid permanently locking those poor inty trolls down, I'd suggest a maximum lifetime on the deployable of 1 to 2 hours before it self-destructs, whether it has finished its cycle or not (so you can only lock down a troll pilot from deploying more for a few hours, rather than indefinitely).
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#917 - 2015-03-10 00:57:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Pooptasticize wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted.

This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway)

Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node.


Why not you need 5 to start the process? No faster for additional, nothing gained by having fewer.

I'll be honest, I like the idea of "if there's no one, you can just shotgun like mad". But I also like the idea of "oh it's just one, we can send two people to deal with it" etc etc.

I'll even say I want to do this in ladyscarlet's rental empire (hi northernassociates!!!)... so it's for that kind of selfish reason

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#918 - 2015-03-10 00:57:54 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted.

This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway)

Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node.

Still doesn't require "military control of the grid", since you just have to have more max evasion Trollceptors on grid than the other guy. Bringing more dudes should not = autowin just because you have more dudes.

Sure, have more Links active if you want to. You should still have to kill off / force off field all the Links that they have to make progress.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#919 - 2015-03-10 00:59:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Veskrashen wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted.

This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway)

Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node.

Still doesn't require "military control of the grid", since you just have to have more max evasion Trollceptors on grid than the other guy. Bringing more dudes should not = autowin just because you have more dudes.

Sure, have more Links active if you want to. You should still have to kill off / force off field all the Links that they have to make progress.

Yes, that's right.

Currently, you only need one, no matter if the other side has 100 people.

At least with this, you would need 5 (again even if they have 100 people)

So instead of 1...1

you also have 2>1, 3>2... 5>4, but then it's just 5.... same reasoning for the cap as current, just a cap of 5 instead of 1.

Or you can pick some other positive integer that sounds nice. Not too big though.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Zazad Antollare
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#920 - 2015-03-10 01:02:24 UTC
**** idea incoming

i like the idea of the thing beeing like a deployable but as someone said they could carpet bomb a region really easily with almost zero risk, so why not make it like a drone? you have to be on grid and control it so it doesn't get blown up.