These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1161 - 2015-03-11 15:27:00 UTC
Borachon wrote:
afkalt wrote:

This point is valid almost IRRESPECTIVE of the (subcap) hulls this is mounted on. So this should be concentrated on as a priority and NOT the hulls - we all know how easy it is for a dedicated effort to get behind lines. Your point (I've assumed the numbers are valid) is a huge one and hinges around the entire mechanic and not the ships/modules themselves.


I got sick of running these numbers by hand and made a google docs spreadsheet to handle it. It's linked below, so you can make a copy and you can play with the costs of each ping and the cost of the sov structure yourself. Set the cost per ping by hand, and set the cost of the ihub by setting the number of upgrades of each level in it. Results are on the second (Net Cost) sheet.

A few examples from running numbers:
At 10M isk risked per ping and the defender winning 90% (9 out of 10!) of all ihub reinforces:

  • With an ihub with two L2 upgrades, you would need to win 90% of all ihub pings.
  • With an ihub with two L3 upgrades, you would need to win 95% of all ihub pings.
  • With an ihub with two L4 upgrades, you would need to win 97% of all ihub pings

Assuming that you don't bother to turn up for the RF timer to save your valuable ihub, this is all true.

NB. that's a silly assumption.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1162 - 2015-03-11 15:29:01 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Then disallow Interceptors, and anything else smaller than a Cruiser, from carrying the Entosis Link. Your "problem" is solved. My "problem" is solved.


If we're assuming bypassing camps, cruisers fitting it do NOT solve the problem in the slightest. Neither, frankly, do battlecruisers.

You can fit a cruiser to a 3 second time to enter warp. They can do up over 5200m/s before links. That's without oversizing the prop mod. You can get a stabber up past 10k no problems with an oversized mod.

Point being, they can disengage JUST as easily as an interceptor.


The fundamental "problem" is that some people feel the mechanic is broken (I'm on the fence in light of the math post). Sure, people have got some notions on how to control it, but the blunt truth is you CANNOT realistically control it. You can comfortably fit any subcap class to go so fast that anything which can actually realistically catch it will die in a fire.

If people have issue with "disengage trolling", there are NO arbitrary ship class limits (subcap) which will stop this.
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1163 - 2015-03-11 15:30:23 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Assuming that you don't bother to turn up for the RF timer to save your valuable ihub, this is all true.

NB. that's a silly assumption.


As I said, I'm assuming you win *90%* of the time your ihub is reinforced with these numbers.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1164 - 2015-03-11 15:33:30 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Borachon wrote:
afkalt wrote:

This point is valid almost IRRESPECTIVE of the (subcap) hulls this is mounted on. So this should be concentrated on as a priority and NOT the hulls - we all know how easy it is for a dedicated effort to get behind lines. Your point (I've assumed the numbers are valid) is a huge one and hinges around the entire mechanic and not the ships/modules themselves.


I got sick of running these numbers by hand and made a google docs spreadsheet to handle it. It's linked below, so you can make a copy and you can play with the costs of each ping and the cost of the sov structure yourself. Set the cost per ping by hand, and set the cost of the ihub by setting the number of upgrades of each level in it. Results are on the second (Net Cost) sheet.

A few examples from running numbers:
At 10M isk risked per ping and the defender winning 90% (9 out of 10!) of all ihub reinforces:

  • With an ihub with two L2 upgrades, you would need to win 90% of all ihub pings.
  • With an ihub with two L3 upgrades, you would need to win 95% of all ihub pings.
  • With an ihub with two L4 upgrades, you would need to win 97% of all ihub pings


Try it out yourself at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XFFmVyn6Ov-paaHjmMuq8OMgfMTMiF2Z3WHyEsRikX8/edit?usp=sharing


I believe you, my quoted post was an effort to direct the discussions towards THIS and AWAY from the hulls. Because the hulls basically don't matter a damn.

Ban intys, people will use cruisers, ban cruisers and people will use battlecruisers and so it continues. I still am assuming your numbers to be correct and on that assumption there is a fundamental problem here (to my eyes) and it has nothing to do with ship types.


I think that one of the easier ways to attack this, is to have the module affect targeting like stabs do (numbers TBH). Bringing people in closer - you can still upship to known snipers and SeBo your arse off, but then you've a heap of other sacrifices on the cards. Thing is, though, that the defence of burning off grid the minute dscan pops is....essentially unassailable. Bringing people in closer helps a bit but.....not really.

Edit: I wonder.....if the link damaged itself if a lock was lost (ostensibly from burning off grid but also ewar)? Damage you CAN'T nanite away but need to dock?
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1165 - 2015-03-11 15:34:57 UTC
Borachon wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Assuming that you don't bother to turn up for the RF timer to save your valuable ihub, this is all true.

NB. that's a silly assumption.


As I said, I'm assuming you win *90%* of the time your ihub is reinforced with these numbers.

But we're talking about a trollceptor fleet being able to compete against a 'proper' fleet that has 2 days to respond and which has a capture speed advantage when the event happens.

Which imho is kinda meaningless.

Park a single T1 cruiser at each point to hold the trollceptors off whilst you cycle your larger fleet around the other points and there's no reason to not get 100%.

Now obviously if the attackers decide to bring MORE than 1 trollceptor to try and do this, then it's no longer a 10m/ping and throws out all the math.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1166 - 2015-03-11 15:43:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Borachon
Eli Apol wrote:
Borachon wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Assuming that you don't bother to turn up for the RF timer to save your valuable ihub, this is all true.

NB. that's a silly assumption.


As I said, I'm assuming you win *90%* of the time your ihub is reinforced with these numbers.

But we're talking about a trollceptor fleet being able to compete against a 'proper' fleet that has 2 days to respond and which has a capture speed advantage when the event happens.

Which imho is kinda meaningless.

Park a single T1 cruiser at each point to hold the trollceptors off whilst you cycle your larger fleet around the other points and there's no reason to not get 100%.

Now obviously if the attackers decide to bring MORE than 1 trollceptor to try and do this, then it's no longer a 10m/ping and throws out all the math.


Perhaps you're missing my point. The basic idea is to use large numbers of trollceptors to generate the pings at 10m/ping, and then periodically bring a fleet to contest the reinforce event. At 10m/ping and expensive sov structures, you have to win the vast majority of both pings and events for the sov structures to be worth it. If pings were riskier or sov structures cheaper, things are different. To relate this back to the main topic of the thread, CCP could handle some of the trollceptor concerns *either* by changing the entosis link to make it risker to use *or* by making sov upgrades cheaper. Some combination of the two might very well make sense, as progodlegend talked about on TMC's metashow this week.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1167 - 2015-03-11 15:47:56 UTC
Borachon wrote:
*or* by making sov upgrades cheaper.


I'd be fully supportive of this. You should want to save them because you're using them and they're GOOD. Not for the sole reason that it's a bastard to replace them.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1168 - 2015-03-11 16:09:32 UTC
I think it's obtuse statistics though.

Firstly 10m/ping? T2 ships have crappy insurance and trollceptors are based around an 80m mod. So we're upto 100m/ping.

Then the next issue is how do these trollceptors even stand a chance of winning a ping if there's a locally based defender with a T1 ship in dockup to run a defensive link?

There's no reason for that to be anything other than 100% success.

Again it's one of those situations where I agree with the conclusion - that the structures are potentially too expensive to be risked against frivolous attack - but disagree with the method of showing it.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1169 - 2015-03-11 16:12:06 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Borachon wrote:
*or* by making sov upgrades cheaper.


I'd be fully supportive of this. You should want to save them because you're using them and they're GOOD. Not for the sole reason that it's a bastard to replace them.


The problem with upgrades isn't just price. A big part of the issue is volume and that issue is compounded by upgrades only being available through NPC sells.

Let us build them AND reduce the volume. P4's won't be going into SBU's anyways.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1170 - 2015-03-11 16:13:23 UTC
Hey everyone. I've had time to get completely caught up on the thread now. Thanks to everyone who has made constructive suggestions. There's a lot of good ideas raised in this thread so far. Special thanks to the ISD folks for being heroes as always and keeping the thread relatively clean. Big smile

We're taking all the feedback into account and putting some work into discussing our options internally and investigating the feasibility of a couple ideas suggested by players so far. I've pulled a couple of quotations from the thread to answer directly and hopefully help clarify a few things.

Querns wrote:
I guess I don't understand why it seems so difficult to take a position on the main issue, here. This update spends a lot of time talking about the balance team's ability to make changes to counter undesired gameplay. I don't think that was ever in doubt; anyone paying attention knows that the balance team has a large toolkit. What we want to know is your intentions — do you plan to nerf entosis interceptors or not?

This issue is so fundamental that it poisons any other potential discussion on the topic of New Sov. Without a clear position on this one subject, none of the rest of the work that has been done has any fundamental meaning. This is a very harsh thing for me to say, but I can't really put it any more gently than this. For this, I apologize, but it has to be said for any forward progress to be made.

We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isn’t an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure there’s enough time for everyone to take a deep breath.

Jason Dunham wrote:
Perhaps some clarification of how the module functions would answer the questions in this thread.

1. Can the cycle of the entosis be stopped in the middle?
If not then you can't just bugger off if someone shows up, you have to stay on grid until the cycle completes.

The Entosis Link cannot be stopped partway through the cycle. Once you start the module, you will suffer all the penalties (like being unable to warp or be assisted) until the cycle ends or until your ship explodes, whichever comes first.

Jason Dunham wrote:
2. If you are jammed, or damped where you lose lock on the structure, does the entosis module deactivate, allowing you to warp off, or are you kept there until the cycle finishes with no effect?
If not, then it would be more risky to activate the module, because like Bastion, Siege, or Triage you are committing to being on that grid until your cycle is done.

If you lose lock for any reason, the module stops capturing but continues to run on your ship until the end of the cycle. Losing lock will not allow you to warp early.

xttz wrote:
Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking?

Yes, an active Entosis Link would prevent cloaking for the duration of its cycle.

ADMlNlSTRATOR wrote:
Is it true that using a Entosis Link on a sovereignty structure will NOT display any notifications to the players of the alliance owning the structure unless they are in the system under attack? Because, if so, it would highly disengage players from defending their space rather than engage them to undock and go defend their space.
Some big alliances will used their existing IT infrastructure to query the API for such events, but even so, this information will probably be 10 minus late, if even available to normal players (think FC, Directors, CEO only). While there is the question whether you want small scale sovereignty attacks to be dependable with or without FCs, in order to get more people engaged, the attack notifications should be instantaneous and to all players in the alliance owning the structure under attack.

The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1171 - 2015-03-11 16:17:44 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
I think it's obtuse statistics though.

Firstly 10m/ping? T2 ships have crappy insurance and trollceptors are based around an 80m mod. So we're upto 100m/ping.

Then the next issue is how do these trollceptors even stand a chance of winning a ping if there's a locally based defender with a T1 ship in dockup to run a defensive link?

There's no reason for that to be anything other than 100% success.

Again it's one of those situations where I agree with the conclusion - that the structures are potentially too expensive to be risked against frivolous attack - but disagree with the method of showing it.



  1. Defenders sometimes make mistakes. I know it's hard to fathom, but occasionally people foul up, so you're simply not going to ever get 100% success. Perhaps the designated defender thought someone else was covering that structure, or they're hit at the end of their primetime when most have gone to sleep, or most of them are out drinking with friends, or they're at Fanfest, or they just can't cover *all* of the ihubs that are being hit at once.
  2. Interceptors are easy to disengage with, particularly on an ihub, because of d-scan. If you lose your 100m isk interceptor on every 10th ping, that's a cost 10m per ping. If you lose it on every 4th ping (Carniflex's number), that 25m per ping. But like I said, play with the numbers yourself. That's why I posted the spreadsheet for you to copy.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1172 - 2015-03-11 16:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
@Fozzie any word on the questions in the post of mine on page 1?

Quoted for reference

afkalt wrote:

You need to make who is using a link appear on the overview (like scrams/ewar to players do at the moment).

A purely "visual" effect will be impossible to get a hold of the right ship to target.

We also need some clarity on the following points (there are probably more)
>How will warping be blocked
>Does this affect MJDs/MWDs (i.e. is it a scram or a point effect)
>What happens if the ship loses lock
>Capital cycle time was discussed to be longer - is the capture time also longer
>Will cynoing OUT with an active link be allowed i.e. does this fully "tackle" caps and supers too?
>Are other high slot mods blocked at the time the link is active - bastion/triage/etc/etc

Also - make the module drop rate 100% - encourage hunting non-committal attempts to troll. It'll pay better than ratting Smile

Add occupancy bonuses in reverse to defenders recapturing - so a fully upgraded object can be recapped by defenders in <2.5 minutes.

ed: start the alert at the cycle start, not end.




I'm specifically interested in the tackle mechanics around supers/MJDs and synergy with things like bastion/triage.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1173 - 2015-03-11 16:28:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members.


Is this sent the second the module is activated, or when the capture timer kicks in?
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1174 - 2015-03-11 16:31:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isn’t an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure there’s enough time for everyone to take a deep breath.

Fair enough; thanks for the additional consideration in this matter.

A somewhat related question; in the most general, unspecific terms, without naming any particular ship or ship ability, is the concept of keeping invaders out of your space, or the ability to catch invaders before they are able to attack your sovereignty structures, something that should be considered a valid defensive option?

Or, perhaps to put it more plainly — are attackers considered to be entitled to choosing their desired battlefield, or should defenders be allowed to use tactics like gatecamping as a valid defense of their holdings?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1175 - 2015-03-11 16:38:15 UTC
xttz wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members.


Is this sent the second the module is activated, or when the capture timer kicks in?

We're currently leaning towards notifying when the capture impact begins, so while the module is in the warmup cycle it would not send a notification. That's open to change as we go forward though.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1176 - 2015-03-11 16:39:50 UTC
Querns wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isn’t an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure there’s enough time for everyone to take a deep breath.

Fair enough; thanks for the additional consideration in this matter.

A somewhat related question; in the most general, unspecific terms, without naming any particular ship or ship ability, is the concept of keeping invaders out of your space, or the ability to catch invaders before they are able to attack your sovereignty structures, something that should be considered a valid defensive option?

Or, perhaps to put it more plainly — are attackers considered to be entitled to choosing their desired battlefield, or should defenders be allowed to use tactics like gatecamping as a valid defense of their holdings?

There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1177 - 2015-03-11 16:44:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance.

Definitely — I understand the concerns. I just wanted to keep it fresh in everyone's minds, since it's pretty obvious where I was going with that line of thought. Some serious deliberation on the current state of interdiction nullification is called for, I think; especially in the face of things like covert ops cloaking ships, Black Ops Battleship bridging, titan bridging (as useful as these are with a 5LY range, at any rate,) and wormholes already allowing attackers to circumvent static gate camps.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Alli Ginthur
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1178 - 2015-03-11 16:44:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isn’t an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure there’s enough time for everyone to take a deep breath.

Fair enough; thanks for the additional consideration in this matter.

A somewhat related question; in the most general, unspecific terms, without naming any particular ship or ship ability, is the concept of keeping invaders out of your space, or the ability to catch invaders before they are able to attack your sovereignty structures, something that should be considered a valid defensive option?

Or, perhaps to put it more plainly — are attackers considered to be entitled to choosing their desired battlefield, or should defenders be allowed to use tactics like gatecamping as a valid defense of their holdings?

There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance.

Would a tweak such as giving hic bubbles the ability to negate the ability to ignore interdiction be a viable option, as that requires people to be actively defending the border, as opposed to deployable bubbles just being drop and forget?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1179 - 2015-03-11 16:45:45 UTC
afkalt wrote:

You need to make who is using a link appear on the overview (like scrams/ewar to players do at the moment).

A purely "visual" effect will be impossible to get a hold of the right ship to target.

It's definitely something we're considering, but can't promise anything quite yet.

afkalt wrote:
We also need some clarity on the following points (there are probably more)
>How will warping be blocked
>Does this affect MJDs/MWDs (i.e. is it a scram or a point effect)

Warping is blocked by the system literally not allowing the ship with the active Entosis Link to engage warp under any circumstances. It's not a scram or disruptor effect so it's not impacted by stabs or nullification or anything else. It also doesn't have an impact on MWDs or MJDs. If we want to add restrictions on those modules we can, but the actual warp prevention mechanic doesn't affect them.

afkalt wrote:
>What happens if the ship loses lock

If a ship loses lock the module keeps running until the end of the cycle, but is no longer having an impact on the structure. Losing lock does not allow the owner of the Entosis Link to warp.

afkalt wrote:
>Capital cycle time was discussed to be longer - is the capture time also longer

The initial warmup period would be longer, but once an Entosis Link is running past its first cycle, capture speed is the same no matter the cycle time.

afkalt wrote:
>Will cynoing OUT with an active link be allowed i.e. does this fully "tackle" caps and supers too?

No. All jumping will be prevented while the link is active.

afkalt wrote:
>Are other high slot mods blocked at the time the link is active - bastion/triage/etc/etc

Nope.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1180 - 2015-03-11 16:52:12 UTC
Borachon wrote:
Defenders sometimes make mistakes. I know it's hard to fathom, but occasionally people foul up, so you're simply not going to ever get 100% success. Perhaps the designated defender thought someone else was covering that structure, or they're hit at the end of their primetime when most have gone to sleep, or most of them are out drinking with friends, or they're at Fanfest, or they just can't cover *all* of the ihubs that are being hit at once.
So if we're talking purely error statistics then single digit percentages would probably be fair for the initial ping. Fair enough.
Borachon wrote:
Interceptors are easy to disengage with, particularly on an ihub, because of d-scan. If you lose your 100m isk interceptor on every 10th ping, that's a cost 10m per ping. If you lose it on every 4th ping (Carniflex's number), that 25m per ping. But like I said, play with the numbers yourself. That's why I posted the spreadsheet for you to copy.
Yeah 1/10 seems a fair enough guesstimate here for the initial ping and yeah I did copy it and run it with differing figures :)

The issue is then assuming that the attackers only turn up with their ceptors for the RF timer AND that the defence is unable to cope with the event with the 2 day advance notice (after only a small percentage of 'mistakes')

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager