These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1461 - 2015-03-12 16:46:14 UTC
@CCP Fozzie:

Any thoughts on why, if you want this to have minimal impact on fitting and ship selection, you've made this a module at all? The overall structure of the capture mechanic is similar to FW, but FW doesn't require a module.

Pursuant to my earlier post I've thought of a potential angle to address the 'supercapital blob' problem with regard to capture times:

Simply expand capture time.

'Capture' characters' ships (in this scenario, characters in fleet leadership roles that contribute to the fleet's influence percentage) also impact capture time: Put any of those capture characters in a ship with a jump drive (including BlOps), and the time needed before capture begins by the 400% you're looking at for the link: from the 2/3/5 minute minimum (for 100%/75%/50% of fleet leadership in the same alliance) to 10/12/20 minutes respectively. If the ship can't dock, hit them with another 400%, to 40/48/80 minutes.

Supercapital blobs can do 80 minutes sitting in space, no problem. But the enemy would have time to try to martial enough force to contest the fight - and in the case of an RF event (ie: command nodes), the longer the event runs, the more nodes spawn, which means the capital/supercapital forces would need to cover more ground, get more spread out... all in the slowest ship-types in the game.
Dave Stark
#1462 - 2015-03-12 16:47:47 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Ultimately, the purpose of the e-link is that the user must be holding the grid.


if you're within 250km of the node and you can activate a link, clearly you are holding the grid. otherwise you'd be back in a station after being podded.


Clearly you are on the grid, holding it, far from necessarily. You just need to be fast enough to evade the other guys on the grid, and possess enough range to kill anyone else who activates an e-link. Short-range and brawler comps clearly need not apply under these new sov rules.


well if you haven't been forced off it, the only option left is that you are indeed holding the grid.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#1463 - 2015-03-12 16:55:20 UTC
The whole 200+ km range thing seems to be the big sticking point. Has CCP commented anywhere on why this range was chosen for the T2 module?

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1464 - 2015-03-12 16:59:26 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
The whole 200+ km range thing seems to be the big sticking point. Has CCP commented anywhere on why this range was chosen for the T2 module?

250km is the max locking range in the game - I presume they made the T2 version able to be used on absolutely any doctrine.

What doesn't help is people pulling numbers out their rears and talking about 250km interceptors etc because these are hardcapped below that amount by their base stats and slot layout (remembering remote effects can't be used on entosis ships as well)

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1465 - 2015-03-12 17:00:48 UTC
Borachon wrote:
It's going to make sniper doctrines even more absurdly vulnerable to bombers and warpins. As it is, they rely on positioning through MJDing and warping; with a short cycle on a long range link, they can MJD out once and and wait out their short entosis timer to warp off and reposition before the enemy can warp in on them again. With a long timer on long-range entosis links, though, I expect sniper doctrines would simply be completely infeasible.

Why are they using an E-link while there is a hostile fleet on grid? There is a step they have forgotten to perform. Clear the grid, then they can get their e-link on. Like non-snipers have to.

Milton Middleson wrote:
You not only get vastly superior range to the T1 module (fair enough - that's necessary for long-ranged doctrines to function)

Why do they need it to function? Are they trying to use an E-link while there is a hostile fleet on grid? Well, theres the problem, deal with the other fleet, then it doesn't matter how far from the target you are sitting. Just like non-sniper have to.

Dave Stark wrote:

well if you haven't been forced off it, the only option left is that you are indeed holding the grid.

Except you haven't forced the close-range doctrine off it either, so they are holding the grid just as much as you are, but for some reason that seems to be acceptable to people, snipers should be allowed to be declared victors of a stalemate.

Fozzie has expressly stated he doesn't want doctrines determined by these mechanics. But while a sniper fleet is allowed to kite and snipe whilst running an e-link, and a brawler fleet cannot do so (as they will just get their e-links shot up while the kiters keep them safe and snug out of range), it pushes fleets to be required to be sniper doctrines, or you are just setting yourself for frustration and faliure.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1466 - 2015-03-12 17:05:56 UTC
xttz wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Good points.

Your thoughts on long cycle time for the long range module as a balancing factor?


If CCP are planning on having a role penalty for capital ships which increases the cycle time just for them, it's going to get exponentially worse on the T2 version - exactly the version they should be using. This heavily discourages use of capital ships in sov warfare in general. Slow, expensive ships already have an increased risk of use over smaller ones due to their existing mobility.

I think the only fair way is to have sized versions of the entosis link, with appropriate ranges:

Frigates 25-50k
Cruisers 50-100k
Battleships 100-200k
Capitals 150-250k

No ship size gating for Entosis Links. Same module on all ships.

If you're serious about size gating, then Frigates need to be at 125-150km and Cruisers out to 250km, because platforms in those ship sizes can effectively operate at those ranges. If you do that, Frigates will Frankenstein Fit the Cruiser sized modules on, which puts you right back in the thick of Frigates with 250km Links.

No need for extra long range on Capital Ships and BS, since they're gonna have ships probed right on top of them regardless since they can't generate the speed to appropriately kite. You need the sig/speed combo that frigate / destroyer / cruiser platforms provide to run a solid kiting doctrine.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1467 - 2015-03-12 17:07:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Borachon
Veskrashen wrote:
Good points, though I think you need to use the Caldari hulls instead of the Amarr ones as the basis for comparioson. Caldari railgun platforms reach out to 100km on AFs and T1 Dessies, while cruiser hulls can engage out past 200km+ very easily. This would mean that even if you implement sized Entosis Links (which I personally think is a horrible idea) you'd still need to have 250km link range available for cruiser hulls.


S/M/L links let Fozzie and the other game designers use their module flexibility to match module capabilities for different ship sizes match the ranges those ships were balanced for. That's the main point of it. If you divorce the links from the ships that can fit them, it becomes harder to keep balance and make sure that the design goals he set out are met. Its range needs to be within +-30% of the range of its long range weapon system, or it's going to make large changes to ship meta and make it hard to make the entosis link accurately reflect grid control

Just to spitball, what if you gave S/M/L entosis links the fitting requirements of the smallest of the long range weapons in a size class, and the range of the second largest? So, a medium entosis link fits like a dual 150mm railgun and the range of a 200mm railgun with spike? That makes it possible to up-fit them in a destroyer, and not effect fittings too severely if you're fitting for the same size class.

EDIT: and range-wise, I mean on a range-bonused hull like the eagle.
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1468 - 2015-03-12 17:11:15 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And as was stated here, evasion tactics not being optimal is also a goal of theirs.

"Optimal" and "Viable" are two different things.

Optimal would be if a kitey Link boat could always win, never be caught, and never be countered. That the only way to stop him would be to either bring your own kitey stuff or sit at zero with a defensive link and wait for him to get bored.

That's not the case here, however, now that we know how losing link works - you have to wait for your current cycle to finish, then spend another cycle reconnecting before you begin making any progress towards capture. That means that there are a multitude of counters to a kiting comp that do not rely on bringing your own kiting comp.

Viable on the other hand... if you made Entosis Links inflict a severe speed penalty, kiting comps would not be viable - they would be unable to hold range.

Kiting comps should remain viable, even if they're not optimal.

Changing the subject a bit, what about swapping the ranges on the T1/T2 links?

T1 links would have the 250km effective range, but with a 5 minute cycle time. That would mean that someone using a T1 link who lost lock or had to evade would suffer a much greater time penalty before being able to make progress on that (or another) structure. Kiting ships would be forced to remain on field much longer - up to 5 minutes at a time - since the Entosis Link would prevent them from warping out.

While T2 links would have a shorter range, they'd connect much faster, making it easier to stop someone else's progress and to reconnect should you lose your own. It would also allow you to disengage from brawls faster, rather than being pinned on field for 5 minutes in a brawling comp with no remote support available.

This would also force capitals / supercapitals to either remain close to their objective to take advantage of the 2 minute cycle time on the T2 link, or be forced to face tank an enemy fleet for up to 5 minutes at a time.

Something to consider at least.

EDIT: Thinking a bit more about this, it could actually force "interesting gameplay choices". You can either choose long range and be forced to stay on field longer, or sack up and go for a brawling comp and be pinned down for less time. Of course Bombers would have a field day with a brawling comp balled up within 30km of an objective, but bombers are up for review anyway.


Had the same thought

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1469 - 2015-03-12 17:23:59 UTC
Borachon wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Good points, though I think you need to use the Caldari hulls instead of the Amarr ones as the basis for comparioson. Caldari railgun platforms reach out to 100km on AFs and T1 Dessies, while cruiser hulls can engage out past 200km+ very easily. This would mean that even if you implement sized Entosis Links (which I personally think is a horrible idea) you'd still need to have 250km link range available for cruiser hulls.


S/M/L links let Fozzie and the other game designers use their module flexibility to match module capabilities for different ship sizes match the ranges those ships were balanced for. That's the main point of it. If you divorce the links from the ships that can fit them, it becomes harder to keep balance and make sure that the design goals he set out are met. Its range needs to be within +-30% of the range of its long range weapon system, or it's going to make large changes to ship meta and make it hard to make the entosis link accurately reflect grid control

Just to spitball, what if you gave S/M/L entosis links the fitting requirements of the smallest of the long range weapons in a size class, and the range of the second largest? So, a medium entosis link fits like a dual 150mm railgun and the range of a 200mm railgun with spike? That makes it possible to up-fit them in a destroyer, and not effect fittings too severely if you're fitting for the same size class.

Essentially this becomes even narrower in scope. As you agreed, the Medium needs to allow for sniping cruisers which can hit out to the maximum range permitted in the game. Therefore the M and L versions are both going to be capped at 250km and differ only by name essentially meaning we only two versions: Frigates and Everything-Except-Frigates.

Potentially this *could* be required as it is just about possible to gimpfit certain frigates to achieve the maximum range, a 3x range-scripted sebo Kitsune is the one I just hacked out in EFT - any frigate with fewer midslots is going to struggling to do this though, for example someone was talking about sniper Retributions earlier but they can't physically target further than 160km from fittings alone because of only 2 midslots - although that can be crept a little closer to the 200km mark with fleet boosts and a targetting implant.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#1470 - 2015-03-12 17:25:26 UTC
Quote:
Why do they need it to function? Are they trying to use an E-link while there is a hostile fleet on grid? Well, theres the problem, deal with the other fleet, then it doesn't matter how far from the target you are sitting.


Because a) while you're parking your sniper fleet on the sov button, you're exposing yourself in a huge way, and b) it means you can't effectively contest the button with sniper comps unless you have already cleared the field, so unless the fight is over quite quickly, you may lose even though your opponent never actually achieved grid supremacy. I certainly don't mind disadvantaging kiting/sniper fleets in some manner, since there must be a meaningful tradeoff for getting away with lesser commitment, but that seems rather harsh.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1471 - 2015-03-12 17:56:27 UTC
So basically only unoccupied systems will be easy prey for these interceptors of doom. I'm ok with this. It strangely sounds like it is working as intended. Regardless, CCP said that if something gets out of hand they will make some adjustments.
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1472 - 2015-03-12 18:03:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Borachon
Eli Apol wrote:

Essentially this becomes even narrower in scope. As you agreed, the Medium needs to allow for sniping cruisers which can hit out to the maximum range permitted in the game. Therefore the M and L versions are both going to be capped at 250km and differ only by name essentially meaning we only two versions: Frigates and Everything-Except-Frigates.


I see your point, but as it is, I think that the current design doesn't meet the design goals Fozzie set out. The modules'stats don't match the range limitations on which hulls are balanced. There needs to be a penalty for the long range link that disadvantages short range-oriented ships that use it, but not long-range oriented-ships that use it. Long cycle time means they just get bombed off the field because they can't reposition effectively in a reasonable amount of time, even when fitting an MJD. Sig bloom makes them easier to probe and hurts long range fits more than short range fits, so that's a non-starter. Other ideas?
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1473 - 2015-03-12 18:16:33 UTC
Borachon wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Essentially this becomes even narrower in scope. As you agreed, the Medium needs to allow for sniping cruisers which can hit out to the maximum range permitted in the game. Therefore the M and L versions are both going to be capped at 250km and differ only by name essentially meaning we only two versions: Frigates and Everything-Except-Frigates.


I see your point, but as it is, I think that the current design doesn't meet the design goals Fozzie set out. The modules'stats don't match the range limitations on which hulls are balanced. There needs to be a penalty for the long range link that disadvantages short range-oriented ships that use it, but not long-range oriented-ships that use it. Long cycle time means they just get bombed off the field because they can't reposition effectively in a reasonable amount of time, even when fitting an MJD. Sig bloom makes them easier to probe and hurts long range fits more than short range fits, so that's a non-starter. Other ideas?

Well, you're definitely look at this from a Fleet vs. Fleet perspective rather than Trollceptors Online, for which I salute you.

The issue with long cycle times influencing kiting doctrines due to probes and bombers is definitely interesting, and not something I considered since I'm much more of a small gang guy fighting in deadspace. We know that CCP is aware of the bomber / probe issues and they're being looked at in the context of Fozziesov, so I feel reasonably confident that they'll be looking at ways to mitigate prober + bomber = you die if you can't warp off.

That said, I think that's equally the case whether the cycle time is 2 minutes or 5 minutes - if you're probing on grid and warping on grid, you're still only talking a few seconds in warp before landing / launching / buggering off. If the cycle time is much more than 30 seconds in any case at all, you're at risk for being bombed off field.

So the issue there is more an issue with Bombers + Combat Probes, rather than an Entosis Link module issue in and of itself. Absent bombers, it seems that the longer cycle time would not be an issue - that right?

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1474 - 2015-03-12 18:28:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Borachon wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Essentially this becomes even narrower in scope. As you agreed, the Medium needs to allow for sniping cruisers which can hit out to the maximum range permitted in the game. Therefore the M and L versions are both going to be capped at 250km and differ only by name essentially meaning we only two versions: Frigates and Everything-Except-Frigates.


I see your point, but as it is, I think that the current design doesn't meet the design goals Fozzie set out. The modules'stats don't match the range limitations on which hulls are balanced. There needs to be a penalty for the long range link that disadvantages short range-oriented ships that use it, but not long-range oriented-ships that use it. Long cycle time means they just get bombed off the field because they can't reposition effectively in a reasonable amount of time, even when fitting an MJD. Sig bloom makes them easier to probe and hurts long range fits more than short range fits, so that's a non-starter. Other ideas?

I'm still sticking to my guns with a targetting range penalty to any ship that has the module onlined. Initially I was throwing around 50% as a number but I just ran the math and that pretty much negates all subcaps except a dedicated marauder setup in bastion from using it at full range :-S

Running some more numbers, 25% just about pulls an absolutely gimped Kitsune down to the 250 mark (which I think is going to be the furthest of all the frigates but maybe there's something that has a longer base targetting range?).

So I'd amend that to something between 25-50%...33?

It means that a sniper/kitey fleet needs to spend maybe just an extra midslot on achieving the max range whilst also means that ships can fight with it offlined and then reonline after the grid is won. For the ceptor fits it's looking like knocking them down from 120ish km to a much more manageable 80 or so (not that they can't be caught anyways, but caught easier is always nice)

edit: quick run through in the market and only a manticore has a longer range than kitsune at 70km

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1475 - 2015-03-12 18:33:39 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Regardless, CCP said that if something gets out of hand they will make some adjustments.

How reassured you are is so cute and adorable.

You're a very brave newbie

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 ?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1476 - 2015-03-12 18:37:02 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
So basically only unoccupied systems will be easy prey for these interceptors of doom. I'm ok with this. It strangely sounds like it is working as intended. Regardless, CCP said that if something gets out of hand they will make some adjustments.


They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1477 - 2015-03-12 19:20:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
So basically only unoccupied systems will be easy prey for these interceptors of doom. I'm ok with this. It strangely sounds like it is working as intended. Regardless, CCP said that if something gets out of hand they will make some adjustments.


They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months.

Trolling us to death is not in any way "out of hand" I'm sure.

Indeed, in many ways it might be the best outcome.

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 ?
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1478 - 2015-03-12 19:43:40 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
The issue with long cycle times influencing kiting doctrines due to probes and bombers is definitely interesting, and not something I considered since I'm much more of a small gang guy fighting in deadspace. We know that CCP is aware of the bomber / probe issues and they're being looked at in the context of Fozziesov, so I feel reasonably confident that they'll be looking at ways to mitigate prober + bomber = you die if you can't warp off.

That said, I think that's equally the case whether the cycle time is 2 minutes or 5 minutes - if you're probing on grid and warping on grid, you're still only talking a few seconds in warp before landing / launching / buggering off. If the cycle time is much more than 30 seconds in any case at all, you're at risk for being bombed off field.


I don't think so, for two reasons: the MJD mecahnics of these fleets and the upcoming probing changes that we all anticipate. I expect it'll take at least a minute to probe out and position bombers on a fleet after these change. Given that:

  1. You warp in and start a minute into your entosis cycle.
  2. A minute later, bombers are incoming and you MJD away.
  3. A minute later your entosis cycle is up - you have the choice of either dropping it and warping off to reposition again, or braving it for another two minute while your MJD cooldown finishes one minute later. 2 minutes is actually a perfect amount of time to mesh well with MJD mechanics and make for interesting choices.


Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1479 - 2015-03-12 19:44:45 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

It means that a sniper/kitey fleet needs to spend maybe just an extra midslot on achieving the max range


They're already burning a highslot; making any ship composition burn an *extra* scarse midslot to contest sov is probably a very bad idea.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1480 - 2015-03-12 20:00:08 UTC
Borachon wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

It means that a sniper/kitey fleet needs to spend maybe just an extra midslot on achieving the max range


They're already burning a highslot; making any ship composition burn an *extra* scarse midslot to contest sov is probably a very bad idea.

I'd have to look at more fits to have a better idea tbh, been looking at frigs versus sniper Rokhs versus bastion marauders just to compare the edge cases rather than looking at the mid range ships :)

They do have the option of moving 33% closer either way though.

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