These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Part 2

First post First post First post
Author
Cade Windstalker
#381 - 2015-04-14 01:00:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Valenthe de Celine wrote:
I didn't see anyone mention this one by page 13 so I figured I would ask it:

How will TiDi affect the timer for running Entosis units? Will filling a system with ships/drones give a defender or aggressor a sudden advantage to get more help on its way to the system under siege by creating a TiDi situation specifically to slow the timers if they get knocked off grid by foes, allowing them more time to regroup?


The timer is running on the server so it gets slowed down along with everything else in Eve. Since the Node Capture event is spread across multiple systems it should be harder to force TiDi into occurring for the main capture event. Other than that the effect of TiDi is not significantly different from currently.

Hafwolf wrote:
I think it more like we have used up this area lets move. My thinking is if the moons dry up after while and have to search for new moons. Maybe make them take months to replenish there value so that is more like what would happen you mine some place after a while it is gone and you have to move. After reading the dev blog on structures that sounds like where ccp wants to head. I think the entosis link is where way of helping make it easier to flip systems that are not guarded. The static moons printing isk for null sec alliances is the main thing that is killing null for pilot in my view. One reason I hate sov grind is most of the time its about getting more sov to provide some director with more moons to make them more passive rich. If the moons ran out the alliance would have to move to find better moons.


If Moons ran out the price of T2 ships would shoot through the roof in a month or two, because the location of all of these moons is known to someone somewhere and all of them are being exploited. This wouldn't create incentive to move, it would make moon mining impractical.

Also these days the main source of ISK for the major coalitions is renting space, not moon goo, so the point is moot.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#382 - 2015-04-14 01:33:02 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
I was toying with that idea, yeah, that in exchange for more frequent opportunities to come out of Entosis and catch reps, it would drain resources faster by virtue of cycling faster.


Keep in mind that you need a new warm-up cycle every time you shut off your link or otherwise lose connection.

yep
Jenshae Chiroptera
#383 - 2015-04-14 12:24:29 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."

How do you think only cruisers will only use T1 version?

cycle will continue to finish, regardless of anything short of ship destruction. no way to get out of it early
Doesn't matter. Empty pods, cheap ships, NPC base and swarm.
Log off all over their region during their off peak time then annoy them with your alts when it suits you.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#384 - 2015-04-14 12:27:06 UTC
Strontium usage is too low.
Needs a 10x increase minimum
Cade Windstalker
#385 - 2015-04-14 22:03:10 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
Strontium usage is too low.
Needs a 10x increase minimum


A lot of people have been saying this but no one seems to provide a good rational for it. Every ship with an Entosis Link needs to carry fuel, and it takes a lot of uninterrupted cycles to capture a structure if your defense metrics are good, so why does the fuel use need to be absolutely prohibitive, to the point that it seriously cuts into ammo storage space and makes every ship that's not Amarr an unattractive capture vessel?
John Sharp
D.O.D. Corporation
#386 - 2015-04-14 22:43:39 UTC
Like many others I have concerns on how this new idea will work, and what the goal is.

First off, let's be honest, large blocks fighting anything other then another large block will be able to defend and attack at will. These groups can troll SOV for "gudfites" at will, and in reality the smaller alliances will not be able to stop them. This part will not change. Instead of rental empires there will be extortion and "protection" payments that are non-guarantees to not attack your structures. CFC is pulling back to defensible size, and other forces are going to become nomadic.

Entire constellations will be reinforced creating lots of events. While this has the potential to create large amounts of content, it also has the potential to create stalemates with no winner until someone just gives up. We will be getting more ship destruction, as entosis ships will die in droves. Blobbing will still work, as 100 pilots in high EHP ships with entosis links and a supporting fleet should control most grids. Any attempt to use your own entosis against them will result in destruction, and they will have too many ships to burn thru. With that said, I feel a bit sorry for all the entosis pilots that just continually get killed while linked to a structure. At least as tackle you get on KMs and have a bit more options. But enough of that...

Somethings to think about...clearly this is part of a larger plan. The "near" future will have different structures and they will be destructible. Will this be the way these are destroyed as well, and the need for mass DPS eliminated? I'm not sure how this would work out as you could have enormous amounts of events created by mass reinforcements. Things should still blow up when shot by a lot of DPS. We will have to wait and see, but never hurts to start that discussion early.

This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. Risk vs Reward is somewhat replaced by Work vs Reward. To hold your space/structure you need to work in EVE for four hours a day, and maybe longer if you cannot return all your "timers" back to zero. Just one second of active link and you must have a member of the defending alliance negate that effect or leave it vulnerable past the window. And the rewards for this work may not be worth the effort of groups that cannot have four hours of active members on every day just to keep that handful of trolls at bay. In no way does this encourage smaller groups to hold SOV or structures. So we end up with a lot of freeports in null...which isn't a bad thing. No one has to pay the bills, and everyone can use it. I-Hubs are only worth the effort to groups that can hold and build up their indexes, which again seems to only be the much larger forces. I'm not sure, but we could end up with a lot of empty space nobody can hold, and everyone running to the established alliances for stability. Not sure that was the plan...or maybe it is.

Why not make SOV mean something. Holding a TCU should still protect YOUR structures in a system. If I can't hold a TCU then I likely can't hold the system, but at least it gives me a chance to have other structures that can't be RF for lulz when I went thru all the effort to put them up. Yes, this will add timers and make things take longer, but why not make it harder for attackers. Defenders took the time and effort to build up their space, should it be that easy to destroy? It would make alliances WANT to have a TCU and claim space, because there is a reward. At the very least it means a force has to be committed to the attack to effect my space in a meaningful way.

While this idea may not resolve anything, and actually add to issues...
Why not make the structures require "Maintenance". Entosis links put onto structures to maintain their abilities, maybe just a cycle a day. Again it encourages you living in your space, but not make it to difficult. I'd even suggest that after an attacker has started moving the timer on your structure toward RF, a defender that establishes control for a cycle can make it "regenerate" if not attacked again. Base this on the Index penalty/bonus. That lone troll that runs around every day to move your timers on everything is just annoying. If you miss one it allows your space to get RF'ed outside your window. While I understand the point, it could be a ship that get's in and out on one cycle with a T2 link at range, and does this during the entire four hours(because some people have nothing better to do) and has not interest in your structures. There will be a lot of people paid just to do this, in hopes of being able to RF later.

All in All I can see the amount of content this can create. Not all of it good for everyone. It makes the larger forces more vulnerable to attacks from everyone. And this system is designed that way, it's everyone against you. But as with so many changes to effect the large blocks, it can make life harder of the rest of the players. But there is no real balance for that, it's just the way life is. Sadly it makes a new form of greifing possible too. But this too will create content.

While some tactics seem obvious, EVE players have a way of gaming any system. Things have time to change, and we do need change. With the changes to jumps we could have pockets far enough away to exist in relative peace...maybe...for a week.

Sorry for the wall of text. Roll

tl;dr Changes still leave big blocks and don't encourage small alliances to hold space. But change is still needed and this is just one of those steps.
Cade Windstalker
#387 - 2015-04-14 23:32:00 UTC
John Sharp wrote:
Doom and gloom and stuff


I think you're making some bad assumptions about how Entosis Links will be used, practically speaking, or that the intent of these changes is to make small entities able to directly take on larger ones. Part of the point is that a larger entity that is spread thinly relative to its population becomes vulnerable. Both because of the power projection changes and because they will have a hard time maintaining occupancy metrics in their systems which are the main bonus the defenders get, along with actually having the various structures and the bonuses they provide.

Really if you look at it, in addition to the timer bias toward the defenders, the defenders have a lot of advantages. The initiative is with the attackers, but the defenders have all of the intrinsic numerical advantages.

John Sharp wrote:
And the rewards for this work may not be worth the effort of groups that cannot have four hours of active members on every day just to keep that handful of trolls at bay.


Regarding this specifically. If you don't have enough active members for four hours a day to defend your sov you have no business holding Sov. Either get more members or go find something more casual. Really I hate the "filthy casuals" argument, but in this case if you're that small or inactive of an Alliance you're not large enough to hold your own sov.
Valenthe de Celine
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#388 - 2015-04-15 00:30:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Valenthe de Celine
Cade Windstalker wrote:
John Sharp wrote:
And the rewards for this work may not be worth the effort of groups that cannot have four hours of active members on every day just to keep that handful of trolls at bay.


Regarding this specifically. If you don't have enough active members for four hours a day to defend your sov you have no business holding Sov. Either get more members or go find something more casual. Really I hate the "filthy casuals" argument, but in this case if you're that small or inactive of an Alliance you're not large enough to hold your own sov.


That gets into another exclusionary statement, and that is if you're not able to have either a large enough or active enough group, holding SOV may not be for you. This is where other options can be worked instead, like renting in SOV space, or playing in other areas, or simply not trying to hold territory but instead operating with a nomadic or day-tripper mentality for your game play... not everything revolves around Nullsec and that territory, but that is where the largest economic superpowers gain their wealth.

Not everyone plays for the satisfaction of calling a system "home" and holding it against all comers. Find your own game if the burden of defending territory doesn't appeal to you, rather than trying to make SOV easier for everyone to hold.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#389 - 2015-04-15 00:42:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
John Sharp wrote:
... This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. ...
I think it will be worse than that. New era of "Throw away SOV" where:
Group A griefs group B until they get too annoyed and move out.
Group C move in and get griefed by group B.
Group C moves or some subsequent group people realise that no one wants to hold SOV so it becomes empty.

Meanwhile, Group B holds the moons the entire time.

Low Sec 2.0

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Cade Windstalker
#390 - 2015-04-15 00:53:07 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
John Sharp wrote:
... This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. ...
I think it will be worse than that. New era of "Throw away SOV" where:
Group A griefs group B until they get too annoyed and move out.
Group C move in and get griefed by group B.
Group C moves or some subsequent group people realise that no one wants to hold SOV so it becomes empty.

Meanwhile, Group B holds the moons the entire time.

Low Sec 2.0


Then what, exactly, is to stop Groups A and C going "this sucks, lets get-em" and blowing up all of Group B's Mining Arrays?

Also if Group B doesn't actually hold any assets (stations, ect) in the area then how are they so effectively harassing with power projection nerfed the way it is? Are they simply that large of a group and if so why don't they simply hold Sov to better defend their assets?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#391 - 2015-04-16 00:06:25 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
John Sharp wrote:
... This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. ...
I think it will be worse than that. New era of "Throw away SOV" where:
Group A griefs group B until they get too annoyed and move out.
Group C move in and get griefed by group B.
Group C moves or some subsequent group people realise that no one wants to hold SOV so it becomes empty.

Meanwhile, Group B holds the moons the entire time.

Low Sec 2.0


Then what, exactly, is to stop Groups A and C going "this sucks, lets get-em" and blowing up all of Group B's Mining Arrays?

Also if Group B doesn't actually hold any assets (stations, ect) in the area then how are they so effectively harassing with power projection nerfed the way it is? Are they simply that large of a group and if so why don't they simply hold Sov to better defend their assets?
Deep Null? Rorquals + POSes + ships + Clone Vat Bays

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Bowbndr
LightningStrikesTwice
Warped Intentions
#392 - 2015-04-16 05:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.

I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#393 - 2015-04-16 06:09:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Really now, haven't you seen the pre-emptive withdrawal from Fountain? :couldbetrap:

All your dyspro--dyspro are belong to us

CCP, pls.

CCP, listen pls - Remember when we had glorious CAOD? Right? PCUs were breaking record numbers, and soon peaked around 2011 when forums moved and CAOD ~disappeared~.

There's your chance to restore great order in the Force.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#394 - 2015-04-16 06:24:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Bowbndr wrote:
so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.

I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

if yure going to claim goons are trying to take all of null in any way, you might want to check news sites more often. I doubt dropping two regions from CFC (or Imperium as it is now) is the next step in their nullsec-domination plan. And with NC. dropping renters this is a prime time for the smaller dudes to swarm in and grab what they can hold.

And have you considered how many people will target the northern space, simply because they hate goons? I can see plenty of un-used space going either unclaimed or being flip-flopped depending on who shows up.
Cade Windstalker
#395 - 2015-04-16 09:32:35 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Then what, exactly, is to stop Groups A and C going "this sucks, lets get-em" and blowing up all of Group B's Mining Arrays?

Also if Group B doesn't actually hold any assets (stations, ect) in the area then how are they so effectively harassing with power projection nerfed the way it is? Are they simply that large of a group and if so why don't they simply hold Sov to better defend their assets?
Deep Null? Rorquals + POSes + ships + Clone Vat Bays


POSes are going away eventually with the new structures and their replacements will be subject to Entosis mechanics. If they have structures in the area then they're holding assets and those can be attacked and removed by the defenders to end the threat.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#396 - 2015-04-16 10:32:38 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.


5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#397 - 2015-04-16 11:20:49 UTC
What happens when more than 2 entities are contesting space? Like, what if a Goon wanted to run up/down a timer using an NPC corp alt to protect a Goon control point?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#398 - 2015-04-16 11:28:02 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
What happens when more than 2 entities are contesting space? Like, what if a Goon wanted to run up/down a timer using an NPC corp alt to protect a Goon control point?

The NPC Alt counts as an attacker, so runs the attackers timer. That's already been answered in the Dev blog. Only the owning alliance can run a defensive timer/link. Anyone else counts as an attacker, so yes, NPC Corp members can also break someone elses Sov. They still can't actually take it for themselves once it's in freeport mode of course, but they can run the first round of timers and force it into freeport (assuming Outpost).
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#399 - 2015-04-16 11:33:46 UTC
Anyone not actually in the defender's corp/alliance always counts as an attacker for the purposes of entosis links. You can bring in blues/alts to shoot people, but the links must be run by actual members of the defending group.

In most cases, multiple groups split into two teams: 'defenders' vs 'everybody else'. The big exception is a station in Freeport mode, where there are as many sides as there are entities contesting space - every group running an entosis link runs up their own timer and hurts everyone else's.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#400 - 2015-04-16 12:26:16 UTC
A Key to the Castle. I like it. Blink