These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#461 - 2015-04-29 06:02:24 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I think the best tactics will be hell gate camping but that is more boring than mining ... or ... just don't bother defending at all.
Neat thing is you don't have to do any of that. You can just sit and do things until the notification pops up and then you know he's bit the hook. No chance of warping off into the sunset when you are strapped to a structure.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Stage out of Low Sec or NPC Null Sec then let them flip the station. Then later go and annoy them instead. If they come out looking for a fight, deny them the fight, warp off, cloak up and wait.

They decide to do some ratting? Drop a bubble on the undock and kill them.
Not sure how thats any different from current sov. I would argue its not even related to sov. Camping undocks and running away when the heat shows up is something you can do right now.

They're casting spells on the structure? Looks like they've put their ass on the table, so it's time to go for the kill, or wait until the next timer, if you're unlucky enough yo lose the fight.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
It is going to be far easier under Fozzie SOV to get people to give up and leave you alone if you make them try and defend this junk.

Oh dear, it looks like people are actually going to have to defend their space instead of waiting the better part of a week to batphone as many dudes as possible. Poor (former) sov owners. Maybe it's time to start condensing.

It will become quite difficult to troll someone's space when there are over a dozen people in system.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#462 - 2015-04-29 06:10:31 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I think the best tactics will be hell gate camping but that is more boring than mining ... or ... just don't bother defending at all.

Stage out of Low Sec or NPC Null Sec then let them flip the station. Then later go and annoy them instead. If they come out looking for a fight, deny them the fight, warp off, cloak up and wait.

They decide to do some ratting? Drop a bubble on the undock and kill them.

It is going to be far easier under Fozzie SOV to get people to give up and leave you alone if you make them try and defend this junk.

It will probably be camping etc. That's the sort of thing that works in FW/plexsov

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 ?

token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
#463 - 2015-04-29 12:14:25 UTC
I don't really do null, but the concern in general seems to be over small, fast ships ducking in and out. Why not just make it like the other siege-y things and give the ship using the module a velocity penalty of -100%. Sure, you can get into a system easily on an interceptor, but you're not speed tanking anything if you can't move. Or, you know, give a static sig penalty and speed reduction so small ships are possible to hit before they inevitably warp out and pen15 in local.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#464 - 2015-04-30 01:42:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
token trade alt wrote:
I don't really do null, but the concern in general seems to be over small, fast ships ducking in and out. Why not just make it like the other siege-y things and give the ship using the module a velocity penalty of -100%. Sure, you can get into a system easily on an interceptor, but you're not speed tanking anything if you can't move. Or, you know, give a static sig penalty and speed reduction so small ships are possible to hit before they inevitably warp out and pen15 in local.
People doing their quiet ratting in a pocket or two, others are in the next region over providing content to a neighbour. A gang comes out of a worm hole into a string of travel systems, quietly puts up a heck of a lot of warp disruption bubbles then sets off timers just to grief people.
By the time people get to the system, through all the bubbles the attackers are back on the other side of the now collapsed worm hole link.

However, spies now notify larger entities that a string of systems have been flagged up, so they go and add their harrassment when the timers come due.

Rinse and repeat with variations until you have less space than you need for your ratters or you are fed up and staging out of Low Sec / NPC Nulll Sec.

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.

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#465 - 2015-04-30 14:57:58 UTC
token trade alt wrote:
I don't really do null, but the concern in general seems to be over small, fast ships ducking in and out. Why not just make it like the other siege-y things and give the ship using the module a velocity penalty of -100%. Sure, you can get into a system easily on an interceptor, but you're not speed tanking anything if you can't move. Or, you know, give a static sig penalty and speed reduction so small ships are possible to hit before they inevitably warp out and pen15 in local.


You need to get used to the idea that this system is designed for people who like 'content'. Either the attacker gets 'content', or they get your space. Or both. Maybe with Lazors.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#466 - 2015-04-30 17:44:53 UTC
token trade alt wrote:
I don't really do null, but the concern in general seems to be over small, fast ships ducking in and out. Why not just make it like the other siege-y things and give the ship using the module a velocity penalty of -100%. Sure, you can get into a system easily on an interceptor, but you're not speed tanking anything if you can't move. Or, you know, give a static sig penalty and speed reduction so small ships are possible to hit before they inevitably warp out and pen15 in local.


I feel like it's worth mentioning that the T2 link will only really be feasible on a cruiser and up, and the T1 link keeps your frighteningly close to the structure. Interceptors will be well within rapid light missile and light drone range, and with the mass increase they'll be easier to hit. Cruisers can sit out at extreme ranges, but only T3's have the nullification, which would make harassing with them expensive, and they can easily be chased down by microwarping frigates to provide a nice warpin.

Any other ship is vulnerable to warp disruption bubbles and therefore gate camps protecting your borders should keep you at least aware of where threats are.

Wormholes obviously provide a path around that, but that's just more content for everyone involved.

I really like what I've read here and I think I might return to 0.0 to participate in sov warfare once more.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#467 - 2015-04-30 19:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenika
ECM is going to be stupidly powerful against these suckers. If I'm running 3 ECMs with only a 5% jam chance each (example, my Falcon against a sensor strength ~300, or an unbonused ECM against 72-90 strength on-racial or 24-30 off-racial, depending on skill in Signal Dispersion), which is really easy to reach, I'd have a 60% chance of jamming a target at least once in a 2 minutes period.

And that's with only 3 ECMs with a 5% jam chance each. In a more realistic scenario (say, a Falcon with a full rack of 6 on-racial jams from a depot and Information booster links, ~17 jam strength per jammer) against a local ECCM'd HAC (~50 strength), I'd have a 99.99997% (yes, really) chance of jamming him at least once in that 2 minute warm-up period. Alternatively, I could just wait for him to finish the warm-up, then start jamming, and still have a 99.3% chance of jamming him within the first 20 seconds of his actual progress cycle. Now he spent 4 minutes (and 2 cycles of fuel) to gain maybe 1% progress (~5 seconds, since there's about a 95% probability of a jam on the first cycle) toward capture of the target.

Unless they block external EWAR (jams and damps, not neuts), ECM is going to be essentially a hard counter to these. I mean, even without warfare links, a pair of Falcons could decloak, lock, jam, and warp to safe in under 12 seconds, from 90km away (1 falloff out of optimal = 50% "miss" chance), and have a 95% probability of disrupting the link with essentially no chance of reprisal.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#468 - 2015-04-30 19:36:13 UTC
Daenika wrote:
ECM is going to be stupidly powerful against these suckers. If I'm running 3 ECMs with only a 5% jam chance each (example, my Falcon against a sensor strength ~300, or an unbonused ECM against 72-90 strength on-racial or 24-30 off-racial, depending on skill in Signal Dispersion), which is really easy to reach, I'd have a 60% chance of jamming a target at least once in a 2 minutes period.

And that's with only 3 ECMs with a 5% jam chance each. In a more realistic scenario (say, a Falcon with a full rack of 6 on-racial jams from a depot and Information booster links, ~17 jam strength per jammer) against a local ECCM'd HAC (~50 strength), I'd have a 99.99997% (yes, really) chance of jamming him at least once in that 2 minute warm-up period. Alternatively, I could just wait for him to finish the warm-up, then start jamming, and still have a 99.3% chance of jamming him within the first 20 seconds of his actual progress cycle. Now he spent 4 minutes (and 2 cycles of fuel) to gain maybe 1% progress (~5 seconds, since there's about a 95% probability of a jam on the first cycle) toward capture of the target.

Unless they block external EWAR (jams and damps, not neuts), ECM is going to be essentially a hard counter to these. I mean, even without warfare links, a pair of Falcons could decloak, lock, jam, and warp to safe in under 12 seconds, from 90km away (1 falloff out of optimal = 50% "miss" chance), and have a 95% probability of disrupting the link with essentially no chance of reprisal.

Ewar works two ways, so having a maulus handy would definitely make it less of an issue off the bat.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#469 - 2015-05-01 05:18:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenika
Quote:
Ewar works two ways, so having a maulus handy would definitely make it less of an issue off the bat.


As usual, damps are a hard counter to jam sniping. However, a Maulus by default only has an 80km lock range, and even at perfect skills only reduces the lock range of a Falcon to about 75km with a single damp. If a pair of Falcons decloak, the Maulus will almost certainly lock them before they lock the Entosis ship, but only if the Falcons are in range (and they can jam reasonable effectively out to even 100-110km). If the Falcons are in close enough for the Maulus to damp, a single damp won't do the trick anyway, and the Maulus can only carry 3 (plus prop mod).

And that's with perfect damping skills. A Keres would have a better time of it, of course, as would either of the Recons, but the point remains. I'm not saying that ECM is without counter, but the decloak-jam-warp concept using a gang of 1-3 Falcons can basically completely block the Entosis with no need to control the grid, without a very specific counter being deployed just to block that sort of attack. Would seem to me that the link should carry with it EWAR immunity.
Wanda Fayne
#470 - 2015-05-01 06:10:13 UTC
Daenika wrote:
Quote:
Ewar works two ways, so having a maulus handy would definitely make it less of an issue off the bat.


As usual, damps are a hard counter to jam sniping. However, a Maulus by default only has an 80km lock range, and even at perfect skills only reduces the lock range of a Falcon to about 75km with a single damp. If a pair of Falcons decloak, the Maulus will almost certainly lock them before they lock the Entosis ship, but only if the Falcons are in range (and they can jam reasonable effectively out to even 100-110km). If the Falcons are in close enough for the Maulus to damp, a single damp won't do the trick anyway, and the Maulus can only carry 3 (plus prop mod).

And that's with perfect damping skills. A Keres would have a better time of it, of course, as would either of the Recons, but the point remains. I'm not saying that ECM is without counter, but the decloak-jam-warp concept using a gang of 1-3 Falcons can basically completely block the Entosis with no need to control the grid, without a very specific counter being deployed just to block that sort of attack. Would seem to me that the link should carry with it EWAR immunity.


It sounds like your ECM opposition is specifically to thwart the entosis ship. It would logically fall upon the entosis force to anticipate different defensive strategies and include these in their own strategies. This is sound gameplay and quite possible. The defender should have full use of their ship abilities; ewar should be a valid mechanic to counter the entosis link by breaking the target lock of the ship using it.

Further, could this ewar immunity granted to the entosis-enabled ship not be exploitable in other scenarios?

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#471 - 2015-05-01 06:37:18 UTC
Daenika wrote:
ECM is going to be stupidly powerful against these suckers. If I'm running 3 ECMs with only a 5% jam chance each (example, my Falcon against a sensor strength ~300, or an unbonused ECM against 72-90 strength on-racial or 24-30 off-racial, depending on skill in Signal Dispersion), which is really easy to reach, I'd have a 60% chance of jamming a target at least once in a 2 minutes period.

And that's with only 3 ECMs with a 5% jam chance each. In a more realistic scenario (say, a Falcon with a full rack of 6 on-racial jams from a depot and Information booster links, ~17 jam strength per jammer) against a local ECCM'd HAC (~50 strength), I'd have a 99.99997% (yes, really) chance of jamming him at least once in that 2 minute warm-up period. Alternatively, I could just wait for him to finish the warm-up, then start jamming, and still have a 99.3% chance of jamming him within the first 20 seconds of his actual progress cycle. Now he spent 4 minutes (and 2 cycles of fuel) to gain maybe 1% progress (~5 seconds, since there's about a 95% probability of a jam on the first cycle) toward capture of the target.

Unless they block external EWAR (jams and damps, not neuts), ECM is going to be essentially a hard counter to these. I mean, even without warfare links, a pair of Falcons could decloak, lock, jam, and warp to safe in under 12 seconds, from 90km away (1 falloff out of optimal = 50% "miss" chance), and have a 95% probability of disrupting the link with essentially no chance of reprisal.


You like Jammin', don't you. Smile
Uncle Dunk
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#472 - 2015-05-01 09:57:12 UTC
I propose a very small change to fozziesov that in my view will greatly benefit the sovsystem. It is a look at the capture mechanic. So before you get out your pitchforks and tie me to the front of your leet slicer, hear me out.
I feel there is one fatal flaw in the Fozziesov model that takes it in the wrong direction. You probably overlooked this part as you were skimming to the entosis link:

"If nobody shows up to defend or attack a capture event, or if the involved parties are perfectly matched, the event can go on indefinitely" ~Fozziesov

So let's say 1 guy starts the capture mechanic and successfully reinforces a structure. 48 hours later the alliance has to show up for the capture mechanic if they want to keep their sov.
Now let's set aside why we would want sov and just assume that we would like to keep our Name on the Map™. I would have to send out guys to capture the command nodes when the structure comes out of reinforce.

This guy who initiated the capture mechanic just made 5 members in my alliance waste at least 30min (~fozziesov) getting a system back that we supposedly already owned, without any commitment on his part aside from successfully reinforcing my structure 48 hours prior. No fights are guaranteed when my alliance members spend time recapturing, no fun. Even the elusive "professional miner" that apparently gets a hard-on lazoring things will not find minerals in his hold, which I assume to be tiny orgasms for them.

So shut up and tell me your idea...

If the first five command nodes are not captured within a timeframe the same as the primetime-window (so hopefully determined by indices or not-so hopefully the original 4 hours), the system resets to the defender. So the reset will never be in the defenders prime time, but you can still capture the structure quickly if you want it as an attacker.
This also opens up a whole new level of meta. Firstly, defenders have more flexibility when they are not being forced to capture command nodes at any point.

Secondly, if an attack is thought to be a "troll-reinforce" it could turn out to be covering fo an actual incoming attack by a bigger entity. Instead of the defenders forcibly being there and calling for reinforcements, they could have chosen to ignore the spawn of the nodes entirely and be caught off-guard. There will be panic all around, but you won't have to alarmclock to experience this panic as it is still your primetime(-ish). It will be glorious.

This is of course a buff for the defender, or is it? It is a buff for the defender in case the attacker is not actually attacking, so should you even be forced to defend then? It is a change that's skips the whole mechanic that is suppose to encourage fighting and keep things interesting, when there is just the well-thought-of, but boring in itself, sovmechanic and no fight taking place.

Please tell me why my idea is stupid.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#473 - 2015-05-01 15:57:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenika
Quote:
It sounds like your ECM opposition is specifically to thwart the entosis ship. It would logically fall upon the entosis force to anticipate different defensive strategies and include these in their own strategies. This is sound gameplay and quite possible. The defender should have full use of their ship abilities; ewar should be a valid mechanic to counter the entosis link by breaking the target lock of the ship using it.


The only problem I have with it is that the Entosis Link is stuck in the "on" state until it finishes cycling. If you jam the ship 10 seconds in, they are still stuck there for another 2 or 5 minutes, unable to warp, not affecting the capture target (with another 2/5 minute warm-up before they can), with a penalty to agility and no possible remote assistance. Just from one simple jam. No other module in the game has that much penalty from a jam. The only other module in the game that anchors you in place that doesn't provide EWAR immunity is using the bubble on a HIC, and that doesn't require a target. Siege and Triage both make you immune to EWAR (and remote assistance), and Titans are simply naturally immune to it (since their DD anchors).

I see EWAR immunity as the simplest option, tbh. The other option is to make a successful jam instantly end the cycle, but that's exploitable in the other direction (friendly jams to quickly end a cycle and save the link ship). EWAR immunity would only be exploitable insofar as fleets near one of those modules could all fit and activate Entosis Links to block hostile EWAR, but since that also blocks friendly assistance, prevents a fair amount of tactical movement, and requires either a fairly significant chunk of cap and PG or requires the target to remain in a fairly limited range of the Entosis targe, I don't really see this as much of an exploit. It's also worth noting that it's a very valid tactic to have many ships activate links on the target as a way of increasing the number of ships that need to be killed to shut down progress, and reducing the impacting of losing any single Link ship. Logi could potentially use it to prevent EWAR, but the cap/PG penalty or the range restriction (not to mention the block on incoming cap transfers!) would end up being painful, as would the block on warping.

I just seems the best of all options to block EWAR with the link active. The alternative of letting a single ECM completely screw a person out of 4-10 minutes of time (since a jam within the first 5-10 seconds of the second cycle is essentially just as effective as jamming during the first) is just too powerful.

And I say that as someone who preferentially flies Falcons as my standard cloaky and Blops ship. I will admit that part of this is self serving, however: I foresee the potency of ECM on these links causing a massive increase to the already annoyingly large outcry against ECM. I'm trying to address the issue before the solution becomes "nerf ECM into the ground".

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
You like Jammin', don't you. Smile


It's my dearest love, actually (seriously, 10.7m SPs in Electronics)
Jenshae Chiroptera
#474 - 2015-05-02 01:03:00 UTC
What is stopping a Falcon from waving a magic wand and jamming the defenders?

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.

Wanda Fayne
#475 - 2015-05-02 02:26:39 UTC
Daenika wrote:

I just seems the best of all options to block EWAR with the link active. The alternative of letting a single ECM completely screw a person out of 4-10 minutes of time (since a jam within the first 5-10 seconds of the second cycle is essentially just as effective as jamming during the first) is just too powerful.

And I say that as someone who preferentially flies Falcons as my standard cloaky and Blops ship. I will admit that part of this is self serving, however: I foresee the potency of ECM on these links causing a massive increase to the already annoyingly large outcry against ECM. I'm trying to address the issue before the solution becomes "nerf ECM into the ground".


I see your points. But still think that it goes too far in what you propose.

As stated in the design goals:
"The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."

Now, lets say I escort my entosis ship with, hmmm, 2 or 3 Keres with a sebo on each. We will most likely lock and nullify your Falcons tactic with little difficulty. This was just my first thought, I have no doubt other counters would be readily applied as well.

If the entosis-enable ship had a natural resistance to EWAR like a Marauder for example, then that would be conferred by the ship. The link itself should not have that effect on the ship in my opinion.

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#476 - 2015-05-02 14:07:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenika
Wanda Fayne wrote:
I see your points. But still think that it goes too far in what you propose.

As stated in the design goals:
"The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."

Now, lets say I escort my entosis ship with, hmmm, 2 or 3 Keres with a sebo on each. We will most likely lock and nullify your Falcons tactic with little difficulty. This was just my first thought, I have no doubt other counters would be readily applied as well.

If the entosis-enable ship had a natural resistance to EWAR like a Marauder for example, then that would be conferred by the ship. The link itself should not have that effect on the ship in my opinion.


Definitely valid, though Keres can be instablapped from extremely long range by a couple Naga (or a bombing run). I just still feel the penalty is too large for the commitment of effort.

Perhaps make it so that losing targeting doesn't instantly kill the Link, but instead only kills it if they fail to relock the target node by the time the link finishes? That would put a much narrower time period in which an ECM would ruin the link (only in the *last* 20 seconds, so they don't have to sit there for up to five minutes after being jammed), and also makes ECM->scan res damp a *very* valid tactic (and that requires they stay on grid).

Also worth noting that damps have only a 45km optimal (+90km falloff) at perfect skills in a Keres, so at 90km they have a ~15% miss chance already, and all the Falcons need is a single successful jam.

Quote:
What is stopping a Falcon from waving a magic wand and jamming the defenders?


Because ECMs only last 20 seconds? The issue is that a single successful jam on the Entosis ship completely destroys that entire Entosis cycle without actually ending the cycle time. It's a punishment disproportionate to the commitment by the EWAR ship.
Wanda Fayne
#477 - 2015-05-02 16:43:53 UTC
Daenika wrote:
The issue is that a single successful jam on the Entosis ship completely destroys that entire Entosis cycle without actually ending the cycle time. It's a punishment disproportionate to the commitment by the EWAR ship.


This is your issue. How do you fix this, without it being abused by the attacker to "bail out" of an entosis cycle?

Quote:
Perhaps make it so that losing targeting doesn't instantly kill the Link, but instead only kills it if they fail to relock the target node by the time the link finishes?


This is a better solution. The effect of the entosis link on the timer must be suspended as well while target lock is lost.
It does fall within the design goalsSmile

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Newt BlackCompany
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#478 - 2015-05-08 10:26:51 UTC
Can the Entosis link be used to target a POS?

It'd be a great way to eliminate all those dead sticks out there, but could have some unintended consequences...
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#479 - 2015-05-08 21:39:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
One thing I'd like to see a clarification on, which multiple people have discussed, is the role and effectiveness of EWAR against Entosis mechanics - both during the warmup cycle, and post-warmup cycles.

From the op post:

Quote:


  • Requires a target lock on the structure to have any impact
  • While the module is active, your ship is unable to cloak, warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance. There is no way to get rid of the module penalties early except for losing your ship
  • The first cycle of the module is always a "warmup cycle" and has no impact. If you lose lock or the module is disabled for any reason, you'll need to go through that warmup cycle again before you can continue exerting any influence over the structure
  • Other than that warmup cycle, the cycle time of the module does not impact how long it takes to capture a structure. Once you're past the warmup cycle all that matters is that your module stays active



So during the warmup cycle, you must maintain a lock on the structure. That sounds reasonable. Because you can't receive remote assistance, you can't receive Remote Sensor Boosters to increase range when using the T2, or Remote ECCM to counter ECM jamming attempts. This means EWAR can be used against you to break your lock and you would have to fit your own countermeasures on your ship, such as ECCM or Sensor Boosters. There are both mid and low slot modules for these, so it's fairly balanced to take this into consideration, although armor setups will have a slight advantage as the midslot versions have a higher bonus.

So far so good. Where I see a concern is the first point - "Requires a target lock on the structure to have any impact". If this applies post-warmup, you still need to maintain a lock on the structure to continue Entosis, this means one lucky jam will reset all progress and you will have to re-lock the target and start the warmup cycle over again. If all progress can be reset by one lucky jam, that seems overpowered and an easy strategy to abuse.

Can we confirm if post-warmup cycle, the target lock on the structure is still required to exert influence on the structure? I would prefer to see that once you are successfully "linked" to the structure by completing the warmup cycle, that "all that matters is that your module stays active". This would mean that all the ship with the Entosis module needs to do after the warmup cycle is stay on grid within range of the structure for the module to continue to cycle, and tank any incoming damage without being able to receive remote assistance.

This gives a window to disrupt any new Entosis attempts during the warm-up cycle with EWAR, but if the warmup cycle completes successfully, the strategy then changes to pressuring the linked ship with enough damage to voluntarily end the Entosis cycle so it can warp off or receive remote assistance, or risk being destroyed before ending cycle. If the ship does come out of Entosis to receive reps, it is then vulnerable again to EWAR as it goes through the new warmup cycle. This seems fairly balanced to me.

Having the target lock be irrelvant after warmup also makes refitting during an Entosis attempt an interesting dynamic. After the warmup stage completes, refitting EWAR countermeasure modules for more tank could be favorable. If this is something that could be abused, we may want to look at disabling refitting while an Entosis module is active.

The other slim use case I was thinking about was using Mauraders in Bastion Mode to initiate the warmup cycle. Since they are immune to EWAR while in Bastion Mode and receive increased tank for 60 seconds, the survivability of completing a 2x Bastion Mode Cycle with a T2 Entosis Module would be fairly high without enough DPS on field to pressure the battleship. Although not a common occurrence, Remote ECCM Burst from Supercaps can still disable a target lock on targets normally immune to EWAR.

Just some other things to think about when considering the role of EWAR in the Entosis mechanics.
Wanda Fayne
#480 - 2015-05-08 23:39:48 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
One thing I'd like to see a clarification on, which multiple people have discussed, is the role and effectiveness of EWAR against Entosis mechanics - both during the warmup cycle, and post-warmup cycles.

From the op post:

Quote:


  • Requires a target lock on the structure to have any impact
  • While the module is active, your ship is unable to cloak, warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance. There is no way to get rid of the module penalties early except for losing your ship
  • The first cycle of the module is always a "warmup cycle" and has no impact. If you lose lock or the module is disabled for any reason, you'll need to go through that warmup cycle again before you can continue exerting any influence over the structure
  • Other than that warmup cycle, the cycle time of the module does not impact how long it takes to capture a structure. Once you're past the warmup cycle all that matters is that your module stays active



So during the warmup cycle, you must maintain a lock on the structure. That sounds reasonable. Because you can't receive remote assistance, you can't receive Remote Sensor Boosters to increase range when using the T2, or Remote ECCM to counter ECM jamming attempts. This means EWAR can be used against you to break your lock and you would have to fit your own countermeasures on your ship, such as ECCM or Sensor Boosters. There are both mid and low slot modules for these, so it's fairly balanced to take this into consideration, although armor setups will have a slight advantage as the midslot versions have a higher bonus.

So far so good. Where I see a concern is the first point - "Requires a target lock on the structure to have any impact". If this applies post-warmup, you still need to maintain a lock on the structure to continue Entosis, this means one lucky jam will reset all progress and you will have to re-lock the target and start the warmup cycle over again. If all progress can be reset by one lucky jam, that seems overpowered and an easy strategy to abuse.

Can we confirm if post-warmup cycle, the target lock on the structure is still required to exert influence on the structure? I would prefer to see that once you are successfully "linked" to the structure by completing the warmup cycle, that "all that matters is that your module stays active". This would mean that all the ship with the Entosis module needs to do after the warmup cycle is stay on grid within range of the structure for the module to continue to cycle, and tank any incoming damage without being able to receive remote assistance.

This gives a window to disrupt any new Entosis attempts during the warm-up cycle with EWAR, but if the warmup cycle completes successfully, the strategy then changes to pressuring the linked ship with enough damage to voluntarily end the Entosis cycle so it can warp off or receive remote assistance, or risk being destroyed before ending cycle. If the ship does come out of Entosis to receive reps, it is then vulnerable again to EWAR as it goes through the new warmup cycle. This seems fairly balanced to me.

Having the target lock be irrelvant after warmup also makes refitting during an Entosis attempt an interesting dynamic. After the warmup stage completes, refitting EWAR countermeasure modules for more tank could be favorable. If this is something that could be abused, we may want to look at disabling refitting while an Entosis module is active.

The other slim use case I was thinking about was using Mauraders in Bastion Mode to initiate the warmup cycle. Since they are immune to EWAR while in Bastion Mode and receive increased tank for 60 seconds, the survivability of completing a 2x Bastion Mode Cycle with a T2 Entosis Module would be fairly high without enough DPS on field to pressure the battleship. Although not a common occurrence, Remote ECCM Burst from Supercaps can still disable a target lock on targets normally immune to EWAR.

Just some other things to think about when considering the role of EWAR in the Entosis mechanics.


Losing target lock post-warmup does not reset the timer progress, it only stops it. It does force the attacker to have multiple entosis-enabled links and/or repeat the warmup process to continue.

As far as "staying on grid", I have seen grids stretched over thousands of km's. Is this what you want to allow in this mechanic? Grid-fu is not new and not difficult to achieve.

The mechanic change you propose takes strategies out of the battle. Ewar doesn't just favor the defender, it can also be used by the attacker (and should be anticipated) in the strategy. If Ewar itself is unbalanced that is a completely different mechanic change to consider.

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-