These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Entosis link fitting reqs

First post
Author
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#1 - 2015-03-03 22:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
If you haven't heard, sov is getting rebalanced this june.

While the dev blog outlining the changes has many ups and downs, and fails to address things like relying on mining usage indices for system tactical stats while null mining remains broken, the most important thing with the new capture mechanics are these drifter-tech derived Entosis links. Info can be found in the link below:

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/politics-by-other-means/#ENTOSIS

Currently, there is no data being supplied on the fitting reqs for these modules, and judging by how important they'll be for capping systems I'd like to recommend they be usable only by battlecruisers initially. While it would be acceptable later on as kinks in the new system are ironed out, keeping these new mods tied to battlecruisers does quite a few nice things from a balance standpoint:

-From a tech/lore standpoint, the hardware behind fitting warfare links can be most easily adapted to the new Entosis links, which are similar from an applied technology standpoint in terms of some form of cybernetic mental linking over distances.

-From a practical standpoint, battlecruisers are ideal since they don't have the mobility and extreme low cost of cruisers, destroyers, and frigates (especially interceptors with the bubble immunity), but are still much more mobile and significantly cheaper than a battleship or a capital.

-From a risk-reduction standpoint, it makes sense with the initial release to limit the kind of ships that can use this type of module. Keeping things low-risk and controlled from this setting allows the balance points of the larger sov overhaul that DO need looking at don't get hijacked or distorted by abuse from player tactics emerging from use of smaller ships and related gangs with unconventional tactics.
That is to say, it is much easier to get a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the new system from a dev standpoint if you have a stable metric to gauge what ships are being used to influence the system, and aren't abusing it in any way like bubble-immune interceptors would.

Thoughts? The dev blog is a BIG read, so please take your time.
Liam Inkuras
Wildcard.
Boundary Experts
#2 - 2015-03-03 22:23:22 UTC
"• Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot."

I reckon nearly all ships will be able to fit these.

I wear my goggles at night.

Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2015-03-03 22:34:16 UTC
It won't really matter. One will be fitted on an inty or other suitably fast ship that will warp in once the grid has been secured by pvp ships. This is something that only alts will do.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#4 - 2015-03-03 22:55:46 UTC
the specifics of the module still needs serious clarification imho.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#5 - 2015-03-03 23:06:31 UTC
Don't really have my head in the subject but isn't it a bit pointless having them time bonused on capitals (aside from possibly the odd emergency) people will just chuck em on something ultra cheap and deal with the extra time.

Assuming its not already a mechanic it would be better to make it so that certain things can only be taken with one on a capital ?
Arla Sarain
#6 - 2015-03-03 23:39:23 UTC
DAMPS/ECM > fast ships

No?
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#7 - 2015-03-04 00:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Liam Inkuras wrote:
"• Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot."

I reckon nearly all ships will be able to fit these.


Doesn't mean that they should. Inties fitting them is going to make the whole thing blow up in their face; they should be singled out and barred from using them. Bubble immunity means that they'd literally be the only ships worth using for the purpose of structure capping, so even if they end up allowing them on frigates (which they absolutely shouldn't), they should ensure that interceptors are unable to use them (or change inty bubble immunity in some way).
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#8 - 2015-03-04 00:30:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
It won't really matter. One will be fitted on an inty or other suitably fast ship that will warp in once the grid has been secured by pvp ships. This is something that only alts will do.

The main issue is that being able to slap them on cheap bubble-immune ships like interceptors will make it nearly impossible for groups to defend their space from wave after wave of interceptor mobs. In terms of fleet homogenization, it'll be horrible since people will either just fly t3s or interceptors. It would render bubble camping pointless since the new system doesn't rely on dps at all to affect sov in any way (what will become of capitals is a whole different thread topic), so there won't be any need for the types of ships that would get caught in a bubble anyway.

TLDR It skews the meta entirely in favor of bubble immune ships, and in terms of content and combat balancing, setting them on BC's only would help with a more organic and well-rounded approach to how fleets take systems in the future.
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#9 - 2015-03-04 00:54:27 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
It won't really matter. One will be fitted on an inty or other suitably fast ship that will warp in once the grid has been secured by pvp ships. This is something that only alts will do.

The main issue is that being able to slap them on cheap bubble-immune ships like interceptors will make it nearly impossible for groups to defend their space from wave after wave of interceptor mobs. In terms of fleet homogenization, it'll be horrible since people will either just fly t3s or interceptors. It would render bubble camping pointless since the new system doesn't rely on dps at all to affect sov in any way (what will become of capitals is a whole different thread topic), so there won't be any need for the types of ships that would get caught in a bubble anyway.

TLDR It skews the meta entirely in favor of bubble immune ships, and in terms of content and combat balancing, setting them on BC's only would help with a more organic and well-rounded approach to how fleets take systems in the future.



Not really bud, not the way I read the dev blog at least.

I think you're imagining that during these "capture events", Interceptors will just be able to fly into all the systems of a contellation, warp to the Command capture thing, and quickly cap it...

But are you forgetting that once activated, the Entosis linking ship can't warp or receive remote aid? So all you have to do to defend your Sov from single (or even gangs of) Interceptors is to go sit on the Command capture thing and deny the Interceptor from capping it. Even if the Inty gets there first (which we can assume they will), you just warp to the point, activate you own Entosis, and capping is paused.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#10 - 2015-03-04 01:32:54 UTC
Reina Xyaer wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
It won't really matter. One will be fitted on an inty or other suitably fast ship that will warp in once the grid has been secured by pvp ships. This is something that only alts will do.

The main issue is that being able to slap them on cheap bubble-immune ships like interceptors will make it nearly impossible for groups to defend their space from wave after wave of interceptor mobs. In terms of fleet homogenization, it'll be horrible since people will either just fly t3s or interceptors. It would render bubble camping pointless since the new system doesn't rely on dps at all to affect sov in any way (what will become of capitals is a whole different thread topic), so there won't be any need for the types of ships that would get caught in a bubble anyway.

TLDR It skews the meta entirely in favor of bubble immune ships, and in terms of content and combat balancing, setting them on BC's only would help with a more organic and well-rounded approach to how fleets take systems in the future.



Not really bud, not the way I read the dev blog at least.

I think you're imagining that during these "capture events", Interceptors will just be able to fly into all the systems of a contellation, warp to the Command capture thing, and quickly cap it...

But are you forgetting that once activated, the Entosis linking ship can't warp or receive remote aid? So all you have to do to defend your Sov from single (or even gangs of) Interceptors is to go sit on the Command capture thing and deny the Interceptor from capping it. Even if the Inty gets there first (which we can assume they will), you just warp to the point, activate you own Entosis, and capping is paused.

And at that point it becomes a numbers game, so the attack force will just keep blobbing with cheap crap that they can get there expediently. Unless i've been reading it wrong and just one defender can keep it paused, and the focus becomes clearing the field. If so, i apologize and rescind my earlier doomsaying.
Aran Hotchkiss
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#11 - 2015-03-04 01:43:53 UTC
I'm fairly certain that's the case - a single Astarte could sit 250km away with a t2 entisols and stall all progress (chose an Astarte because it has a considerable local active tank etc)

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#12 - 2015-03-04 01:44:13 UTC
HEY....i have a qustion how about putting this stuff in the intended Feedback thread?

I only skimmed this one....and what i saw was more speculation or discussion that belongs there than here in F&I.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#13 - 2015-03-04 12:26:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
As there already is a thread on the same topic, this one gets a lock.

Thread locked.

The Rules:
17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.

As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss.
If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost.
Please keep discussion regarding a topic to a single thread.



Please keep the feedback concentrated in that thread. Rest assured every single feedback post in that thread will be read by CCP. (And me for that matter).

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)