Player Features and Ideas Discussion

*cough cough* supercaps online *cough*

The stats for the T1 module seem pretty good. The stats for the T2 version are completely off. 25km vs 250km, are you high?

The best way to determine who has grid control is by limiting the range on the module. If you've won the fight and have killed/chased off any fleet that actually poses a threat, why should you then give two ***** about some crap sitting 200km off? Restrict the range of the module to 25/30km (if not less), it forces you to slap your **** down on the ihub if you wish to RF it (which is only right).

You could potentially look at a speed reduction while the module is active (on top of the warping restriction). The key feature currently missing is risk - if you want to use the module, you should have to commit to it, and put assets at risk. Currently there is little risk if you can just kite while the 2 minutes run down and then warp off.

100m isk is literally an hour of ratting on an afk alt, i sneeze and more isk comes out my nose than that. Also, unless you have a dictor with perfect coordination and a good warpin at the instant you alpha the trollceptor, you're not catching that snaked pod.

Which, I would point out, is not promoting conflict. It's fighting kiting with boredom. You're just sitting there on the button, while he's sitting there a hundred kilometers away from the button, waiting until one of you gives up.

Great mechanic, bro. Such conflict, much meaningful.




Why should a solo interceptor be the deciding factor for control of an entire system? Or any factor at all?

remove interceptor bubble immunity

no ship should be uncatchable, and interceptors were already one of the safest ships to move around null with before the change. now they just completely overshadow all other frigates because they have a binary ability which the others cannot match

my kb has a lot of interceptors on it for the record [https://zkillboard.com/character/1107018389/topalltime/], and i really really don't think they need this to remain competitive. point range, mwd signature and (warp) speed are more than enough and it makes them idiot proof when before they took a little bit of brainpower

camping your own space to stop people from entosis linking should be effective. it makes gate choke points etc interesting - interceptors with bubble immunity just makes your camp irrelevant

t3s with warp immunity are a similar problem but at least they have a barrier to entry through expense and skills, and won't be as effective at disengaging when messed with once they do make it past your camp and onto the entosis beam thing. i'd like to seem them dealt with too but i don't feel like theyre as much as a problem as interceptors

What's stopping you from killing said interceptor.

I get the point but it goes both ways. Ultimately a interceptor is probably too strong of a ship for this module to be used with.

I was answering the claim of the guy who said you didn't have to.

The nature of entosis links is going to push alliances into very rigid doctrines that won't change except in the case of rebalancing. People will get bored of this very quickly.

Yep. Interceptors, and whatever counter they can devise against interceptors. Probably more interceptors.

Hey, isn't that the exact same problem people have with capitals? That their only counter is themselves?

The module itself i have no problem with. Sure, I prefer the old HP based system because I loved shooting at a structure for hours while BSing with my friends on Teamspeak. C'est la vie. That's not the point here.

However, I would limit the number of links on a structure to only a handful per alliance. Otherwise you're going to get every ship in the fleet with one so it takes forever to ensure the other side can't attack the sov later. In addition, I would recommend only ONE structure per solar system to be able to have an entosis link at a time. One the cycle is over, you can move to another one. This would eliminate the "bonus" large groups get when they can simply blitz all the structures in every system.


I'm more concerned over the "vulnerability" window which can be manipulated over DT to reduce the time players have to do the minigame. I'm also unsure about the mini-game. Honestly, if I wanted to do FW-esque stuff, I'd go to FW space and I woldn't be in nullsec. Also, this seems like this mini-game favors big blobs and thus does not help smaller groups gain sov as the dev blog would like to suggest.

All in all, while this may be seen as a good attempt to fix sov, I disagree. This does give a reason to OWN sov. The "you can make so much money doing anoms" is a terrible answer. You can make money in others sov space and force them out. Therefore I do not see this as a "positive" reason. Also, most alliances make their money off of renting systems or moon goo both of which are only loosely tied to sov. Personally, I do not support this change of Sov and would prefer it not in the game I intend to keep playing.