These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#41 - 2015-03-09 13:45:12 UTC
Jaro Essa wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid.

You won't have to kill the interceptor. With your own entosis link active on the structure or command node, no progress can be made towards the timer. Though, if you can't kill one interceptor, why should you have sov?.

Sure, but no progress in either direction would be made while both links were active. You just reach a stalemate, where your fleet is rendered useless by a single interceptor, burning at 7-8km/s at 100-150km. That's just dumb mechanics.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#42 - 2015-03-09 13:45:47 UTC
To be more clear; "yes" is a perfectly valid answer to the question of "can interceptors fit the entosis link?" It's the NOT KNOWING that is poisoning the conversation.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2015-03-09 13:46:04 UTC
Anya Solette wrote:
afkalt wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.

They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.



A 100m isk, 2k EHP ship with a billion isk pod?

I'm sure they'll be ten-a-penny Roll


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.


Because totally no-one runs smartbomb camps. No-one.

These will definitely not increase in popularity if snaked pods become "normal". Nope.
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#44 - 2015-03-09 13:46:19 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.

They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.


fortunately you don't have to hit a trollceptor to stop it, just activate your own link.

Yet again, this doesn't fit the effective military control of the grid.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#45 - 2015-03-09 13:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
So, sounds to me like what you really have in mind is inviting the coalitions to fight more often by lowering their risk. For the past year, they haven't wanted to fight because B-R was just too damn expensive.

Taking military control of a grid will just come down to who can throw the most numbers at it, and afford the most entosis links, to, as someone said above, "suicide". Taking control of ten connected systems at once, well, who does that favor?

It might instigate more fights, and more system ping-pong, because it'll cost less than risking the loss of many titans and supers.

The "trollcepter" is a troll. Don't fall for the bait. In a system that is empty, or one that is occupied by renters that dock up every time they see a neutral in local, they'd be effective, and they ought to be. In defended systems where the defenders have a clue, they won't, and they certainly won't be for actually capturing anything.

The play for most folks outside the coalitions will be to just pay hit-and-run from NPC space and help the coalitions along toward burning each other out.
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2015-03-09 13:46:43 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
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.


I'm curious to know if CCP have considered different sizes of Entosis Link. For example:

Small Entosis Link (frigates / destroyers): 25km-40km range
Medium Entosis Link (cruisers / BCs): 40km-75km range
Large Entosis Link (battleships): 75-125km range
XL Entosis Link (capitals): 125km+ range
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#47 - 2015-03-09 13:47:13 UTC
You have two huge issues you need to address for sure before this stuff goes live:


1. If some linked nano 7km/s ship can operate this module people will abuse it.

2. If blobbing with 200 jamming frigs can prevent a non-blob entity from activating their Entosis links the blobbing entities will abuse it.


After you figure these things out can you think about how you will rebalance anomalies in nullsec to make it actually worth living there and to make systems below -.5 truesec actually able to support enough pilots for an occupancy based sov system to be viable?
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#48 - 2015-03-09 13:48:14 UTC
Trollceptor will not be an issue. All it takes to kill one is some pre-made bookmarks around his sov structure by the defender and a 15 mil destroyer.

It will be only a "issue" if there is no one present in local but in that case it is already irrelevant what kind of ship is used for attack as the defender is not present anyway to contest it.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2015-03-09 13:48:45 UTC
Quesa wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.

They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.


fortunately you don't have to hit a trollceptor to stop it, just activate your own link.

Yet again, this doesn't fit the effective military control of the grid.



Neither does not being able to kill an interceptor.
Dave Stark
#50 - 2015-03-09 13:49:07 UTC
Assassn Gallic wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.

They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.


fortunately you don't have to hit a trollceptor to stop it, just activate your own link.


Except that doesn't "stop" the interceptor, it negates it until one of the two get bored and leave. That's not how sov should be working, you fight for your space not kite for your space.


when i said "stop it" i meant "it" as caputring sov, not "it" as the ship.
LT Alter
Ryba.
White Squall.
#51 - 2015-03-09 13:49:26 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:

Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it.


While I understand your point of 'anything to win', even with current mechanics you'll never be able to send suicide fleets with the entotis link to win. All the enemy has to do is contest with 1 entosis link and suddenly your 500 are not doing anything.

This is one of the good things with the idea of the entosis link, it's less of a numbers war than it used to be. Number will always affect the outcome but you can't just win by having more alts than me. (An ironic statement for me to make since I'm on the higher end when it comes to number of alt accounts).
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#52 - 2015-03-09 13:49:52 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Trollceptor will not be an issue. All it takes to kill one is some pre-made bookmarks around his sov structure by the defender and a 15 mil destroyer.

It will be only a "issue" if there is no one present in local but in that case it is already irrelevant what kind of ship is used for attack as the defender is not present anyway to contest it.

Because of all the premade bookmarks people will have around a randomly generated command node amirite
Jaro Essa
Dahkur Forge
#53 - 2015-03-09 13:50:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaro Essa
Arkon Olacar wrote:
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?

You shouldn't give a crap. Nor should you cry about it either. Just bring one guy in a Maulus.

Arkon Olacar wrote:
Sure, but no progress in either direction would be made while both links were active. You just reach a stalemate, where your fleet is rendered useless by a single interceptor, burning at 7-8km/s at 100-150km. That's just dumb mechanics.

Bring a Maulus and damp it. Or bring a Griffin and jam it. Or bring a Svipul and chase it. Or bring another interceptor and catch it. Or bring the Ishtars you're already sitting in and blap it. The possibilities are endless.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#54 - 2015-03-09 13:50:38 UTC
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
You have two huge issues you need to address for sure before this stuff goes live:


1. If some linked nano 7km/s ship can operate this module people will abuse it.

2. If blobbing with 200 jamming frigs can prevent a non-blob entity from activating their Entosis links the blobbing entities will abuse it.


After you figure these things out can you think about how you will rebalance anomalies in nullsec to make it actually worth living there and to make systems below -.5 truesec actually able to support enough pilots for an occupancy based sov system to be viable?



If one side brings 200 ships to fight a smaller number of opposing ships he should have some advantage. There is ways around 200 jamming/damping ships. Snipers, for example as ECM range is limited.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#55 - 2015-03-09 13:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
I have always believed that there needs to be a risk to the asset deployed for the taking/defending of sovereignty to be a worthwhile process for both attacker and defender. Trollcepters don't really risk an asset to mess with Sov as they are incredibly fast warping and nullfied. These two attributes combined on a ship offer an incredible amount of power if they are also able to exert sovereignty pressure with the proposed system.

I would suggest that a few modifications be made to the Entosis mod that will disallow the use of any prop mod OR be locked in place for the duration of the Entosis cycle (much like a cyno). This would force an attacker/defender to risk an asset, which is and has to continue to be part of the sovereignty mechanics. Even if the above were implimented, it would not hamper ones ability to take sov from an AFK alliance.

As an aside, I also feel that the 250k range on the T2 variant is a bit extreme given the proposed 25km range of the T1 variant. It was such a large disparity that me and a few of the people I was discussing it with determined that it had to be a misprint. I could be wrong but I can't find any T1 to T2 stat changes being ten fold and it might be better to reduce the effective range to something like 50-100km.
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#56 - 2015-03-09 13:52:08 UTC
Constructive and well written post, Fozzie, let's give some specific feedback.

1. the biggest issue I can see is a range of 250km of the T2 variation. It's a) not in line with the usual T1/T2 differences (a 10x better main attribute) and b) is it messing up with the "control" of the grid. Limiting the T1 version to 50km and the T2 version to 75km is keeping everything on fightable grid, removing the need for sniper entosis and anti-snipers. This is also going to remove the biggest issues with small-scale ships trolling around, any halfway-decent sov holder should be able to deal with this and this also forces people to bring a fleet capable of fighting a skirmish over the structure (attacker and defender).

2. shipclass restriction: Given the amount of modules introduced the past months like bastion mode which are even hull-specific, I don't think it wouldn't be too restricting to boost certain less loved ships in Eve and give them a meaningful role. On the other hand I do get why you don't want to restrict it but you could just limit the entosis link range.

3. Drone boats - sorry to say this but this is just another "module" that'll favor any drone based boat over others due to availability of utility highslots. Either rebalance other hulls to be able to fit a entosis link without killing of a good share of their dps or put a drone malus on the entosis link itself. We've been living in Ishtar Online way too long for now :)

4. In my personal opinion, there should be a certain degree of teamplay involved with sov structures - not a single person deploying a TP-like mod on a structure. I'd rather favor a system where more links have to be applied or where structures have a certain "entosis-resistance" bonus that can be overcome with more links - but a limit of how many (stacking penalty like on modules) - and the minimum time it'll take to grind it down is the one suggested in the dev blog (so 42 minutes for a fully upgraded system).

This would mean it encourages people to bring at least 3-4 entosis linked ships to get the best timer but a blob of 100 entosis links wouldn't make a difference. This should encourage small but efficient fleets to grind structures and provide content for both attacker and defender. In combination with a decreased entosis link range it'd mean good on-grid action with less trolling (warping off and on grid).
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#57 - 2015-03-09 13:52:29 UTC
I really do like how the new sov mechanics work. I kind of wish instead of letting us know ahead of time you would have just applied it to the game immediately and told us "good luck."
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#58 - 2015-03-09 13:53:25 UTC
Just disable reps and microwarps when using it. Then ship size would matter as much.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#59 - 2015-03-09 13:53:29 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Quesa wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.

They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.


fortunately you don't have to hit a trollceptor to stop it, just activate your own link.

Yet again, this doesn't fit the effective military control of the grid.

Neither does not being able to kill an interceptor.

Chasing an intercepter off the grid is an example of military control.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#60 - 2015-03-09 13:54:03 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Quesa wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.

They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.


fortunately you don't have to hit a trollceptor to stop it, just activate your own link.

Yet again, this doesn't fit the effective military control of the grid.



Neither does not being able to kill an interceptor.


Standard MOA doctrine cormorant can kill a snaked interceptor. That is a 15 mil fit. All it takes is few well placed bookmarks around the structure, just hop to a right mark where its transversal is lower than it thinks it is and pop it in 2..3 volleys. Remember, it cant warp while the link is active.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.