These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#81 - 2015-03-09 14:08:13 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
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.


Its also worth pointing out that, for a defender "halting" capture is not good enough, since a structure that is partially captured remains vulnerable outside the vulnerable timezone. Since anyone needs to get one cycle complete before they commence capture, a defender will always be arriving on grid once the attacker is in to their capture cycle. The defender then doesn't halt the attacker immediately, he has to go through his "preperation" cycle first. Hence, any "stalemate" has to be resolved by the defender, since the structure will potentially remain vulnerable forever if he doesn't (or can't).
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#82 - 2015-03-09 14:08:28 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
Just nerf interceptor agility slightly, that way you can just instathrasher key constellations

I've always been partial to the nuclear option here -- all ships, except shuttles and pods, are hard-locked to a minimum of 3s align time.

If Eve's server resources, code base, etc. improve to the point where a 500ms simulation rate is possible, then revert the change.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#83 - 2015-03-09 14:09:03 UTC
What about putting a Signature Radius penalty on the Entosis link module, like +100% sig while active? (This might punish gangs who rely on Damage Mitigation rather than actual Effective Hitpoints for tank though). Another possible restriction is to put a speed cap on the Entosis link (kinda like how 500m/s is speed cap for cynosural field), maybe 5km/s? So that the average interceptor isn't punished at all but pure speed/troll fits will be at a speed which is catchable for t1 Attack Frigates and Interceptors.

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2015-03-09 14:09:06 UTC
Capqu wrote:
if the grid is contested inteceptors are actually useless guys, their lockrange is so pathetic that one or two damps means there is no way they can keep their entosis link active

i think the main issue around interceptors is their ability to move 100% safely behind camps and entosis uncontested systems which should be protected by camped choke points


Add a few linked rapiers or huggins, but by all means if the interdiction nullified interceptor is the issue than remove it! We will see who camps who and that jump fatigue!
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#85 - 2015-03-09 14:09:20 UTC
Good job CCP Fozzie!

If the only thing on the grid is the interceptor then it has complete control of said grid. It stands to reason then that a single interceptor pilot in an interceptor can initiate the vulnerability of a system using the Entosis link.

In my humble opinion, those screaming about trollceptors appear to be the ones least likely to be using the space that might be contested. In this respect, their motivaton is abundantly clear - they don't want to lose their control of vast swathes of currently empty space nor be forced to actively defend it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#86 - 2015-03-09 14:09:36 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Capqu wrote:
Tora Bushido wrote:
Capqu wrote:
remove interceptor bubble immunity
Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods.


thats the problem, newbies shouldn't be able to roam null with impunity in a 25m isk ship
Yes, they should or null-sec will become even more boring without fresh blood. I hope high-sec carebears don't make you worry to much to care Blink


This is a massive derailment, but for a while now I have believed that bubble immunity should not be a native hull ability.

It should instead be the ability to fit an interdiction nullifier module. Like a warp stab, but not.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#87 - 2015-03-09 14:10:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Carniflex wrote:
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.


I'm not opposed to a larger force having some advantage. What I'm opposed to is infecting sov war with *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal. an ECM frig blob. The only thing worse than grinding millions of structure HP is spending an entire fight permajammed.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2015-03-09 14:11:43 UTC
Add occupancy bonuses in reverse to defenders recapturing - so a fully upgraded object can be recapped by defenders in <2.5 minutes.

Make undoing trivial, half attacks a 2 minute job.
Jessy Andersteen
In Wreck we thrust
#89 - 2015-03-09 14:11:51 UTC
About the trollceptor. It's stupid. Ok, u can't kill the "trollceptor" but...

Remember: targeting range of the interceptor. Put a single Maulus, hyena,keres, rapier, huggin, razzu or a griffin on the field...

Bye bye trollceptor.

Trollceptor is a troll. Don't feed the troll.
Ann Markson
Nimatek
#90 - 2015-03-09 14:12:40 UTC
While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth ****.
Alliances hold entire regions to have access to 10% of their systems in which people actually can rat at isk/h rates significantly above highsec levels.

People are mad because noone wants to life or be in the -0.1 or -0.2 systems because it adds a lot of effort while not giving access to anything worth much more in terms of income abilitiy.
So People hold large chunks of sov to use a very few parts of it now rage because the parts they dont use would be reinforced constantly, but are effectively not worth using at all, thus have no place in occupancy based Sov.

If CCP wants occupancy based Sov to work the truesecs either need a rework, or the anomaly system does in a way that makes the majority of Sov systems worth holding, not the minority of them.

One could argue that it doesnt has any place here, but with Sov being a very complex topic we need to adress each part of it simultaneously.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#91 - 2015-03-09 14:12:48 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Andrea Keuvo wrote:

I'm not opposed to a larger force having some advantage. What I'm opposed to is infecting sov war with *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal. an ECM frig blob. The only thing worse than grinding millions of structure HP is spending an entire fight permajammed.


Yeah, I'm afraid that's TS.

Ewar is one of the few force multipliers available in EVE Online that lets new players leverage the only advantage they have over older groups of players.

Numbers.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Harkin Issier
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2015-03-09 14:13:25 UTC
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.


Kiting trollceptors need LOTS of room to burn around in, putting them in the 100+km range. All you need to do to counter them is fit sensor damps. Congrats, your interceptor is now useless. "Step into my fleet's optimal range", said the Lachesis to the Crow.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#93 - 2015-03-09 14:13:38 UTC
Speed/agility/sig radius nerf to a ship using the module *if necessary*

Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space.

Range of the module by ship class is already controlled by the locking statistics of the hulls, f.e. only gimp fit inties with no tank or utility can lock over 100km - and can be affected by two of the types of EWAR already available; ECM and sensor damps on a cheap Griffin or Maulus.

If someone wants to blob 100 ships and kill off the defenders defensive links, they probably do have 'military' control of the grid.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
#94 - 2015-03-09 14:14:59 UTC
If you have S/M/L/XL versions, you could require that two different versions must be active in order to make progress. Then neither the attacker nor the defender can specialize too much in their doctrine.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#95 - 2015-03-09 14:15:39 UTC  |  Edited by: The Mittani
Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them.

Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links .

AttentionNone of these ideas are mineAttention - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.


  • Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
  • Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
  • Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.


I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks.

Cheers!

~hi~
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#96 - 2015-03-09 14:16:05 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space.


I'm curious what the problem is with that.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#97 - 2015-03-09 14:18:53 UTC
Jessy Andersteen wrote:
About the trollceptor. It's stupid. Ok, u can't kill the "trollceptor" but...

Remember: targeting range of the interceptor. Put a single Maulus, hyena,keres, rapier, huggin, razzu or a griffin on the field...

Bye bye trollceptor.

Trollceptor is a troll. Don't feed the troll.

Awesome.

Hero owns 98 systems in Catch, and 38 stations. We now need 136 mauluses to spend 4 hours a night sitting on an ihub/station. Except of course if these trollceptors have any kind of weapons, it can kill the maulus, so we partner them with a RLML caracal to prevent that from happening. There, we've kept one of the most densely populated regions in the game save from trollceptors, and it only costs us 1088 man hours per night!
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2015-03-09 14:18:55 UTC
xttz wrote:
Fozzie, what was the intention of not allowing remote assistance while using Entosis Links?

If it was to curb the extremes of armour/shield-tanking that would require specialised fleets to deal with, the same logic should apply to speed-tanking. While an Entosis Link is active the ship should either have a significant signature radius penalty, or not be able to activate propulsion mods at all.


Agreed. Having the Entosis link stop prop mods would stop alot of the rabble rabble around the troll ceptor.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
#99 - 2015-03-09 14:18:59 UTC  |  Edited by: John McCreedy
Jessy Andersteen wrote:
About the trollceptor. It's stupid. Ok, u can't kill the "trollceptor" but...

Remember: targeting range of the interceptor. Put a single Maulus, hyena,keres, rapier, huggin, razzu or a griffin on the field...

Bye bye trollceptor.

Trollceptor is a troll. Don't feed the troll.


Crow + right implants + right modules = trollceptor. Yeah you won't get 250km but you'll sure as hell get long range for a Frigate and coupled with its speed and manoeuvrability, can quite easily stay out of the range of most ECM.

It's easy for you to say 'put a single ship on field' but what if they're not on field, just in local? You dock up right? Then they go on field. Then you undock. Then they bugger off. Sov mechanics are then reduced to who gets bored the fastest. Is that really healthy for the game?

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
Jessy Andersteen
In Wreck we thrust
#100 - 2015-03-09 14:19:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessy Andersteen
Capqu wrote:
Tora Bushido wrote:
Capqu wrote:
remove interceptor bubble immunity
Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods.


thats the problem, newbies shouldn't be able to roam null with impunity in a 25m isk ship


I reformulate u:

"the problem is that new can be a danger for a skilled toon".
It's not a problem, it's a feature, a BASE feature of eve: skillpoint just give u versalitity not easy victory. And u want easy victory... beacause of ur skill point. Eve is not a "Pay To Win" MMORPG.

Ceptor is very good now: he can do his job correctly and can be defeated by clever people.