Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is a more elegant solution than preventing specific fits. If frigates could only run 1 or 2 cycles before needing to reload somewhere, they would at least require some form of support and/or teamwork.

It probably does make blockade runners the new Big Bad, but at least they're vulnerable to bubbles.

no they won't considering they don't work, as anyone who has ever tried one against inties knows

So now using the grid fu we've forced the 100m each attacking interceptors to sit static in one specific part of the surrounding sphere and we can't drop a RLML stealth bomber right on top of them?

It is a game changer. We must adapt or fade into insignificance.

Also if this IS an exploit I'd love to know because miniluv, code et al use it on a daily basis.

All this complaining about "trollceptors" is making my head hurt.

If your problem is a ceptor which is fit to lock at 200km then it's combat viability is almost zero, use another fast ship to kill it - as the rules currently stand it cannot warp with the new module active. There are plenty of fast missile ships to choose from.

End of discussion, if your multi thousand man sov holding entity cannot catch one ceptor which is essentially already tackled by virtue of using it's sov module then perhaps you don't deserve that sov.

I feel like the Entosis Link should behave mostly like a Cyno. You can't move/warp while it's active plus no remote assistance from other ships ( like reps ) and that's about it.

Hello folks. I'm making this discussion thread to give you all a closer look at our design philosophy for the Entosis Link mechanics and the way we plan to balance the module.

We've been seeing quite a bit of concern from parts of the community that the Entosis Link mechanics will push people to pure evasion fits, the so called trollceptors. It goes without saying that we do not want the sov war meta turn into nothing but sensor boosting Interceptors, but we have plenty of time and tools to help ensure that scenario doesn't occur.

To explain our current approach and help focus the feedback, I want to discuss some of our specific goals for the Entosis Link mechanic itself.

As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.

At its core, the Entosis Link mechanic is a way for the server to tell who won (or is winning) a fight in a specific location. This is a surprisingly tough thing for the server to determine. The best way to win a structure or command node with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.
This means that there will always be an intermediate state where the grid is "contested" and neither side is making significant progress until the fight is resolved.


The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.

This is the other side of the coin. In practice it means that we should discourage mechanics that lead to indefinite stalemates over a structure or command node. This is the reason for the "no remote reps" condition on active Links. This is also the goal that trollceptors would contradict if they were to become dominant.


The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.

Entosis Links will always have some effect on the types of ships and tactics people find viable for Sov warfare, but we should strive to keep those effects to a minimum. As much as possible, we should work towards a meta where whatever fleet concept would win the fight and control the grid would also be viable for using the Entosis Links.
This also means that we don't want to be using the Entosis Links to intentionally manipulate ship use. We've seen some people suggesting that we restrict Entosis Links to battleships, command ships or capital ships in order to buff those classes. Using the Entosis Link mechanics to artificially skew the meta in that way is not something we are interested in doing.
This goal is why we intend to use the lightest touch possible when working towards the first two goals. It would be easy to overreact to potentially unwanted uses of the Entosis Link by placing extremely harsh restrictions on the module, but we believe that by looking at the situation in a calm and measured manner we can find a good balance.


The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible.

This is a fairly obvious goal but I do think it's worth stating explicitly. If we can achieve similar results with two different sets of restrictions and penalties, we'll generally prefer to use the simpler and more understandable set. This also means that we'd generally prefer to use pre-existing mechanics that players will already be familiar with, rather than using completely new mechanics.


All in all, I want to make it very clear that we are going to make adjustments to the Entosis Link in order to get the best possible gameplay and to match these goals as well as possible. If we clearly see a situation emerging where any pure evasion tactics are going to become dominant, we will make changes to the Entosis Link to bring the gameplay back into balance. We expect that there will be many changes and tweaks to the Entosis Link module before launch, and more tweaks made after launch as needed.
We have all of the numerous tools of EVE module balance at our disposal and everything is on the table. We can use everything from module price, range, fittings, cap use, mass penalties, ship restrictions, speed limits and many many more. We intend to use as few of these dials as possible and use the lightest touch possible, but we do have the tools we need to reach these goals.

We would like this thread to become a place of discussion around the Entosis Link mechanics, the ships that you expect to use them on, and the tactics you foresee becoming popular. What issues do you foresee popping up? How do you think these goals should be adjusted or refocused? Which of the many module balance dials do you think would be the most intuitive?

Please keep discussion calm and reasonable. Remember that even though we're not making knee-jerk reactions, we are definitely listening and working to get this balance right.

Thanks
-Fozzie

While all of this is true, it does miss out the key part.

It's not just you doing this.

You're sitting there in GE-, while 50 of your buddies are spread out one per system across Catch. The moment a system is unprotected, that guy decloaks and starts using his link. The moment something turns up to counter that ceptor, he burns off, warps away and cloaks up. Sure, that saves that system, for now. But then that group of defenders has to go a few systems over, to take care of another one of your buddies. He decloaks and starts RFing the ihub again.

This process will dominate that region for the entire four hour window, with no rest or respite. And no matter how hard they try, the defenders will not be able to be everywhere at once, and will be faced at least half a dozen timers the next day as payment for their four hours of mindnumbingly dull work, with no kills or assets lost by the aggressor.

The next day, the defender now has these timers to deal with, and he has to capture 50-100 command nodes to keep hold of his space. Meanwhile, those 50 ceptors are still sat there, still poking away every time you turn your back. End result is the defender wastes hours of peoples time, keep hold of most (but not all) of the systems under attack, and is now faced with another dozen timers for the next day.

Welcome to Fozziesov.

Only the largest alliances really have a chance of holding even a single region when faced with opportunistic and agile enemies.