Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, you have PASSIVE control over the grid, in that there is noone actively on grid controlling it. The ability to passively control the grid and passively gain control over the sov structure is not a mechanic that I think would be a good one to implement - even with the restriction of "one deployable per pilot".


That's actually one of Fozzie's design goals - requiring active control of the grid. It requires pilots to be in space, active and vulnerable - and forces other pilots to be in space, active, and vulnerable to counter their influence. Any mechanic where either the attacker or defender can effectively influence sov while AFK in a POS or cloaked up or in another system entirely runs counter to that design principle.

Not to mention it doesn't pin you on grid like an active Entosis Link does. Anything that allows you to GTFO and abandon whatever expendable item whenever you choose - i.e. disengage at will - is not one that puts you at risk.

This is eveo forums, people intend all sorts of offense.

Especially against other people's sov...

If you make it that you can only carry one per ship in a dedicated bay it makes you choose to either fight after deploying the drone or run away and not do anything else until you get another

i like when the the thing that makes sov war is detached from the ship so this way it doesnt get the "bonus" from the ship type you are flying. This way is fair for all it wont go faster or be harder to kill depending on the ships its the same for every ship

I don't care about KBs per se. I care about a player being able to take or defend sov without being at risk. You know, what you all were so incensed about when you were rabble rabble about Trollceptors.

I thought that problem would be obvious, but I guess it really does come down to the fact that Trollceptors can escape gatecamps.

Again, this is basically arguing semantics. My single deployable is as much "me" as the ship my pod is in. My deployable has active/passive/whatever you want to call it CONTROL OF THE GRID. The idea that my ship has to be in space and targetable to have grid control is an artificial restriction on the term that you are adding for no good reason.

For any real battle, ships will have to be on grid to defend the deployable until it completes its job. This is literally no different than a ship running the e-link itself.

For the various trolly/edge-cases, this 1) forces the troll to actually commit MORE risk to the attempt, 2) still allows for anyone with even a nominal ability to control/defend the grid to do so trivially and 3) gives the defenders actual tangible results for their effort (deployable KMs, rather than "hey guys I chased off another trollceptor"). The fact that it takes away the requirement for the trollceptor to remain on grid during the troll is totally irrelevant; the whole point of troll fits will be that they are never REALLY committing to being on grid in the first place.

And if we add more limitations to the e-link to try and commit the trolls to actually remaining on grid, we'll just see brick-tanked six-WCS stabbed T3's or some other such nonsense STILL not realistically committing ANY risk/ISK to the troll. To avoid all the ways people can abuse ship fits to figure out ways to troll by not committing to the grid basically puts so many limitations on the module that having it fit to a ship becomes more and more irrelevant.

Killing a 100m deployable is enough risk/reward for defending your space from a troll. We don't NEED to keep adding limitations on troll fits just to guarantee we can get a shiny KM on their ship if we show up to defend. Trying to do so is basically fighting an uphill battle against the creativity of EVE pilots everywhere and the incredibly dynamic range of possible ship fits. Who cares if the troll ship gets away?



You are mistaking his design goal. Grid control only matters for people actually contesting ownership. e.g. when contesting ownership, whoever has grid control should win. A deployable that can be trivially killed/paused if you have grid control accomplishes this task just fine.

However, the idea that this design goal is intended to force people to remain on grid if no one is defending the grid is taking it too literally and too far. If no one shows up to defend, it literally does not matter if I was on grid or not. At all. To anyone. There is absolute no merit in making the troll stay on grid if no one ever shows up to defend in the first place.

Further, making them stay on grid doesn't actually increase their risk/committment in the slightest, as the entire basis of any troll fit ship will be make sure that risk is as low as possible in the first place in someone DOES show up. As far as risk goes, provided the deployable is expensive and impossible to scoop before the cycle finishes, it actually forces them to commit MORE risk/ISK to the attempt than any troll fit ship is going to cost.

Sure, it's an isk loss. The idea though is that if you can bugger off and leave the sov cap thingy behind, you're free to immediately drop another sov thingy on another structure. Whereas if you force the use of a module that keeps you on field while it's active, removing that module - and the ship it's mounted on - means that pilot can't continue to threaten sov until he makes his way back to a "home base" somewhere to reship. That's the issue - if it's something you can abandon without losing your ship, you can continue to threaten sov unimpeded, even though the defender established "military control of the grid" and killed the sov deployable.

To take or defend sov, you should be stuck on grid. The sov capture mechanic should require an active module of some kind, to meet the CCP design goals. Using a deployable or drone - which can easily be abandoned and replenished by say a cloaked Blockade Runner with a Mobile Depot, or a cargo Nestor, or a cloaked Carrier, or... - doesn't really fit the bill.

Don't give a damn about your sov, or MOA, or any of that crap. But hey, go all ad hominem if you can't counter my actual points.

If you're not on grid, active, targetable, vulnerable... you should have no impact on sov at all. You don't have active control over the grid, you're cloaked up or in a POS or in another system. If they wanted you to be able to bugger off at will, the original design of the Entosis Link wouldn't prevent you from warping or receiving remote assistance.

Come on folks, you're smarter than that.

This thread is about balancing the Entosis Link within the design goals as presented in the other thread, not about whether those design goals were valid / should be implemented / etc. Now if a CSM member or CCP Dev wants to chime in and say "yeah we're totally cool with you being cloaked AFK while capping sov" or "yeah having sov capture mechanics embodied in a drone that you can abandon without penalty sounds awesome" then sure, we can have that discussion. At the moment though, it's about a module with low fitting requirements, with 25 or 250km effective range, that prevents warp or remote assistance when active.

Not to mention the fact that having it as a drone would basically require it to be a light drone to keep Frigates viable for contesting sov, and for them to add drone bays to all the ships that don't already have them to meet their design goal of the Entosis Link not influencing what ship you bring for a sov doctrine.

i feel like it still needs to be a ship-mounted module but it definitely needs anti-interceptor properties like the ones mentioned repeatedly in this thread