These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave Stark
#981 - 2015-03-10 09:06:00 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
ok.

just ******* scrap the entowhatsit link entirely.

if you are on grid, within x distance of the capture node and uncloaked - the node behaves like you have a link active on it under the proposed system.

last man standing on the grid gets to start capturing the node. this reflects the "who has control of the grid" malarky.
not actually having to fit anything extra to ships means there's literally 0 affect on what ships to pick or how to fit them other than whatever the fotm is.
it's easy to understand - if you (or your alliance) are the last and only men standing on the grid you start capturing the node. simplicity in itself.

essentially, it's just king of the hill but i don't really see a problem with that.

yeah because THAT will fix the troll interceptor problem...

I like the idea because it also provides so many more ways that CCP can balance and control the situation as well... /sarcasm


the problem with trollceptors is that it's just going to be ******* broing - pretending it's a game balance issue is laughable at best.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#982 - 2015-03-10 09:15:33 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage:

In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel:

I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things.

  • As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems.
  • Smaller ships, such as interceptors *hint hint*, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on.
  • Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel.
  • The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links.
  • Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought.
  • If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now?

What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups.

What are your thoughts?


Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1


No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again.

UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser.


Wait what, a solo ship will keep the sov beam running for 4 hours in what scenario?

I don't see fleetmates bringing you fuel as any kind of n+1 issue, as much as I love solo PVP, sov warfare is not the arena for that.

Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES
#983 - 2015-03-10 09:22:01 UTC
Adding some fuel requirement like strontium sounds like a good plan. You have to decide where to use it on and you need a place to replenish.

Why not putting the entosi link into the gang link category? It would boost the hulls of BC and there is a good variation of them to fit in almost any doctrine. For ishtars, take some myrmidons or prophecies. It would also counter a fast moving frigate gang that's just generating as much timers as possible due to high mobility. I think to limit entosi links to bigger hulls wouldn't hurt the meta game, as claiming a system should need some decent commitment. And the frigate gang of the attacker would still be viable of driving of the lonely defender.

And if your doctrine needs to be faster than battle cruiser there is still the option of gang link T3 cruisers. It even would be a first incentive to place boosting ships on grid.

An alternative would be throwing a simple speed restriction on it, you can't light a cyno if moving too fast, so applying this to the link might help too, but how often would it check that speed? every cycle might be too slow. Artificially slowing the ship down could help.

Easy way: bigger ship restriction lead to higher commitment.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#984 - 2015-03-10 09:22:44 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage:

In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel:

I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things.

  • As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems.
  • Smaller ships, such as interceptors *hint hint*, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on.
  • Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel.
  • The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links.
  • Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought.
  • If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now?

What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups.

What are your thoughts?


Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1


No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again.

UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser.


Wait what, a solo ship will keep the sov beam running for 4 hours in what scenario?

I don't see fleetmates bringing you fuel as any kind of n+1 issue, as much as I love solo PVP, sov warfare is not the arena for that.




In an actual contested scenario - links from each side force a tie - then it comes down to who brought most fuel. I don't think that is the way to go.

So you have two fleets duking it out with links rolling - this can go on some hours at times. It could easily come down to who has more fuel, which will probably be the defenders.

An ACTIVATION only cost would mitigate this, just don't think it should burn fuel from initiation UNTIL module deactiviation given the indeterminate time it might be active for.
Tycho VI
Horde Armada
Pandemic Horde
#985 - 2015-03-10 09:29:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tycho VI
You start using the link from a position, you can not deviate more then 90 degrees (or other) from the start position or the link breaks....would this alleviate any of the trolling concerns at all? Considering people are worried about users trolling by orbiting at with a small sig moving at 7km a sec... Not just one guy, but like a fleet of 40+ FAST and SMALL ships in orbit doing a troll circle around the structure, and these ships were bought in amarr and dispatched to tenal within 10 mins etc....If they had to stay within 90 degrees of the start position relative to the structure(you may be able to track them at some point if they make a mistake in their spiral with a couple long range defenders/trolling requires piloting skill etc).



Some quickly made images to illustrate this concept:

This assumes you pass 90 degrees from the start point in relation to the structure which would break the link. Other angles could be used too.

2 IMAGES:

http://i.imgur.com/2A90q5S.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Ndgfimz.jpg





With this, a couple of the smallest/fastest ships in eve harassing a small group of defenders would eventually become vulnerable through transversal/angular velocity when they have to stay within the limits of their starting plane to keep the link from breaking. Or they could literally be pushed out.

However, you can still bring enough pilots to actually surround the structure with multiple links activated at once to keep the contest going. But at some point each ship may become vulnerable through transversal/angular velocity to be tracked by a small number of long range defenders. Or they could break their link through piloting error.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#986 - 2015-03-10 09:55:12 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
If the gimmick ceptor goes into an occupied system - he'll be swatted by the locals because gimmick fit. If he goes into an unoccupied system - why does your alliance hold systems that are unoccupied in your prime time?
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#987 - 2015-03-10 10:00:03 UTC
Maybe the entosis link should remove interdiction nullification from hulls. But honestly I can't get too excited about this. Just sounds like a lot of easy interceptor kills to me.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Sarel Hendar
Avanto
Hole Control
#988 - 2015-03-10 10:01:31 UTC
This (and previous) threads have been fascinating. Underlying motives of many posters have started opaque and slowly clarified into better understanding of metagame.

Arrow Concerns about trollceptors are appearing more and more unfounded. Still, I hope Fozzie keeps his promises in original post about nerfing the trollceptors if they become a problem. We'll see whether they do become a problem and whether they'll be nerfed if they become a problem.

ArrowArrow Big coalitions want to make it possible to bubble down entire constellations from strategic chokepoints while renting the "safe" interior. This should not be allowed.

Arrow I'm personally somewhat suspicious about the constellation-level of some of these mechanisms. If some small alliance wants to lay claim on one or two systems, should't the "sov buttons" spawn only in constellation systems that alliance in question controls? (ie. "why should we have to fight on someone else's turf to keep our own sov?")

Arrow Benefits of owning sov need rebalancing. Preferably along same time as moongoo gets a new mechanism.
Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#989 - 2015-03-10 10:04:38 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
PotatoOverdose wrote:
If the gimmick ceptor goes into an unoccupied system - he'll be swatted by the locals because gimmick fit. If he goes into an unoccupied system - why does your alliance hold systems that are unoccupied in your prime time?

Perhaps because the maximum sustainable population density in most of nullsec is quite low? *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Kazulty
Shadow State
Goonswarm Federation
#990 - 2015-03-10 10:07:39 UTC
"The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."

right now the system as described heavily favors smaller hulls since they are more mobile.
Hull size should have an effect to actually level the playing field and make all hull types balanced:

Frigate hulls +15% time to reinforce (takes longer)
Destroyers +10% time
Cruisers +5% time
Battlecruisers 0%
Battleships -10%
Capital -20% (reinforces stuff faster)

how does this balance anything? well the frigate is going to get to the objective faster and can move from objective to objective faster, thus having a penalty slows frigates down a bit and gives the defender more options to counter the attack. The Battleship will take a relatively long time to get to target, but would be faster at doing what it needed to do when it arrived. The capital will get to the first target quickly but will be very slow/costly to move to another timer due to jump fatigue.

This change also gives a small advantage to the defenders because it will be faster for them to put larger ships on field.
in other words, defenders could reverse any damage faster by committing larger ships.


Note: Any suggestions about making it so the new mod can't be fit with cloaks are really invalid because all the person needs to do is bring a mobile depot ... then they can change mods on the fly at a safe (assuming they have the cargo space to carry it all).
Tycho VI
Horde Armada
Pandemic Horde
#991 - 2015-03-10 10:10:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tycho VI
Zappity wrote:
Maybe the entosis link should remove interdiction nullification from hulls. But honestly I can't get too excited about this. Just sounds like a lot of easy interceptor kills to me.


One of the other main issues with troll ceptors is something that most people aren't touching here. it is actually the main reason they can be considered trolls in the first place.

These ships can get grouped up and go anywhere in new eden pretty damn fast, and they can get to any specific system they want to unimpeded by anything in the game except for a bad server tick. This is actually the entire 100% reason they can be refereed to as 'troll'ceptor

If a group wants to set up their empire at the end of a pocket, they should also be able to somewhat reasonably defend their home system using the chokepoint systems and controlled pipes, I think that would be healthy and produce a more linear way of conquering entities, having to work your way in over a CONQUEST. Getting to the head of the snake should mean breaking a few gatecamps and killing a couple bubbles on the way if you want to harass a living entity. I feel it should be this way. Some don't.

When you lay siege to someone's castle, you have to break down some doors, take the courtyard, break down some other doors, and then climb the stairs to the lord room.
Shalmon Aliatus
Bluestar Enterprises
The Craftsmen
#992 - 2015-03-10 10:15:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalmon Aliatus
Just a random idea for the enthosis module:

Attach your hacking mini-game to it, since it's a hacking process. Increase the time before you start to have an inpact on the sov module. And from there on it is just a hacking process.

Let's say the TCU has 50 "points" You claim 1 point per finished hacking level.

-The first 10 points will have the difficulty of your average highsec/lowsec-data site. Not that difficult, but done quick to stop the TCU from getting back into reinforced.

-The next 30 points will have the difficulty of a null/wh-data site. If you got hacking skills and maybe an imp, they take some time, but they are still doable.

- The last 10 points will have the difficulty of a superior sleeper cache.

-If you fail the hacking, the opposing side gets a point.

-If both sides have a link, you can't score points.

This has a lot of advantages:

1. Solo-capping can only be done in highly specialised gimp-fits. If you want to use an interceptor you need max skills for hacking,
imps and rigs.

2. Hacking takes time. If capping takes too long or is too easy, just change the difficulty of the hack or the amount of points.

3. It requires someone to be active. No getting the link on the structure and playing something else.

4. If you are focused on hacking, you can't defend yourself easy. So maybe you want to bring some friends.
Dave Stark
#993 - 2015-03-10 10:17:17 UTC
Shalmon Aliatus wrote:
Just a random idea for the enthosis module:

Attach you hacking mini-game to it, since it's a hacking process. Increase the time before you start to have an inpact on the sov module. And from there on it is just a hacking process.

Let's say the TCU has 50 "points" You claim 1 point per finished hacking level.

-The first 10 points will have the difficulty of your average highsec/lowsec-data site. Not that difficult, but done quick to stop the TCU from getting back into reinforced.

-The next 30 points will have the difficulty of a null/wh-data site. If you got hacking skills and maybe an imp, they take some time, but they are still doable.

- The last 10 points will have the difficulty of a superior sleeper cache.

-If you fail the hacking, the opposing side gets a point.

This has a lot of advantages:

1. Solo-capping can only be done in highly specialised gimp-fits. If you want to use an interceptor you need max skills for hacking,
imps and rigs.

2. Hacking takes time. If capping takes too long or is too easy, just change the difficulty of the hack or the amount of points.

3. It requires someone to be active. No getting the link on the structure and playing something else.

4. If you are focused on hacking, you can't defend yourself easy. So maybe you wan't to bring some friends.


considering the hacking minigame is essentially just an RNG fest - i'm going to instantly say no since RNG is quite literally bullshit. there's no mechanic in any game where RNG is interesting or good.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#994 - 2015-03-10 10:18:35 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.


The simplest counter to troll ceptor is a goon favorate. the sensor damp. just one damp will reduce there 180km locking range down to 117km. 2 damps down to 78km
damps from a celestis, 1 damp drops it to 68km, 2 damps down to 30km. now he either commits or leaves.

Theres one thing that hasn't been explained.

presently I-hub upgrades require sov to be installed, and for the system to be owned by the person trying to deploy things like, jammers, jump bridges, scsaa's.
your saying after the changes the I-hub will control the system index rather than the tcu? so people will be able to use these moduals without a tcu installed?
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#995 - 2015-03-10 10:31:17 UTC
Tycho VI wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Maybe the entosis link should remove interdiction nullification from hulls. But honestly I can't get too excited about this. Just sounds like a lot of easy interceptor kills to me.


One of the other main issues with troll ceptors is something that most people aren't touching here. it is actually the main reason they can be considered trolls in the first place.

These ships can get grouped up and go anywhere in new eden pretty damn fast, and they can get to any specific system they want to unimpeded by anything in the game except for a bad server tick. This is actually the entire 100% reason they can be refereed to as 'troll'ceptor

If a group wants to set up their empire at the end of a pocket, they should also be able to somewhat reasonably defend their home system using the chokepoint systems and controlled pipes, I think that would be healthy and produce a more linear way of conquering entities, having to work your way in over a CONQUEST. Getting to the head of the snake should mean breaking a few gatecamps and killing a couple bubbles on the way if you want to harass a living entity. I feel it should be this way. Some don't.



It will be what it is going to be...

Live in your systems. Problem solved.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Dave Stark
#996 - 2015-03-10 10:35:35 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Tycho VI wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Maybe the entosis link should remove interdiction nullification from hulls. But honestly I can't get too excited about this. Just sounds like a lot of easy interceptor kills to me.


One of the other main issues with troll ceptors is something that most people aren't touching here. it is actually the main reason they can be considered trolls in the first place.

These ships can get grouped up and go anywhere in new eden pretty damn fast, and they can get to any specific system they want to unimpeded by anything in the game except for a bad server tick. This is actually the entire 100% reason they can be refereed to as 'troll'ceptor

If a group wants to set up their empire at the end of a pocket, they should also be able to somewhat reasonably defend their home system using the chokepoint systems and controlled pipes, I think that would be healthy and produce a more linear way of conquering entities, having to work your way in over a CONQUEST. Getting to the head of the snake should mean breaking a few gatecamps and killing a couple bubbles on the way if you want to harass a living entity. I feel it should be this way. Some don't.



It will be what it is going to be...

Live in your systems. Problem solved.


not sure how living in systems stops bubble immune ships that align in under 2 seconds makes regional geography relevant again?
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#997 - 2015-03-10 10:45:04 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


Thread unlocked.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Hoshi
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#998 - 2015-03-10 11:33:43 UTC
Sarel Hendar wrote:

ArrowArrow Big coalitions want to make it possible to bubble down entire constellations from strategic chokepoints while renting the "safe" interior. This should not be allowed.

Why not? Everyone is ranting about how you are supposed to defend your space if you want it but here you are coming and saying that one of the few possible ways you can actually do that is not allowed???

If your intention is to actually capture the space then you should have no problem destroying the bubble camp. If your intention is just to "troll" the sov then that thing that should not be allowed my the game mechanics.

"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Erasmus Grant
Order of the Eclipse
Triumvirate.
#999 - 2015-03-10 11:41:27 UTC
Lets say your alliance controls a region. Each corp has their own system or constellation. Your brother corps system/constellation gets attacked. The enemy brings a large fleet containing a good mix of ships from frigs to supers.You get an alliance CTA to go defend your brother corp's system/constellation. So you come with all you go to fend of this large force. Little did they know that large fleet was just a diversion for a trollceptor fleet to come in and hit some your constellation while your forces are for the most part committed to defending your allies system/constellation. Now you're on your way out of a system. You're stuck between defending your own space or helping an ally who may lose their system if you do not assist. Since Frigates can use E-Links they can get thru most chokepoints without a problem.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1000 - 2015-03-10 11:51:36 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted.

This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway)

Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node.

Still doesn't require "military control of the grid", since you just have to have more max evasion Trollceptors on grid than the other guy. Bringing more dudes should not = autowin just because you have more dudes.

Sure, have more Links active if you want to. You should still have to kill off / force off field all the Links that they have to make progress.

Yes, that's right.

Currently, you only need one, no matter if the other side has 100 people.

At least with this, you would need 5 (again even if they have 100 people)

I get that, I just don't see why it's needed. It does mean that a group of 100 bads can't get countered by one guy anymore, but if 100 bads *CAN* be countered by one guy that's really their own fault.

I see no compelling reason why a mechanic that allows N+1 up to a certain threshold is better than a mechanic that disallows N+1 at all.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."