These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1021 - 2015-03-10 15:00:25 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Dave Stark wrote:


no, they're simply playing to the advantage of their hull and weapon bonuses. if those bonuses put you outside the range to capture a node because you have to be within 25km, that just means the system is flawed.

they're not evading anything, they're sitting there fighting - just out of range of the objective because you've deemed that the range to the objective should be 25km or less. the only reason they'll lose the contest is because they decided not to try and brawl with 1400s, or something.

the solution, would be that you can stop a capture from >25km, but you can't initiate one. that stops sniper fleets losing by default in sufficiently large engagements due to an inability to prevent a capture, but will stop them just sitting 250km away going "nar nar na nar nar you can't catch me".


well done on contradicting yourself there by the way.

so a sniper fleet that sits still saying 'nar nar you cant catch me'

its in fact extremely easy to catch a sniper fleet sitting still, but sniper fleets never sit still because doing so is suicide. sniper fleets use speed and evasion to survive.

therefore i return you to my previous statement:

GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
theres plenty of methods that will break and hinder the sov securing of a stationary fleet close to the sov structure or command node, but if the kiting sniper fleet has not thought beyond, get on grid and run away shooting stuff that approaches then yes, they shouldnt be considered having effective military control over the grid because by definition they're entire playstyle is in being evasive.

evasion is not the tool of the occupying or controlling force. it is the tool of a lesser guerilla-style occupied or harassment force.
Dave Stark
#1022 - 2015-03-10 15:02:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


no, they're simply playing to the advantage of their hull and weapon bonuses. if those bonuses put you outside the range to capture a node because you have to be within 25km, that just means the system is flawed.

they're not evading anything, they're sitting there fighting - just out of range of the objective because you've deemed that the range to the objective should be 25km or less. the only reason they'll lose the contest is because they decided not to try and brawl with 1400s, or something.

the solution, would be that you can stop a capture from >25km, but you can't initiate one. that stops sniper fleets losing by default in sufficiently large engagements due to an inability to prevent a capture, but will stop them just sitting 250km away going "nar nar na nar nar you can't catch me".


well done on contradicting yourself there by the way.

so a sniper fleet that sits still saying 'nar nar you cant catch me'

its in fact extremely easy to catch a sniper fleet sitting still, but sniper fleets never sit still because doing so is suicide. sniper fleets use speed and evasion to survive.


so you're just telling me that you shouldn't be allowed to use sniper fleets to take sov? got it.

i'm not contradicting anything, evading a fight by not engaging, and sitting at your optimal death dealing range are two obviously different things, but if you just want to be a complete ****** and not actually discuss the topic and go "lulz contradiction" because you're an idiot then whatever.

regardless; the idea that sniper fleets shouldn't be allowed to contest sov is utterly rediculous. yes, that is what the result of having a 25km max range on ectoplasm links will be.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1023 - 2015-03-10 15:17:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Dave Stark wrote:


regardless; the idea that sniper fleets shouldn't be allowed to contest sov is utterly rediculous. yes, that is what the result of having a 25km max range on ectoplasm links will be.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Yes they have an effect, no they shouldnt openly be able to counter a larger occupying force but they do wither down an opponent over time.

here's a real world example for you:

La Resistance didn't contest the occupying forces of germany and stop their conquest of france, they used guerilla warfare (a form of evasive warfare) to wear down the occupying force until such time that an exterior force came in to liberate it with the ability to take the towns and cities, not skirt about the fields and waterways shouting "we have your carrots and fish, you cannot claim you own this land!"

theres more than one way to win a war than clinging onto your flawed idea that you should have some inalienable right to sov lazer someting from 250km's away.
Xavi Bastanold
Sveipar Trade and Transport
#1024 - 2015-03-10 15:19:39 UTC
Why not just say use of an entosis link requires a capsuleer's full attention and a ship with an active entosis link must remain stationary? Set times down to something lower for t1, like 3 minutes, to compensate. A structure can still be inundated by a large number of stationary entosis linked ships, but they will be sitting ducks. If 5 are usurping a structure and one survives within the time frame required, it's ops success.

Good hunting,

Xavi
Dave Stark
#1025 - 2015-03-10 15:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


regardless; the idea that sniper fleets shouldn't be allowed to contest sov is utterly rediculous. yes, that is what the result of having a 25km max range on ectoplasm links will be.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Yes they have an effect, no they shouldnt openly be able to counter a larger occupying force but they do wither down an opponent over time.

here's a real world example for you:

La Resistance didn't contest the occupying forces of germany and stop their conquest of france, they used guerilla warfare (a form of evasive warfare) to wear down the occupying force until such time that an exterior force came in to liberate it with the ability to take the towns and cities, not skirt about the fields and waterways shouting "we have your carrots and fish, you cannot claim you own this land!"

theres more than one way to win a war than clinging onto your flawed idea that you have some inalienable right to sov lazer someting from 250km's away.


but we've just discussed this. the sniper fleet isn't using evasion tactics and other irrelevant drivvel that you want to continue to harp on about.

they warp in at their optimal, and commence fighting. they then lose by default because their optimal is >25km, this is a **** system that just excludes any fleet that engages from over 25km when they come up against a fleet that can fight with them for a greater lenght of time than it takes to capture a node.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1026 - 2015-03-10 15:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Dave Stark wrote:

so you're just telling me that you shouldn't be allowed to use sniper fleets to take sov? got it.

i'm not contradicting anything, evading a fight by not engaging, and sitting at your optimal death dealing range are two obviously different things, but if you just want to be a complete ****** and not actually discuss the topic and go "lulz contradiction" because you're an idiot then whatever.

regardless; the idea that sniper fleets shouldn't be allowed to contest sov is utterly rediculous. yes, that is what the result of having a 25km max range on ectoplasm links will be.


I'm not sure a range restriction unnecessarily harms sniper doctrines; No-one is taking anything with an enemy sniper fleet sitting in range, as anyone who turns on a sov-laser is getting alphad off the field. If the snipers are getting continually forced to ping around, so they can't engage the sov-taking ship on the other side, well, they wouldn't be using a sov-laser anyway, as that ship would be left behind and torn apart first time they ping. If anything, a long-range sov-laser places excess advantage to sniper doctrines as when facing off against a short-range one, they can engage the other fleets sov-lasers while keeping theirs out of range of retaliation, meaning it is the brawler doctrines at the disadvantage in trying to capture a grid, and snipers that become preferred. If a range limit is a solution for other problems, I don't see as it needs to be discounted for the sake of snipers, which will be equally able to prevent a grids capture while they are present (and engaging), and equally able to lay claim once they have control of the grid.

If a complete lack of range-capture options is a significant problem, can that not be solved with ship classes (for example, Recons already give a range bonus to their EWAR of choice, allow there bonuses to apply to sov-lasers too).
Rthulhu Voynich
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1027 - 2015-03-10 15:33:14 UTC
I am not sure this idea was posted before. It’s a lot to read. Sorry if someone posted the following before!

The Entosis Link is priced at 20 Mil for the T1-Version and 80 Mil for the T2-Version.

Why not have two versions for the Link. The first one, let’s call it “Entosis Link Reinforce”, should cost 40 Mil T1 and 160 Mil T2 (double the original price). To capture a Command Node you need the second one, let’s call it “Entosis Link Capture”. Should cost 10 Mil for T1 and 40 Mil for T2 (half the original price).

So it has a bit more risk to reinforce something. During the capture event, a lot ships will be destroyed. This helps alliances with a smaller budget.
Dave Stark
#1028 - 2015-03-10 15:36:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

so you're just telling me that you shouldn't be allowed to use sniper fleets to take sov? got it.

i'm not contradicting anything, evading a fight by not engaging, and sitting at your optimal death dealing range are two obviously different things, but if you just want to be a complete ****** and not actually discuss the topic and go "lulz contradiction" because you're an idiot then whatever.

regardless; the idea that sniper fleets shouldn't be allowed to contest sov is utterly rediculous. yes, that is what the result of having a 25km max range on ectoplasm links will be.


I'm not sure a range restrictions unnecessarily harms sniper doctrines; No-one is taking anything with an enemy sniper fleet sitting in range, as anyone who turns on a sov-laser is getting alphad off the field. If the snipers are getting continually forced to ping around, so they can't engage the sov-taking ship on the other side, well, they wouldn't be using a sov-laser anyway, as that ship would be left behind and torn apart first time they ping. If anything, a long-range sov-laser places excess advantage to sniper doctrines as when facing off against a short-range one, they can engage the other fleets sov-lasers while keeping theirs out of range of retaliation, meaning it is the brawler doctrines at the disadvantage in trying to capture a grid, and snipers that become preferred. If a range limit is a solution for other problems, I don't see as it needs to be discounted for the sake of snipers, which will be equally able to prevent a grids capture while they a present (and engaging), and equally able to lay claim once they have control of the grid.

If a complete lack of range-capture options is a significant problem, can that not be solved with ship classes (for example, Recons already give a range bonus to their EWAR of choice, allow there bonuses to apply to sov-lasers too).


if your alphaing things off the field then it doesn't matter if they're running a sov laser or not.

there's nothing keeping people out of range of retaliation. they're going to be staying on grid so you can warp off, and warp back on top of them, mjd on top of them, etc. not to mention, a good sensor damp/ecm will shut off an ectoplasm link at its max targeting range.

anyway as i said; i have no issue with having to be <25km to capture a node, i have 0 issue with that. however having no way to prevent a capture outside of 25km is something i think may be an issue. as long as you can prevent a capture while on grid that's fine. once you've gained control of the grid you can do your victory dance within 25km of the node.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1029 - 2015-03-10 15:42:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Rthulhu Voynich wrote:
I am not sure this idea was posted before. It’s a lot to read. Sorry if someone posted the following before!

The Entosis Link is priced at 20 Mil for the T1-Version and 80 Mil for the T2-Version.

Why not have two versions for the Link. The first one, let’s call it “Entosis Link Reinforce”, should cost 40 Mil T1 and 160 Mil T2 (double the original price). To capture a Command Node you need the second one, let’s call it “Entosis Link Capture”. Should cost 10 Mil for T1 and 40 Mil for T2 (half the original price).

So it has a bit more risk to reinforce something. During the capture event, a lot ships will be destroyed. This helps alliances with a smaller budget.


Cost should not, and should never have been a consideration. When dealing with sov-warfare, the cost of these things pales in comparison to the amount spent daily (look at sov costs, POS fuelling bills, jump-fuel for cap ships, and supercaps), and are barely a rounding error in alliance expenditure. Regardless of price, every organisation will be swimming in stockpiles of the damn things, because they will need to.

Even at the fleet level, in a standard fleet, the cost of a dozen e-links disappears in the overall fleet value. Even in the cheapest fleet-comps, slapping an e-link on a line-ship still doesn't bring it up to the value of the couple of dozen logistics and recons in fleet, or anywhere near the value of the fleet boosters, or the FC's brick-tank FC-ship.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1030 - 2015-03-10 15:53:46 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I've been going over this in my mind. Really the only issues with the module and the ships is speed, interceptor (bubble immunity), cloaky ships, and T3's (cloaky bubble immune).

None of those are actually problems.

1. Bubble immunity is an awesome thing - it allows you to get into deep enemy sov space with reasonable effort. You need to have bubble immune ships able to equip and use Entosis Links, because that puts ALL sov space at risk all the same time during your chosen window of vulnerability. There's no ability to secure a "border" and have deep areas of sov null untouchable havens of isk-spewing fountains.

2. Cloaks are also not an issue. If you're cloaked, you have no lock, therefore you can't make any progress. If the defender can undo your work while you're cloaked, you've accomplished nothing. Cloaks don't make you uncatchable or immune to dying - and in fact, since an Entosis Link will keep you from warping off while it's active, you're easier to catch. The only real change that we need to ensure is implemented is that having an Entosis Link active (i.e. still in it's active cycle like Bastion / Triage / Siege) prevents the activation of a cloaking device. If that happens, cloaks will be a viable tool to get yourself into position, but won't help you survive if there's active defenders.

3. Cloaky Nullified T3s have the advantage of being able to penetrate into deep sov space, and have the ability to pick their fights. They are indeed big threats. They are also, however, not invulnerable - you make a lot of tradeoffs to get that cloak and interdiction nullification, in terms of DPS / tank / projection / mobility. If Entosis Links prevent you from re-cloaking while active, Cloaky Nullified T3s will be fairly easy to catch and make for nice tasty shiny killmails when caught.


Any reasonable definition of sovereignty includes the ability to secure borders.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Hoshi
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#1031 - 2015-03-10 16:00:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Hoshi
Sarel Hendar wrote:
Hoshi wrote:
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.


You should defend your entire space, not just lock down two or three strategic systems one must pass to go into certain constellations. Also note that it's not only the entosis that bubble-immune ceptors make possible. I have some fond recollections of hunting goon afk-tars in Fade and Deklein, pursuit that was impossible before ceptor buff...

"Safe" and "nullsec" should be contradictory terms. Yes, yes, even hisec isn't "perfectly" safe, but currently far too large swathes of nullsec are much safer than hisec if you're blue to the ruling coalition.

But locking down key systems is defending your space it is not reasonable to require the owners to have a standing deference fleet in every single system. But this is a discussion about attacking sov with the entosis link not about the ability to attack ratters so let's leave that out of the discussion.

What is your purpose in attacking the soverginity of that system?
A) you want to capture it because you want to live there?
B) you want to "troll" the current owners of the system?

If A then it's not too much to ask for that you can break through a simple gate camp. If B then the game mechanics should make it as difficult as possible for you.

"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1032 - 2015-03-10 16:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
FT Diomedes wrote:
Any reasonable definition of sovereignty includes the ability to secure borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

How many of those have 100% secure borders?

edit: To help you can compare it with this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts and be very very depressed with the world.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1033 - 2015-03-10 16:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Dave Stark wrote:


anyway as i said; i have no issue with having to be <25km to capture a node, i have 0 issue with that. however having no way to prevent a capture outside of 25km is something i think may be an issue. as long as you can prevent a capture while on grid that's fine. once you've gained control of the grid you can do your victory dance within 25km of the node.


sorry i have to quote this because its priceless, even without the t2 entosis link there are many ways of preventing entosis links working and many ways of constantly disrupting entosis links from running.

in fact every single one of those methods increases the chance and opportunity to both extend the engagement and tug of war out of the defenders preferred time zone and to spawn further command nodes that actually increase the aggressive sniping kiters chance of victory.

Of course this means that you have to sacrifice a few pilots to fly something slightly different than a single hull that comprises 90% of your fleet meta. god forbid you attempt to diversify your ship choice and consider a combined arms approach!
Dave Stark
#1034 - 2015-03-10 16:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


anyway as i said; i have no issue with having to be <25km to capture a node, i have 0 issue with that. however having no way to prevent a capture outside of 25km is something i think may be an issue. as long as you can prevent a capture while on grid that's fine. once you've gained control of the grid you can do your victory dance within 25km of the node.


sorry i have to quote this because its priceless, even without the t2 entosis link there are many ways of preventing entosis links working and many ways of constantly disrupting entosis links from running.

in fact every single one of those methods increases the chance and opportunity to both extend the engagement and tug of war out of the defenders preferred time zone and to spawn further command nodes that actually increase the aggressive sniping kiters chance of victory.

Of course this means that you have to sacrifice a few pilots to fly something slightly different than a single hull that comprises 90% of your fleet meta. god forbid you attempt to diversify your ship choice and consider a combined arms approach!


for the sake of discussion, please list them so i can respond to each and every one.

if a defender is willing to just feed ships in to a meat grinder faster than you can kill them and you have 0 way to pause the progress - you lose by default.

edit: also in the post you quoted i perhaps should have said "pause" not "prevent" but oh well. pause is closer to what i meant.
Captain H4rlock
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1035 - 2015-03-10 16:13:07 UTC
sayasic wrote:
Simple solution: T2 Module requires 150 powergrid.

Interceptors and other frigates cannot fit it. Cruisers can but at a moderate price. Battleships and larger the powergrid is near negligable.


+1
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1036 - 2015-03-10 16:31:50 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Any reasonable definition of sovereignty includes the ability to secure borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

How many of those have 100% secure borders?

edit: To help you can compare it with this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts and be very very depressed with the world.


No one said 100% secure borders.

"The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects consisting of territory, population, authority and recognition." If we are going to trade Wikipedia entries you could at least read the complete article:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

It is always dangerous trying to base any Eve mechanic on real life, but a sov system that was actually good (and complex) would consider ways to replicate those factors. Instead we get, "Can I haz sovlaser?"

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1037 - 2015-03-10 16:31:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Captain H4rlock wrote:
sayasic wrote:
Simple solution: T2 Module requires 150 powergrid.

Interceptors and other frigates cannot fit it. Cruisers can but at a moderate price. Battleships and larger the powergrid is near negligable.


+1

I still dislike the grrr ceptors part of this - but tweaking the module itself is definitely the way forwards IF there seems to be a case that trollceptors will function as they were intended.

My input:

Make it a midslot module = can't stack sebo's, could be fitted instead of tackle mods etc.

or

Add a targetting range modifier (-50% ?) if you have the module powered up = natural long range ships when gimp fit can reach the upper boundaries of the modules range, other ships will be significantly closer

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#1038 - 2015-03-10 16:35:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Zloco Crendraven
I red two nice ideas how to make Entosis links work.

1) S/M/L/XL variants to exist. Like this we add a really good flexibility to the mechanics. It can be tuned into the minimal detail. If you got 1 whatever you change it will affect all the ships and then you have to put restrictions on the ships which will make a a mess of the feature/mechanic.

2) The 2nd idea was that only Battlecruisers and Command ships should be able to put links. Bombers and capital ships should be balanced accordingly. Imo balancing pvp around BC and BS hulls is the best path to take if we want a balanced game.

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Captain H4rlock
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1039 - 2015-03-10 16:41:00 UTC
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
I red two nice ideas how to make Entosis links work.
. Imo balancing pvp around BC and BS hulls is the best path to take if we want a balanced game.


+1
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#1040 - 2015-03-10 16:53:41 UTC
Clearly what is needed here is another mini-game, where the first Entosis agressor duels the first Entosis defender in a TRON like world of flying discs and hot AI's in pleather onesies...

...Oh, and make the Entosis range only 2,500m.

That is all.

F

Would you like to know more?